Comments on: Authors to Google Book Search: Pay up!

Authors and publishers are submitting claims to Google for payment under a settlement agreement the search giant reached in a copyright lawsuit that specifies $60 per book and 63 percent of ad revenues.

[t8]

Hmm. Perhaps if Google didn't include such authors, their work would slowly disappear from public view. Bit like CDs verses digital music. The writing is on the wall. Be available online in digital format, or go the way of old and redundant tech. Point in hand, how many people buy online encyclopedia's compared to people who use Wikipedia?

[Penguinisto]

Heh - so when do the invoices for marketing fees go back to the authors from google?

[djson1]

I thought the Google Book searches didn't include the WHOLE book? Whenever I've used it, I was only able to get some sections, but never able to read the books continuously. IF that's the case, then what are these stupid people crying about? At least this let's the public view your works before they decide they want to buy it...especially textbook or technical books. I bought a $150 book after previewing it on Google since Amazon didn't have any previews of this rare book. If I didn't see a preview, I would not have risked paying that much for a book. It's free advertisements for the books (like teasers). These authors are either really dumb or just greedy. Probably both.

[sanenazok]

yes but the whole book is scanned and copied on Google servers. You can only view a part of it, but that doesn't change the fact that all of it is there having been copied.

[contentcreator--2008]

These books are out of print. So if you buy it, the publisher and authors get nothing, because you've had to buy it ~used somewhere other than the publisher. So google makes money off the book (via advertising) while authors and publishers holding the copyright got nothing---before this agreement. If google is posting digitized versions online, they are impairing the value that the authors and publishers might reap from putting it online by themselves --- why do that if google is just going to hog the audience anyway? So having Google pay is only fair.

[NewsReader_]

Correction,

63 percent of "book resale revenue", not ad revenue. Google gets to keep all of that. Sounds like quite the bargain to me. Brazenly violate copyright laws in the US, make a $125 million payoff, then reap all the benefits of ad revenue and 37% of book revenue for years to come. And that is only if the authors come forward.

And people think Microsoft is evil.

[ozandy]

Notice to authors: I will not read your work or pay for it until you make it available digitally, and stop the publishers from the price ripoffs we suffer in Australia.
Fact is, I want to read my material on electronic devices now, I want to store it electronically and I want to search for it electronically.
The new way will be *great* for authors as they will get virtually 100% of the revenue for a piece of writing. The only losers are the publishers who are just profit grabbing middlemen in the new era.
Pity Amazon are so short sighted with the Kindle: they could have had the iPod of books world wide and had the publishers on their knees. Instead they will wait until Apple beats them to it.

[unknown unknown]

Google's settlement has pretty much ruined book search. They should just quit while they're ahead and tell those idiot at the authors guild where to get off.

[sanenazok]

Yes, yes everyone who makes a living at writing is an idiot except you...an anonymous web poster lacking the creativity to pick a worthwhile screen name.

[jtara]

If Google wants the law changed, they should lobby to have it changed - not blatently ignore it.

ozandy, why is your gripe with the authors, rather than Google? It would seem the obvious revenue model here would have been for Google to have OFFERED to authors the ability to have their out-of-print books indexed and made available for online sale. Those who agree get included, those that don't, don't. Simple as that. A clean, commercial transaction. The public benefits, the authors benefit.

Why is it supposed to somehow be Google's "right" to profit from others copyright without their permission?

[sanenazok]

I agree with you. Not every author wants maximum exposure for their works or even to continue to profit from their works. Google's policy has been "it's easier to get paid off then to ask permission first." Your solution would have created overhead up front, but otherwise would have been much better for everyone. Too bad Google initially claimed they weren't going to pay anyone since after all the books were not being copied and/or were abandoned, etc. I'm glad that Google changed its tune finally.

[FrancesGrimble]

Google did indeed scan entire books for Google Book Search, and that is what the Author?s Guild originally sued them for. However, Google used the suit to get permission (after scanning many books) for a platform called Google Library. Google Library has scanned millions of books for Google to sell as parts of databases to libraries, as e-books to individuals, as print-on-demand books, and as anthologies Google assembles from parts of various books.

These books are by no means all out of copyright, out of print, or by deceased authors. Some of the libraries in the project allowed Google to copy absolutely anything. However, Google has not released a public list of scanned books. You cannot assume that the Google Book Search database represents the same books. Officially it does not. The Settlement Administrator refused to tell me whether any of my books have been scanned because I refused to accept the terms of the Settlement (I opted out). However, the Settlement makes no guarantee that Google will _not_ sell the works of authors or publishers who have opted out. I should add that the Settlement applies to the ?classes? of every author and publisher, in every country that signed the Berne agreement. The Settlement does not in general take illustrators and other types of contributors who may own copyrights to parts of books, into account.

Other problems are: The Settlement allows only a four-month window?from January 5 to May 5, 2009?for every author and publisher in every country that signed the Berne agreement, who published any book before January 2009, to hear about the Settlement and opt out if they wish. If they do not opt out before May 5, they are legally obliged to accept the Settlement?s terms?their books are legally ?in? for sale by Google. The Settlement effectively seizes control of works for Google to sell after their board?NOT the publisher or author?has declared the book out of print for one year. Which is often not enough time for many publishers to schedule a reprint (let alone a revised edition), or for authors with reverted rights to find a new publisher and get the book in print again. Print-on-demand books can be declared ?out of print? according to the Settlement, by criteria not specified in the Settlement. The award the Settlement grants for copyright violation is a maximum of $60 per book title?the actual amount depends on the number of claims to pieces of a fixed pie. The Settlement allows Google to deep-discount the book prices set by the copyright holder, and pays on a percentage of those prices. The Settlement does not give any guarantees whatever as to the amount of revenues/payment the copyright holders will receive. Also, the copyright holders will have to PAY to maintain a database/registry of the scanned books. There is no guarantee that they will not have to pay more to maintain the registry, than they will receive from the sale of their books.