[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Darnton on the Google settlement
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