Re: Interesting analysis of Google/publisher/author settlement

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

Sherman makes two incorrect assumptions: 1) that once a publisher 
declares a book out of print, the rights automatically revert to 
the author; and 2) that registration is required to protect a 
copyright in a work. Neither is true. Many, probably most, 
publishing contracts require an affirmative action on the part of 
the author to acquire rights back; the process is by no means 
automatic. Thus it is quite possible for many publishers to 
retain copyright in books that have gone OP. And ever since the 
1976 Copyright Act did away with formalities like registration as 
a requirement to protect copyright (as opposed to being entitled 
to certain additional remedies), books that have gone out of 
print that had never been registered are still entitled to the 
basic copyright protect the 1976 law provides.

Let's hope that such commentary on the Google settlement will not 
muddy the waters further by being ill informed.

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press

P.S. For librarians, this is a more reliable guide:
http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/google/index.shtml


>Sherman, Eric. Google Wades into E-Mud with E-Books; Settlement
>with Publishers May Not Be Valid. http://tinyurl.com/5ztxeh 
>
>Bernie Sloan
>Sora Associates
>Bloomington, IN