Business Tools

IP in the digital age

issue

Why copyright is getting messy on the web

Internet giant Google is no stranger to controversy, and its ambitious new undertaking proves the company is not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

‘Google intends to digitise all books that have ever been published, including those that are out of print,’ explains Clive Halperin, partner of GSC Solicitors. The litigation that the project has spawned could have far-reaching consequences.

It wasn’t long before Google came across its first hurdle. A collective body of publishers and authors in the US contested the project in a class action, on the grounds that it would infringe their intellectual property rights. Although the case was settled as each party reached an agreement, it still needs to be sanctioned and approved by US courts.

The European Commission is paying close attention to the case. ‘The Commission does not want to fall behind in the digitisation race, and it is exploring the possibility of putting European texts online,’ says Halperin. With only one per cent of European texts currently digitised, a fragmented copyright system and language barriers to overcome, this may be a tall order.

Halperin explains that as part of the settlement, Google would take 37 per cent of the revenue and give the rest to a book rights registry, which would pay copyright holders.

Says Halperin: ‘There is an altruistic reason for the service. Researchers and academics would be able to access books anywhere in the world.’ There are other benefits – authors and publishers would be compensated for long-neglected works, and books with murky ownership or long copyright periods would be rescued from obscurity.

For all the benefits that would ensue, Google has attracted some pointed criticisms, not least for the reach of the service: ‘One of the concerns that Google runs into now and then is privacy. The service gives Google the power to monitor who’s accessing what, and there are people who are seriously concerned about online privacy.’

Some detractors are also worried about the effects on copyright law. Under the new system, Google would digitise the books and make them available ‘for display use’ (an extract rather than the whole of the text). If the book is in print, Google will be able to make the text available only if the rights holder opts in. In the case of books that are not commercially available, the company can make display use of the books unless the copyright holder opts out. ‘Controversially, Google decides whether a book is commercially available or not,’ says Halperin.

The new system would therefore require authors to take a more active role in protecting their copyright. Says Halperin: ‘If you want to use a book, [to adapt it into a movie for instance], it is your responsibility to find out who wrote it, who holds the copyright and then ask for permission. Google is trying to turn that on its head.’

Whatever the outcome of the case, it is unlikely to be the end of the story: ‘Other companies will try to protect their copyright interests, so there’ll be further litigation and almost certainly an antitrust investigation.’


Editor's View Business Bulletin Trailblazers Business Tools Finance Expansion Strategy Leadership Flotation Exits Columns Enterprise News Deal Listings Backchat	Business Tools IP in the digital age issue Why copyright is getting messy on the web Internet giant Google is no stranger to controversy, and its ambitious new undertaking proves the company is not afraid to ruffle some feathers. ‘Google intends to digitise all books that have ever been published, including those that are out of print,’ explains Clive Halperin, partner of GSC Solicitors. The litigation that the project has spawned could have far-reaching consequences. It wasn’t long before Google came across its first hurdle. A collective body of publishers and authors in the US contested the project in a class action, on the grounds that it would infringe their intellectual property rights. Although the case was settled as each party reached an agreement, it still needs to be sanctioned and approved by US courts. The European Commission is paying close attention to the case. ‘The Commission does not want to fall behind in the digitisation race, and it is exploring the possibility of putting European texts online,’ says Halperin. With only one per cent of European texts currently digitised, a fragmented copyright system and language barriers to overcome, this may be a tall order. Halperin explains that as part of the settlement, Google would take 37 per cent of the revenue and give the rest to a book rights registry, which would pay copyright holders. Says Halperin: ‘There is an altruistic reason for the service. Researchers and academics would be able to access books anywhere in the world.’ There are other benefits – authors and publishers would be compensated for long-neglected works, and books with murky ownership or long copyright periods would be rescued from obscurity. For all the benefits that would ensue, Google has attracted some pointed criticisms, not least for the reach of the service: ‘One of the concerns that Google runs into now and then is privacy. The service gives Google the power to monitor who’s accessing what, and there are people who are seriously concerned about online privacy.’ Some detractors are also worried about the effects on copyright law. Under the new system, Google would digitise the books and make them available ‘for display use’ (an extract rather than the whole of the text). If the book is in print, Google will be able to make the text available only if the rights holder opts in. In the case of books that are not commercially available, the company can make display use of the books unless the copyright holder opts out. ‘Controversially, Google decides whether a book is commercially available or not,’ says Halperin. The new system would therefore require authors to take a more active role in protecting their copyright. Says Halperin: ‘If you want to use a book, [to adapt it into a movie for instance], it is your responsibility to find out who wrote it, who holds the copyright and then ask for permission. Google is trying to turn that on its head.’ Whatever the outcome of the case, it is unlikely to be the end of the story: ‘Other companies will try to protect their copyright interests, so there’ll be further litigation and almost certainly an antitrust investigation.’