Google’s self-described mission to “organize the world’s information” is running into its biggest obstacle yet: angry publishers who contend that digitizing book collections flagrantly violates copyright law. Faced with the threat of legal action, Google recently announced that it would delay scanning any in-copyrighted works until November. But buying time is unlikely to resolve the issues, which go to the heart of the growing stress between the interests and legal rights of copyright holders and the easy access to information made possible by the Internet.

Google Print Library Project, announced in December 2004, is an initiative to digitize the book collections of several major libraries in order to make that content searchable online. Google already has agreements with libraries at the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Stanford University, Oxford University and the New York Public Library. The extent of the book collections to be digitized varies from library to library.

Publishers say that copyright law forbids digitizing copyrighted books without the authorization of rightsholders.

“This is extremely significant,” said Allan Adler, vice president of legal and governmental affairs at the Association of American Publishers. “This ranks as high as any issue that faces publishers and copyright owners in general.”

In its own letter to Google, the Association of American University Presses (AAUP) called the project “systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale.”

Adam Smith, Google print product manager, announced on Google Blog in August that the company’s decision to stop scanning copyrighted books until November would give rightsholders time to notify Google of books they do not want digitized. “We think most publishers and authors will choose to participate in the publisher program in order to introduce their work to countless readers around the world,” wrote Smith. “But we know that not everyone agrees, and we want to do our best to respect their views too.”

But Google’s announcement failed to temper the anger of publishers. AAP President and CEO Patricia Schroeder said it “shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear.”

To many in the publishing industry, resolution of the dispute looked to be so out of reach that legal action seemed increasingly likely.

“If there is a lawsuit, it’s going to be a big one,” said Peter Givler, AAUP executive director. “This is going to be a major copyright case.”

The Potential Upside of Google’s Initiative

Google’s program has many supporters. Barbara Quint, columnist for Information Today magazine and former longtime reference librarian, says publishers who try to stop Google could be hurting the future of their industry. “You couldn’t be more short-sighted than to try to stop this,” she said. Quint described Google as a modern-day savior of the book industry by creating renewed interest in content that would otherwise sit on a library shelf. “The worst thing that could happen for all publishers and all authors is if Google says ‘so long,’” said Quint.

Quint said that publishers have a lot to gain by embracing the opportunities Google provides to monetize content in new ways. “The real threat is not Google. The real enemy is the Web,” she said. “It’s your greatest enemy and your greatest friend. If you don’t get on to the open Web at some level, you are going to become invisible, irrelevant and dead. And I’m not talking decades from now.”

Even the AAUP’s Peter Givler agreed that the ideal solution would make room for a project like Google’s. “I think most of the members of AAUP feel the library project has wonderful potential,” he said. “But there’s got to be some kind of agreement, some kind of understanding that brings it within the ambit of existing copyright law.”

Share This