Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters1
A number of organisations and umbrella organisations in the US and internationally have produced statements about the original Google Book settlement and its potential implications for researchers and academics, including raising concerns about territory, privacy and censorship issues. The following points (PDF) have been made by EBLIDA European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations, supported by LIBER and IFLA (International Federation of Library Institutions and Associations, which have been slightly revised to reflect the proposed new settlement.
A number of organisations and umbrella organisations in the US and internationally have produced statements about the original Google Book settlement and its potential implications for researchers and academics, including raising concerns about territory, privacy and censorship issues. The following points (PDF) have been made by EBLIDA European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation Associations, supported by LIBER and IFLA (International Federation of Library Institutions and Associations, which have been slightly revised to reflect the proposed new settlement.2
Territoriality: EBLIDA has raised concerns about the territorial limits of the settlement. Because this settlement is only valid under US law and therefore applicable only within the US, Europeans will not be able to access the full-text view of any texts, only the display and snippets views. This means that UK researchers will be at a disadvantage to their US colleagues in not being able to freely view full text works nor the complete database of scanned books. However, Google’s willingness in the revised settlement, to allow authors to provide access to works under Creative Commons Licences, may provide UK researchers and academics with free access to certain works.
Territoriality: EBLIDA has raised concerns about the territorial limits of the settlement. Because this settlement is only valid under US law and therefore applicable only within the US, Europeans will not be able to access the full-text view of any texts, only the display and snippets views. This means that UK researchers will be at a disadvantage to their US colleagues in not being able to freely view full text works nor the complete database of scanned books. However, Google’s willingness in the revised settlement, to allow authors to provide access to works under Creative Commons Licences, may provide UK researchers and academics with free access to certain works.3
Control of information by one corporate entity: It is estimated that the Google digitisation programme may amount to over 30 million books. The scale of this programme and Google’s 5-year lead means that other projects will find it difficult to mount competitive digitisation programmes. This means that a large proportion of the world’s heritage of books in digital format and associated metadata will be under the control of a single US corporate entity.
Control of information by one corporate entity: It is estimated that the Google digitisation programme may amount to over 30 million books. The scale of this programme and Google’s 5-year lead means that other projects will find it difficult to mount competitive digitisation programmes. This means that a large proportion of the world’s heritage of books in digital format and associated metadata will be under the control of a single US corporate entity.4
Censorship: According to the settlement, Google may exclude 15 % of scanned books in copyright, but out-of-print from the database. This may amount to the exclusion of 1 million books. Political pressure exerted on Google may result in books being removed from the database. Such exclusions must be published together with the reasons for their exclusion.
Censorship: According to the settlement, Google may exclude 15 % of scanned books in copyright, but out-of-print from the database. This may amount to the exclusion of 1 million books. Political pressure exerted on Google may result in books being removed from the database. Such exclusions must be published together with the reasons for their exclusion.5
Privacy: Some of the services offered imply that Google will collect and retain information of users’ activities, although Google has subsequently been keen to emphasis that “The revised agreement includes language that specifies that Google will not share any private information with the Registry without valid legal process. Google also has a robust privacy policy (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/privacy.html) that describes how we treat personal information when you use Google Books. We also addressed our privacy commitments (http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/090903bcpgoogleletter.pdf) directly to the Federal Trade Commission.”
Privacy: Some of the services offered imply that Google will collect and retain information of users’ activities, although Google has subsequently been keen to emphasis that “The revised agreement includes language that specifies that Google will not share any private information with the Registry without valid legal process. Google also has a robust privacy policy (http://books.google.com/googlebooks/privacy.html) that describes how we treat personal information when you use Google Books. We also addressed our privacy commitments (http://www.ftc.gov/os/closings/090903bcpgoogleletter.pdf) directly to the Federal Trade Commission.”6
Research: The database containing the digital copies of the scanned books represents a unique corpus for computational analysis and research. Google and two institutions may host this Research Corpus for purposes of “non-consumptive research” by “qualified users”. (“Non-consumpti ve” means that the text is not accessed for display or reading.) The host site has the authority to decide whether a user is qualified and whether the research is non-consumptive. There is no mechanism to challenge the host’s decision and in consequence, certain types of research may be privileged. There seems to be no possibility for foreign researches to get access to the database for research purposes.
Research: The database containing the digital copies of the scanned books represents a unique corpus for computational analysis and research. Google and two institutions may host this Research Corpus for purposes of “non-consumptive research” by “qualified users”. (“Non-consumpti ve” means that the text is not accessed for display or reading.) The host site has the authority to decide whether a user is qualified and whether the research is non-consumptive. There is no mechanism to challenge the host’s decision and in consequence, certain types of research may be privileged. There seems to be no possibility for foreign researches to get access to the database for research purposes.7
Contracts vs. statutory exceptions and limitations: The settlement does not stipulate that it’s terms will not supersede legislated users’ rights, including specific and general exceptions for libraries and users, and any existing or new approaches to making orphan works accessible.
Contracts vs. statutory exceptions and limitations: The settlement does not stipulate that it’s terms will not supersede legislated users’ rights, including specific and general exceptions for libraries and users, and any existing or new approaches to making orphan works accessible.8
With regards to the specific implications for UK researchers and academics, in addition, the following should be considered:Restrictions on access to the US complete database of books may lead to particular problems when UK researchers are working collaboratively with US partners. If such a project was to be undertaken in the EU, a similar settlement/ agreement would need to be reached in each member state in order to facilitate access to the scanned books. UK authors will also be directly affected by the settlement as a consequence of their books being published in the US and/or because the UK is subject to the same international treaties as the US.
With regards to the specific implications for UK researchers and academics, in addition, the following should be considered:Restrictions on access to the US complete database of books may lead to particular problems when UK researchers are working collaboratively with US partners. If such a project was to be undertaken in the EU, a similar settlement/ agreement would need to be reached in each member state in order to facilitate access to the scanned books. UK authors will also be directly affected by the settlement as a consequence of their books being published in the US and/or because the UK is subject to the same international treaties as the US.9
Subsequently, UK authors and/or publishers will be entitled to receive appropriate royalties for their works, or alternatively, they have the right to opt out of the settlement if their works are out-of-print and opt into the settlement if their works are in-print.
Subsequently, UK authors and/or publishers will be entitled to receive appropriate royalties for their works, or alternatively, they have the right to opt out of the settlement if their works are out-of-print and opt into the settlement if their works are in-print.10
It is currently unclear what the implications will be under this settlement regarding US originated works published in the UK and digitised by UK libraries and other research organisations. In terms of orphan works, (works for which the rights holders are unknown or cannot traced), proposals in the revised settlement outline that Google intends to use settlement funds to trace rights holders, and subsequently allocating any money collected which has not been claimed to good causes after 10 years. There remain issues over any interest that Google may make during this period related to any unclaimed funds, as well as the relationship between this settlement and any UK or European-based legislative based solutions which are currently being discussed for example in the UK’s Digital Economy Bill.
It is currently unclear what the implications will be under this settlement regarding US originated works published in the UK and digitised by UK libraries and other research organisations. In terms of orphan works, (works for which the rights holders are unknown or cannot traced), proposals in the revised settlement outline that Google intends to use settlement funds to trace rights holders, and subsequently allocating any money collected which has not been claimed to good causes after 10 years. There remain issues over any interest that Google may make during this period related to any unclaimed funds, as well as the relationship between this settlement and any UK or European-based legislative based solutions which are currently being discussed for example in the UK’s Digital Economy Bill.