[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Google settlement rejected
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Google settlement rejected
- From: jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:24:34 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Jim is right about the problem, but it must be added that the Google solution was not the right one. The solution for orphan works should come from a legislative effort, and not from a side-effect of a global agreement that did not even include all the stakeholders (e.g. the readers, the educators, etc.). I believe Pam Samuelson and Bernard Lang have written important pieces about orphan works. Jean-Claude Guedon Le mardi 22 mars 2011 a 23:06 -0400, James J. O'Donnell a ecrit : > Judge Chin in a 48 page ruling has rejected the Google > settlement. Among many news reports, all mostly the same, see: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216923562033348.html > > The main point seems to be that he signals that if the settlement > were "opt-in" for authors rather than "opt-out", he could find it > acceptable. The challenge of that is that "orphan works" don't > have authors available to do the opting in for them and so would > be effectively excluded. > > Jim O'Donnell > Georgetown >
- Prev by Date: Authors paid by the impact factor? - it happens!
- Next by Date: Books at JSTOR Grows
- Previous by thread: Google settlement rejected
- Next by thread: Re: Google settlement rejected
- Index(es):