RE: Internet Archive's Open-Text Archives Initiative

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

I am not aware that any of the present projects intend to concentrate of
books still under copyright (If I am not correct, I would appreciate a
correction.) If so , the most useful course for anyone concerned with
libraries, literature, or scholarship would be the reform of the copyright
laws, as recommended by the NOC report, though in a slightly differing
context.  Since in the US it is clear that this change will not come
through legal action, that leaves it up to the legislature.

I think a compromise could be reached; the publishers are not asked to do
any work, and have already recovered (or not, as the case may be) whatever
costs they are likely to recover. I think the production of such an
out-of- print book could be appropriately accompanied by a payment. The
copyright holder will vary, but will often be the author.  If he or his
estate can still be identified, an appropriate one time fee would make
sense. If it can be shown to be the publisher, it would alternatively make
sense to pay a small unexpected additional sum to the publisher. I'd
suggest accompanying such a request by asking the author/estate/publisher
to instead contribute the fee to the project.

We are here dealing with different material from our usual sci-tech
journal articles. In some cases th authors may have written just to get
published, but most of them normally did expect a royalty.  I have not
considered how to set the cost, except that it should be a one-time
payment, and be considerably less that the production cost in making the
book available. --unless of course the electronic copy stimulates such
interest that a new hard copy edition becomes feasible.

As Tolkien says in referring to a pirated edition of Lord of the Rings,
"Those who believe in courtesy at least to living authors [will buy the
authorized edition].

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Joseph Esposito
Sent: Tue 12/28/2004 12:08 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Internet Archive's Open-Text Archives Initiative
 
I am not so sure publishers would routinely grant permission for this use
nowadays.  Once upon a time this was a no-brainer, but the climate has
changed.  Those out-of-print titles that are still under copyright
(probably the single largest category of books, compared to books that are
in print and books that are in the public domain) are increasingly viewed
as an asset whose economic value should be probed.  If a hardcopy book
costs $30, publishers might feel, with some justification, that mounting
the book on an institutional Intranet (definitely not the public
Internet), should cost more.  How much more?  The marketplace has not yet
told us.  Certainly such permission is likely to be granted for only a
limited period of time--say, one year or perhaps three.

There are other reasons to grant permission, of course, and at the top of
the list is establishing the precedent that permission is necessary.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:59:49 EST, John Cox <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com> wrote:

> The act of scanning a copyright work without the permission of the
> copyright owner is likely to be a breach of copyright.  Such permission
> can be sought directly from the publisher, or covered by a licence from
> the local Reproduction Rights Organisation (RRO), e.g. CCC in the USA, CLA
> in the UK, Access Copyright in Canada, etc.
> 
> Making a copy available to library users is 'distribution', whether it is
> confined to users within the library premises or not.  'Distribution'
> without permission or a licence is similarly likely to be a breach of
> copyright.
> 
> Copying or scanning complete works clearly falls outside fair use or fair
> dealing, and may well fall outside the scope of most RRO licences, so
> permission from the publisher (or from the author if the publishing rights
> have reverted to the author) is the safest way to proceed.  That a book
> may be out of print, but still in copyright, makes no difference.
> 
> All of that said, this initiative is good for scholarship and for the
> community, and it is likely that most publishers would readily grant the
> permission required, provided that it is sought.
> 
> John Cox
> 
> Managing Director
> John Cox Associates Ltd
> E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com
> Web: www.johncoxassociates.com