Add yet another voice to the chorus of protests over a proposed settlement of a class-action copyright suit that clears Google to transform the world's dusty library tomes into the bookstore and online library of the future.
This time, the National Writers Union — which represents some 1,500 freelance writers — described a proposed deal as "grossly unfair to writers." That deal between Google and the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers would settle a suit brought against Google Book Search in 2005 for allegedly profiting illegally by scanning books and displaying snippets online.
Under the intricate $125 million settlement, Google gets the right to scan, index and display portions of nearly all U.S.-copyright books in exchange for a share of ad revenues. Google Book Search would also be allowed to sell out-of-print books and share revenue with the author or publishers, even if those rights holders can't be found. As of April, Google had digitized upwards of 7 million books.
Since Google is the only one being sued, it will be the only company that gets the right to sell these so-called orphan works. If another company attempts to do so, they could be liable for hundreds of thousands in copyright fines from each formerly unknown author who might come forward to claim his or her 40-year old book.
(For a more complete explanation, see Wired.com's FAQ on "The Fight over the Google of All Libraries.")
But Google should not have digitized books without authors' permission, said Larry Goldbetter, the president of the National Writers Union, which operates as a local of the United Auto Workers. Google argues such scanning is covered by the Fair Use provision of copyright law, which allows for transformative and partial uses of copyright material.
"[W]riters whose copyrights were violated might receive a check for between $60 and $300 for each book and $15 per article,” he added. "Compared to the number and seriousness of the violations, the amount being offered by Google to each writer is ridiculously low."
Google maintains that its use of book snippets in search results is protected by copyright law, which is intended to protect author's rights to make money from their creations -- but does not give them absolute control over their work. The dispute over such sampling and wholesale indexing is just one front in an increasingly complicated battle, as physical books, like CDs before them, look increasingly like relics, as media goes digital and portable. That'd be the MP3 player in the case of music, and the internet and e-book readers for print.
Other critics of the deal include digital-rights scholar Pamela Samuelson, the heirs of John Steinbeck and Philip K. Dick, and Microsoft — which gave up on its own book digitization project.
The union, which helps freelance writers recover money from publications that don't pay as promised, has not yet decided whether to file a friend-of-the-court brief or talk to the U.S. Justice Department, according to Tom Gradel, a member of the union's Chicago steering committee. It decided to oppose the deal after days of discussion and a vote at its recent biennial convention.
Goldbetter also objects to the settlement's requirement that all authors are included in the agreement unless they decide to opt out, calling that "grossly unfair."
"Google is essentially saying. 'We are going to steal your work and sell it under terms we dictate unless you tell us not to,'" Goldbetter said. "A corporation, no matter how powerful, shouldn’t be able to profit from your work without first contacting you and obtaining your permission in writing."
The proposed settlement is set to have a final hearing by a federal court judge in October, though it is not clear if that deadline will stand, because the Justice Department is now looking into the deal. Authors have until Sept. 4 to decide if they want to opt out of the settlement.
Photo: David Masters
See Also:
