The Google settlement.

Does this phrase mean anything to you? If so, you are probably a publishing insider for the talk has been of little else in recent weeks, yet it has had very little coverage in the mainstream press. Essentially this is the proposed settlement between Google and copyright holders of the legal action taken against Google for their unauthorized scanning of millions (yes, millions) of books.  

Some seven million titles are affected, and they can be crudely placed in three categories. There are works that are out of copyright (about 1 million of the 7 million); there are works that are in copyright and out of print (the largest category , 5 million of the 7 million), and works that are in copyright and in print (the final million). The legal position of the out of copyright works, and of the in copyright and in print works is essentially clear and unaltered; anybody is free to use out of copyright works, and in copyright and in print works are protected by existing laws. 

The arguments have swirled around the in copyright but ‘out of print’ works. Google have been scanning these, and at some stage will seek to exploit this resource commercially. They have a policy of ‘assumed consent’; they rely on people ‘opting out’ if they object to their work being included but otherwise assume that they agree. However, there is no accepted definition of ‘out of print’, particularly in this age of print on demand digital printing; nor is it clear what level of effort Google should be required to make to contact rights holders rather than just assuming it is OK to scan the work and arrogate the rights. Some works have several copyright holders (multi-author works, or ones with illustrations where the rights may lie with the artist or illustrator) – how are these treated, and how can you know when scanning them what the copyright status is? What about new editions – will the original edition be deemed ‘out of print’ and therefore scanned? This is a US judgment, between US parties; how will its global implications be taken care of? 

For Earthscan, as a relatively new publisher (20 years is pretty new in publishing terms alongside the University presses!) all of our works are still in copyright, and now that we are able to use print on demand digital printing technology for the ‘long tail’ we believe that they are all in the ‘in print’ category. As a result, the settlement does not overly affect us; indeed, exposure of our books through Google is generally something we welcome, as it brings the content to a wider audience. 

However, the wider picture is disturbing. I am reminded of nothing so much as medieval barons informing the peasants that all the resources of the local forest and fields belong to the barons even though it is the peasants who have worked them for so long. It is a classic case of the powerful seizing the property of the powerless and challenging them to do something about it. Google’s original mission statement to ‘do no evil’ rings very hollow indeed.