AE Monthly

<b>Bonhams:</b> MANDELSHTAM, OSIP. 1891-1938. Autograph Manuscript, 2 pp, [Petersburg,] January 1913, entitled

Article Archives Search

AE Articles


University of California Library Joins Google Book Search - By Michael Stillman In keeping with its motto, By Michael Stillman Search engine giant Google scored a major coup last month in its controversial effort to digitize the world's books when the University of California Library signed on to the project. Google has undertaken a massive project to create digital copies of many of the world's older books. It previously had several major libraries participating, including Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, Michigan, and New York Public. However, the University of California has over 100 libraries, and some 30 million-plus books. It is the largest research library system in the world. Google will not be scanning anything like 30 million volumes, but a few million seems to be a reasonable estimate. The worth of this project to researchers is immeasurable. The ability to search not just book titles, but the material within the way Google searches the internet, will undoubtedly reveal a wealth of information otherwise virtually impossible to locate. The doors will open to a vast amount of hidden knowledge, and in time, everyone will have access to it, from the ease and comfort of their own homes. What could be less controversial than a project which offers so much to research and education, and courtesy of Google, is completely free? Not so fast. Google Book Search has become one of the most controversial issues in the book-publishing field. Many see it as the written word's equivalent of Napster, the ubiquitous free music downloading service that the record companies were finally able to shut down after millions of copyrighted songs were "shared" freely over the internet (something which still takes place on other sites). Many of the books being scanned are beyond controversy. Copyrights have expired on all works published prior to 1923. However, books after that date may still have active copyright protection. Not all of these are the basis of contention. Among those still officially protected, there are many about whom the holders no longer care. An obscure, seventy-year-old out-of-print book is never going to make any more money for its copyright holder anyway. Besides which, the legal holder may, at this point, be the author's grandchild who doesn't even know he/she owns a copyright. And, for someone wishing to obtain permission to republish, locating the copyright holder under such circumstances may be next to impossible. Imagine trying to track down who, if anyone, owns a copyright on some self-published book by an author who died three-quarters of a century ago. Such a book might be effectively lost to research because no one could find the copyright holder to ask permission to republish.
University of California Library Joins Google Book Search - By Michael Stillman none Google, while proceeding with its project to scan these books, has taken two steps to protect copyright holders. First, they allow copyright holders to raise objections to the scanning of their books. However, this requires the copyright holder to discover Google's use of the book and make an objection. This is kind of backwards, but the beauty is that it opens public access to all of those books still technically under copyright but about which the holders no longer know or care. Secondly, Google only allows searchers to view a "snippet" of the work. Unlike the older material, where the searcher can see the entire book, with the protected book, all they can see is a few lines. You can find those books containing your search terms, but if you want to read more than a sentence or two, you will have to buy the book or visit a library. Google will show you no more. This has not been sufficient for several publisher organizations and copyright holders. Their position is that their copyrights are being violated because Google is copying the entire work into its database. Google, on the other hand, takes the position that this falls within the "fair use" copyright exception because all they ever show the public is a brief "snippet." This is like a book reviewer quoting a few lines from a book. That is "fair use" of the work and does not violate its copyright, though quoting the entire book would be a violation. Whether what Google copies (everything) or what it shows (a line or two) determines whether this is "fair use" or violation is something I'll leave to the legal minds. However, it is interesting to note that while the other universities, except Michigan, have come down on the side of caution, and are only scanning pre-1923 books, California has sided with Google. They are scanning the relatively newer (but not recent) material as well. U.C.'s position is clearly stated in its press release: "Google respects copyright law and has specifically designed Book Search to comply with it." And so, Google moves forward, and despite the unresolved legal issues, you have to believe that Google's attorneys must be confident of their position to proceed, and the firm must surely be able to hire the best lawyers money can buy.

University of California Library Joins Google Book Search

- By Michael Stillman

In keeping with its motto,

By Michael Stillman

Search engine giant Google scored a major coup last month in its controversial effort to digitize the world's books when the University of California Library signed on to the project. Google has undertaken a massive project to create digital copies of many of the world's older books. It previously had several major libraries participating, including Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, Michigan, and New York Public. However, the University of California has over 100 libraries, and some 30 million-plus books. It is the largest research library system in the world. Google will not be scanning anything like 30 million volumes, but a few million seems to be a reasonable estimate.

The worth of this project to researchers is immeasurable. The ability to search not just book titles, but the material within the way Google searches the internet, will undoubtedly reveal a wealth of information otherwise virtually impossible to locate. The doors will open to a vast amount of hidden knowledge, and in time, everyone will have access to it, from the ease and comfort of their own homes. What could be less controversial than a project which offers so much to research and education, and courtesy of Google, is completely free?

Not so fast. Google Book Search has become one of the most controversial issues in the book-publishing field. Many see it as the written word's equivalent of Napster, the ubiquitous free music downloading service that the record companies were finally able to shut down after millions of copyrighted songs were "shared" freely over the internet (something which still takes place on other sites).

Many of the books being scanned are beyond controversy. Copyrights have expired on all works published prior to 1923. However, books after that date may still have active copyright protection. Not all of these are the basis of contention. Among those still officially protected, there are many about whom the holders no longer care. An obscure, seventy-year-old out-of-print book is never going to make any more money for its copyright holder anyway. Besides which, the legal holder may, at this point, be the author's grandchild who doesn't even know he/she owns a copyright. And, for someone wishing to obtain permission to republish, locating the copyright holder under such circumstances may be next to impossible. Imagine trying to track down who, if anyone, owns a copyright on some self-published book by an author who died three-quarters of a century ago. Such a book might be effectively lost to research because no one could find the copyright holder to ask permission to republish.

University of California Library Joins Google Book Search

- By Michael Stillman

none

Google, while proceeding with its project to scan these books, has taken two steps to protect copyright holders. First, they allow copyright holders to raise objections to the scanning of their books. However, this requires the copyright holder to discover Google's use of the book and make an objection. This is kind of backwards, but the beauty is that it opens public access to all of those books still technically under copyright but about which the holders no longer know or care. Secondly, Google only allows searchers to view a "snippet" of the work. Unlike the older material, where the searcher can see the entire book, with the protected book, all they can see is a few lines. You can find those books containing your search terms, but if you want to read more than a sentence or two, you will have to buy the book or visit a library. Google will show you no more.

This has not been sufficient for several publisher organizations and copyright holders. Their position is that their copyrights are being violated because Google is copying the entire work into its database. Google, on the other hand, takes the position that this falls within the "fair use" copyright exception because all they ever show the public is a brief "snippet." This is like a book reviewer quoting a few lines from a book. That is "fair use" of the work and does not violate its copyright, though quoting the entire book would be a violation. Whether what Google copies (everything) or what it shows (a line or two) determines whether this is "fair use" or violation is something I'll leave to the legal minds. However, it is interesting to note that while the other universities, except Michigan, have come down on the side of caution, and are only scanning pre-1923 books, California has sided with Google. They are scanning the relatively newer (but not recent) material as well. U.C.'s position is clearly stated in its press release: "Google respects copyright law and has specifically designed Book Search to comply with it."

And so, Google moves forward, and despite the unresolved legal issues, you have to believe that Google's attorneys must be confident of their position to proceed, and the firm must surely be able to hire the best lawyers money can buy.