Authors Guild sues universities over online books

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Well that is very nice of them, but has no basis in law.

I agree, but with one caveat -- I don't believe Google is providing these books for reading from start to finish? The "disputed" books are still only available for search quotes, no?

If Google is providing the orphaned works IN FULL as though they are public domain, then that is a problem.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

bgalbrecht :"I wonder if the foreign authors are doing this suit against the universities and HathiTrust as a publicity stunt against Google. "

And you are of what nationality ? I'm intrigued.

Just to clear up the "foreign" throw-away.....

This is a discussion of a US court case. In this context foreign means not from the US. Also, any discussion of fair use within this thread needs to be in the context of the US rules on fair use within the copyright laws. I haven't studied the copyright laws closely, but it's quite possible that the fair use provisions don't apply to foreign works (works created by non-US citizens, originally published outside of the US). From my volunteering for Distributed Proofreaders, I know there are different rules for foreign works to determine whether the copyright has lapsed.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm not saying digitizing-and-sharing whole books for educational purposes is always legal, but there *is* a substantial argument for it in many specific cases.

I think this was pretty much settled 20 years ago by the Kinko's case.

[Ken Irving]

http://blog.authorsguild.org/2011/09...its-your-turn/

Above is a link to the list of HathiTrust's orphan works candidates posted on the Authors Guild website, also showing the threatened (and I do mean threatened) dates on which Hathi will release their works through its system. So far by stirring the pot with its lawsuit, AG has brought 4 non-orphan authors who actually have estates, publishers, and literary agents to light: James Salamanca, Walter Lippmann, Albert Bandura, and James Gould Cozzens. Orphaned means just what it says, that no one is responsible for the work in question, when in fact it appears that these four are no only not orphaned, but their parents/guardians are easily traceable. It strikes me that Hathi's definition of "orphaned" is beginning to look a little more like "out of print stuff we think people oughta be able to read." Nice thought, but it doesn't give them license to hijack an author's work. There are all kinds of other ways to bring good non-orphan material back into circulation, but all of it involves working things out with the people who actually own or control the rights.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think this was pretty much settled 20 years ago by the Kinko's case.

The Kinko's case involved profits; distributing ebooks doesn't make anyone money. And the Kinko's case involved books currently in print; I don't know that all of these are. (A quick look at a few random titles shows them not in print. It's possible that none of these are currently in print and that's why Hathi is wanting to release them.)

If they're not currently being sold, it's a lot harder to argue that someone giving them away is stealing profits. The argument becomes "we might want to sell them again someday, and then these people might not be willing to buy--and in the meantime, nobody except rich collectors or people who live close to one of these libraries should be reading these books."

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

This is a discussion of a US court case. In this context foreign means not from the US. Also, any discussion of fair use within this thread needs to be in the context of the US rules on fair use within the copyright laws. I haven't studied the copyright laws closely, but it's quite possible that the fair use provisions don't apply to foreign works (works created by non-US citizens, originally published outside of the US). From my volunteering for Distributed Proofreaders, I know there are different rules for foreign works to determine whether the copyright has lapsed.

" Authors and authors' groups in the United States,...."

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I agree, but with one caveat -- I don't believe Google is providing these books for reading from start to finish? The "disputed" books are still only available for search quotes, no?

If Google is providing the orphaned works IN FULL as though they are public domain, then that is a problem.

The quote from the article was: "“We don’t know who has the copyright,” Courant said. “If we can’t find the copyright holder after months of searching, then we’re going to allow you … to read that book from your laptop at home.”"

Sounds like providing the whole book to me.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Well that is very nice of them, but has no basis in law.

Sure it does. It's "There's no one with standing to sue you."

Greg Weeks

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Sure it does. It's "There's no one with standing to sue you."

More like "We hope there isn't anyone around to sue us"
From the examples given so far, they don't seem to have done enough due diligence to support that hope.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The quote from the article was: "“We don’t know who has the copyright,” Courant said. “If we can’t find the copyright holder after months of searching, then we’re going to allow you … to read that book from your laptop at home.”"

Sounds like providing the whole book to me.

Or the person being quoted is flat out wrong about what service Google is actually providing. (Employees and legal spokespersons not knowing what their own company does? Unheard of! )

Or the "..." in the middle of that sentence left out something crucial.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Or the person being quoted is flat out wrong about what service Google is actually providing. (Employees and legal spokespersons not knowing what their own company does? Unheard of! )

Or the "..." in the middle of that sentence left out something crucial.

This isn't the Google Books project that is being discussed (directly), it is the university one.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

This isn't the Google Books project that is being discussed (directly), it is the university one.

Ah, then perhaps I am mistaken about the scope of the issue. Thank you.

[Ken Irving]

http://blog.authorsguild.org/2011/09...charities-etc/

Authors Guild has now posted a list showing that for 24 of the 160 works on HathiTrust's orphan list, they have located the author, literary agent, other rights holder, or evidence of living relatives or others who might claim rights. A couple on the list are actually currently in print, and for one the the author has other works in print, including some that are fairly recent. Hathi has removed one book, by Walter Lippmann, from its list, though it seems to me that authors who are alive or have demonstrable connections to agents, publishers, institutes that preserve their work, etc. should be removed as well. Being orphaned means only that it is not known who is responsible for rights to a work, and once you know that information the game is over. In general, there is enough on the Authors Guild growing list to raise major questions about HathiTrust's due diligence, not to mention calling into question the whole idea of what they are doing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ken Irving

http://blog.authorsguild.org/2011/09...charities-etc/

Authors Guild has now posted a list showing that for 24 of the 160 works on HathiTrust's orphan list, they have located the author, literary agent, other rights holder, or evidence of living relatives or others who might claim rights.

EFF points out that the Author's Guild has no right to file a suit, because they don't represent the authors involved. There is no right to file copyright infringement claims on behalf of unknown authors; orphan works suits can only be filed by someone stepping up and claiming copyright.

The fact that a couple of them are in print doesn't change their potential orphan status; plenty of public-domain works are in print. And finding someone who "might claim rights" is not the same as finding actual rights holders--much less rights holders who object to a library's digital archives.

The lawsuit gamely claims the libraries are causing “great and irreparable injury” to the authors the Guild claims to represent, as well as several additional individual authors, but it is hard to imagine what that harm might be. ... So at the end of the day it appears the Guild has decided to hire lawyers not to address any actual harm to any actual author, but rather to try to stop libraries from preserving books and helping make orphan works, which would otherwise be largely inaccessible, available to a broader community.

[reader22]

Well I guess the Hathi Trust's lawyers don't agree with EFF's lawyers.
HathiTrust Suspends Its Orphan Works Release