RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

David has this backwards.  The question is not "what can 
publishers do with a book if they don't know who owns the rights" 
but "what kind of market opportunity is there that would lead me 
to research the rights (or any other aspect of the publishing 
process that requires time or investment)?" Publishers are 
market-driven.  Since the marketplace is dynamic, publishers are 
always trying to imagine what the future market will look like. 
Is there a current or future market for a book that went out of 
print in 1945? If the answer is yes, it's a good time to invest. 
If the answer is no, the decision is likely to be to do nothing 
and wait to see if the market signals change.

What Google has done is remove the market mechanism for 
publishers.  Now investment has to be made not to meet a market 
opportunity but to fend off copyright-squatting.

Is there a better way--better being defined as a means to meet 
real user demand and not waste time and money with copyright 
research and digitization for books that literally will never be 
looked at?  You bet.  This is precisely what Google was doing 
before it began its mass digitization project, and publishers 
flocked to Google, making large and significant--and 
targeted--investments in IP and digitization.  Did this method 
solve all problems for all constituencies in one shot?  Of course 
not.

And as for the comment that "we all lose out," who loses if no 
one wants the book?  And I mean no ONE, not a big market.  There 
is a place for just-in-time, and a place for just-in-case.  The 
art is in making the distinction.

Joe Esposito


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 2:43 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

Certainly, I am being flippant.  But I do find the idea of a 
cut-off rather depressing.  It sweeps into a fenced-off area of 
control works that may be in the public domain, or where the 
ownership can only be determined with great difficulty if at all, 
or where if they knew the rights holders would be only to happy 
to allow their works to be fully digitised.  So we all lose out 
as we wait for the clock to tick down and for the deadline to 
creep forward year-by-year.

But the opt-out option is much more interesting - I'm not going 
to argue about the legalities of it all as they have been 
rehashed over and over and also because I don't pretend to be an 
expert in the matter.  But the concept!  The concept that we 
include these works, but take them out if the rights holder 
objects, that's much more exciting.  It brings more works into 
the project, it respects the rights of the owners, and it allows 
readers like me to find more titles that deal with topics of 
interest.

If I can come down to earth with a sincere question: what can a 
publisher do with a title in their list where they don't know who 
owns the rights?

David


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: 04 February 2009 23:16
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

David:  If I may say so, that's a rather flippant comment, coming from a
former publisher!

Google only has to determine the date of publication, which is after all
written in the prelims of the book - it's my understanding that they are
using a standard cutoff date - to determine whether or not the title is out
of copyright

The publisher, on the other hand, has to determine who currently holds the
copyright:  has it reverted to the author;  if the author has died, who is
the current holder...

Sally Morris
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 02 February 2009 23:01
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

I find it amusing that Google is expected to determine the copyright status
of millions of titles before they can be digitised, but it is apparently
unreasonable to expect publishers to determine the copyright status of the
titles they publish themselves!

David Prosser
SPARC