Brantley is attending meetings in Spain and discussing the OBA and Google Book Search. He’s been interviewed by two newsapers, El Pais and Publico.es.

Here are links to both interviews in Spanish along with mechanically generated translations from two services.

1) “Google no ve libros, se limita a ver datos” (via El Pais)

+ Translation by Google: “Google does not see books, is limited to viewing data” (via El Pais)

+ Translation by Systran: “Google does not see books, is limited to see data” (via El Pais)

2) El bibliotecario que se enfrentó a Google (via Público.es)

+ Translation by Systran: “The Librarian Who Faced Google” (via Público.es)

+ Translation by Google: “The librarian who challenged Google” (via Público.es)

From a Blog Post:

EFF today led a coalition of authors, publishers, companies and nonprofit organizations in sending a letter to the judge overseeing the Google Book Search settlement urging the Court to ensure that those concerned about the settlement receive adequate notice of, and have sufficient time to study and comment on, any amended settlement agreement that Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers present.

Those following the twists and turns of the Google Book Search settlement will recall that the original Fairness Hearing scheduled for October 7, 2009, was put off because of what the Court called: “significant issues, as demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, non-profit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors.” The Court received over 400 submissions about the settlement, including the EFF-led coalition of authors and publishers concerned about reader privacy, as well as significant concerns raised by the Department of Justice.

Read the Complete Letter Sent to the Judge Denny Chin (4 pages; PDF)

The letter was signed by a large group of people and organizations including:

+ The Open Book Alliance*
+ Amazon.com
+ The Picture
+ Archive Council Of America
+ National Writers Union
+ Electronic Frontier Foundation
+ Pamela Samuelson (UC Berkeley Law Professor)
+ Microsoft
+ Washington Legal Foundation
+ The Internet Archive
+ Consumer Watchdog
+ Lyrasisk, Nylink and Bibliographical Center for Research Rocky Mountain, Inc.
+ Public Knowledge
+ Urban Libraries Council

+ The Special Libraries Association and the The New York Library Association are two of the members of the Open Book Alliance.

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation

It was just a few days ago when we posted that the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) was not happy with Google over copyright issues stemming from Google Book Search.

Today, in another Wall Street Journal blog post, we learn that Google has responded to CWWCS.

From the Post:

Here is the latest from Google:

“Today we have more than 50 Chinese publishers participating in Google Book Search, who together have authorized more than 30,000 books to be found through Google web search–and made available through a short preview. We also have some Chinese books that have been scanned by our Book Search library partners; in those cases, we only make the books available as a short snippet of text–as we do with web search–unless the rightsholder authorizes a greater use. We also honor rightsholders’ preferences if they ask not to be included.”

“Like all rightsholders, Chinese authors and publishers will be able to tell Google whether or not to display their books, and will be paid if the books are included in sales or subscriptions authorized under the settlement.”

Source: WSJ

See Also: Here’s How The Story Was Reported in the China Daily
Hat Tip: James Grimmelmann, The Laboratorium

A few weeks ago the D for Digitize Conference took place. It was sponsored by the New York Law School and organized by Professor James Grimmelmann. The focus of the conference was Google Book Search (GBS). The list of speakers/panelists reads like a Who’s Who of people representing all sides of the many issues being debated at the conference and elsewhere.

Now, you can watch each session online (free). Even two pre-conference tutorials are included. A list of sessions and speakers along with links to the videos can be accessed here.

Finally, if you want to read about what was discussed during a session before viewing the video or just don’t have time to watch, no worries.
Peter Hirtle from the Law Library Blog provide excellent text summaries of each session.

Law Library Blog is a co-production between Peter and Mary Minow.

See Also: Law Library Blog also has a Twitter feed at:
http://twitter.com/librarylaw

From a Blog Post:

The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) has called on Chinese writers to stand up for their legal rights in the face of Web search giant Google’s proposed book settlement, according to a post published on the official Web site of Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA).

CWWCS claimed to have found copyrighted works written by a number of Chinese writers scanned and posted to Google’s digital library, Google Books.

[Snip]

A Google spokeswoman said, “Google Books promotes and encourages book sales – helping to ensure that authors and publishers are rewarded for their creative efforts. Our goal remains bringing millions of the world’s difficult-to-find, out-of-print books back to life. … The scope of our U.S. settlement is limited to the U.S. and comes under U.S law and only U.S. readers will benefit. Of course, we listen carefully to all concerns and will work hard to address them.”

A Google FAQ on its book program gave more detail about how compensation works for non-US authors:

“Holders of U.S. copyrights world-wide can register their works with the Book Rights Registry and receive compensation from institutional subscriptions, book sales, ad revenues and other possible sources, as well as a cash payment if their works have already been digitized. For example, a foreign author whose book was published outside the U.S. can register with the Book Rights Registry, and receive compensation, if that book is in the collection of a U.S. library from which it was digitized.”

Much More in the Complete Blog Post

Source: China Journal (via Wall Street Journal Digits Blog)

From the Editorial:

In 2007, Princeton signed on as one of the partner libraries in the Google Books Search project. By the end of this six-year agreement, the University will have sent Google about one million books to be scanned. All of the books — which the University has ensured are in the public domain — will then be available for free on the internet. This is an exciting project, allowing Princeton to share some of its intellectual wealth with readers around the world.

[Snip]

Though there is currently a lawsuit pending against the Google Books Search project by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, it does not pertain to Princeton’s participation in the project.

[Snip]

But this legal challenge is a reminder that Princeton’s involvement with Google — though a positive and useful partnership — could pose problems in the future. For one, Google, a for-profit corporation, may not be around forever, as it is subject to the intense competition of the technology sector. And though Google’s current goal is to digitize every book ever published, this may not always be the case. It is not unreasonable to imagine that in the future Google may develop a commercial interest in digitizing only works that would appeal to large audiences to make time for its workforce to focus on more profitable ventures.

[Snip]

One way to both reconcile this disparity between the profit motives of Google and the academic goals of Princeton, as well as to contribute to a more stable, long-term initiative, is for Princeton to join the HathiTrust. This promising nonprofit database started by Indiana University and the University of Michigan now includes 25 large university partners intent on creating a permanent database of digitized books not subject to the economic pressures corporations face.

[Snip]

The Google Books Search project has given our library a great head start into the sphere of digital libraries, and at no cost. But to protect the purely academic spirit of digitized libraries, the University should seek alternatives to its participation in the Google project.

Access the Complete Editorial

Source: The Daily Princetonian
Hat Tip: Library Stuff