Google Library Delayed - NY Times

[Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>]

Of possible interest.
______________________________

August 13, 2005
Google Library Database Is Delayed
By EDWARD WYATT

Google said yesterday that it would temporarily halt its program to make
searchable, digital copies of the vast contents of three university
libraries to give publishers and other copyright holders the chance to opt
out of having their protected works copied.

But a publishing trade association called the opt-out offer inadequate,
saying it did not address the main concern of its members: the belief that
the entire program, the Google Print Library Project, is built on a
foundation of purposeful copyright violation.

Google said it would go ahead with plans to digitize, and make searchable,
works that are in the public domain, that is, those whose copyrights have
expired. But in response to discussions with publishers, authors and
others who hold copyrights, Google said it would wait until at least Nov.  
1 before beginning to scan works that are still under copyright.

In the meantime, Google will allow publishers and others to tell it which
of their works they do not want included in its searchable database of
printed material.

Adam M. Smith, a senior product manager at Google, said in an interview
that the opt-out policy was consistent with the way Google maintains its
relationships with Web site owners, allowing them to say when they do not
wish to be included in a searchable index.

"We believe this program is consistent with the principle of fair use, and
it will allow authors to write more books, allow publishers to sell more
books and to have a more robust publishing industry," Mr. Smith said.

But Patricia Schroeder, the former Colorado congresswoman who is president
and chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, the trade
group, said that while publishers were "very happy" with the suspension of
copying, the program still set a damaging precedent that copyrighted works
could be reproduced at will, as long as a copyright holder had not
pre-emptively objected.

"That is really turning it on its head," Ms. Schroeder said. "How is an
author even supposed to know that his or her work is being copied?"

Ms. Schroeder said that the publishers were in favor of expanding access
to the content that they publish. But some publishers have said they were
concerned that Google might begin to sell advertising related to the
results of searches of copyrighted material without sharing the revenues
with the copyright owners.

The dispute stems from a deal, announced in December, that Google struck
with libraries at three American universities - Harvard, Stanford and the
University of Michigan - as well as with Oxford University and the New
York Public Library.

The agreements with Oxford and the New York library allow Google to make
copies of all of the works in those institutions that are no longer
protected by copyright. Once the project is up and running, the company
will allow users of its Google Print site (print.google.com) to search
those works and display contents that match a search term.

The agreements with the three university libraries have proved more
problematic. The libraries agreed to let Google copy their entire
collections, of both public domain and copyrighted works, to allow
searching. When a search request produces a result in a protected work,
Google displays only a snippet of text, plus bibliographic information
and, if the book is still in print, links to sites where it might be
available for purchase.

Publishers have objected to the program, however, saying that even if only
snippets of a protected work are displayed in the search results, Google
has still violated the copyright by making a wholesale copy and keeping it
on the company's computers.

In June, the publishers' association asked Google to suspend its project
for six months while questions about the copyright issues were discussed.  
And in May, the Association of American University Presses sent Google a
letter with 16 detailed questions about the program's parameters, and
plans for storage and use of the copied materials.

Ms. Schroeder said that her association was preparing to propose potential
changes to the program, but that Google rejected them after receiving a
briefing on the plans. She declined to characterize further what changes
the publishers were seeking, and Mr. Smith of Google declined to comment
on discussions with the publishers, which he said were continuing.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company 

####