Google launched the scheme in December, as part of its effort to
make off-line information searchable on-line.
The libraries of Harvard, Stanford, the University of Michigan,
and the University of Oxford as well as The New York Public Library
have signed up to the programme – an expansion of the Google Print
project, which initially targeted publishers.
The idea is that users searching on-line will see links on their
results pages when there are books relevant to their query.
Clicking on a title will deliver a page from which users can either
browse the full text of the work – if copyright has expired – or
brief excerpts and/or bibliographic data where the work is still
protected by copyright.
According to Google, the programme will increase the viability
of in and out of print books and generate book sales via "Buy this
Book" links and advertising. Users on the other hand, will be able
to search across library collections, including out of print books
and titles that weren't previously available anywhere but on a
library shelf.
But publishers, who were initially excited by the Google Print
project, and signed up eagerly to the Print for Publishers
programme, are now expressing reservations.
In a letter sent to Google on Friday, Peter Givler, the
executive director of the Association of American University
Presses, which represents 125 publishers, set out these concerns in
detail.
"The idea that once this giant digitisation has been completed
anyone with a computer and internet access will be able to use
Google to search the collections of these libraries – including the
public domain material from the New York Public Library and the
Bodleian Library at Oxford – is enormously seductive," he
wrote.
"However, in our view it is built on a fundamental,
broad-sweeping violation of the Copyright Act, and this large-scale
infringement has the potential for serious financial damage to the
members of the
AAUP
."
Givler wants answers to a number of questions on how the search
giant proposes to protect the copyrights of authors and
publishers.
To date, Google has relied on the doctrine of "fair use" to
justify its right to scan the published works; but the
AAUP
queries whether the doctrine could possibly apply
to a programme of this magnitude. It is completely unprecedented in
scale and sweep, says the letter.
The
AAUP
wants a definition of "snippet", and
queries whether the search engine will in fact allow publishers to
opt out of the program, as it has promised. Two publishers have
already requested that their copyrighted work not be included in
the program, but Google has not yet complied, according to the
letter.
The
AAUP
is also concerned about the "extremely
permissive use of digitised materials" by the participating
libraries, which will be given copies of the scanned works in
return for granting access to their collections. It queries whether
Google has imposed any restrictions on the use of these copies by
the libraries.
"Google Print for Libraries has wonderful potential," concludes
Givler, "but that potential can only be realised if the program
itself respects the rights of copyright owners and the underlying
purpose of copyright law".
