Google is Stealing Orphans

In 2004 Google began a huge project. It announced plans to create an enormous online database which would contain books. Google's plan consisted of traveling from university library to university library to scan books into its database, and then making those books available to online customers for a fee. Google planned to set up a rights registry which would charge users a fee to download or print material from the books and pay a portion of the proceeds to copyright holders. This registry would function for books the way ASCAP functions for copyrighted songs.

The only problem? Copyright holders. Google was sued by the Authors' Guild and the American Association of Publishers in a class action lawsuit to recover an adequate amount of the upcoming profits for copyright holders. After years of negotiations the two sides came to an agreement over money and reached a settlement. Many interested parties voiced protest over this agreement because they felt that it would create an unfair monopoly for Google in the publishing business.

At the heart of this agreement is the issue of "orphan works", out of print books whose legal copyright holders are unknown. Many of the great works of literature throughout history are now "orphan works". When an author dies or a publishing company folds it may be unclear who holds the copyrights, especially after a few generations have passed.

In the past publishing companies had to go through an exhaustive legal process to gain the right to publish and profit from "orphan works". This agreement would give Google the right to publish the books and hold the profits from their sale. If a copyright holder comes forward within a certain amount of time then Google will pay them their share but if they do not Google cashes in.

Last week the Department of Justice stepped in and filed a statement in court protesting the agreement. DOJ said that society could benefit greatly from universal access to so many out of print books but that giving Google so much power over "orphan works" would be illegal. The government feels that it is important to allow Google's competitors to have equal access to the material. The two parties in the case have announced plans to amend their agreement and the judge in the case has postponed hearings until a new agreement is in place. You can read the DOJ's filing with the court here http://thepublicindex.org/docs/letters/usa.pdf

I look forward to following developments in this case because I think it would be great if we could make so many more important books accessible to the masses, but I fear giving one company such centralized control over the most powerful asset we have, knowledge.

Here are some links to recent articles about this case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/internet/21google.html?_r=1
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=113849
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-books11-2009sep11,0,6375242.story
http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5475

Welcome to I Know My Copyrights

I plan to use this blog to comment on issues related to copyright law in the news.

Celebrities recently charged with copyright infringement

Here are some recent stories in the news involving celebrities who have been charged with copyright infringement.

Bad News for fans of Fergie from the poplular group The Black Eyed Peas, she is being sued for copyright infringement. A reggae group called Groundation claims that they wrote a song on her solo album entitled "The Dutchess". The only problem is they weren't given any credit or any royalty checks. Groundation's record company Grounded Music claimed in their complaint that Fergie's song "Voodoo Doll" is "substanially and strikingly similar" to a song they recorded in 2000 named "Each One Teach One". If Groundation wins their case then Fergie may be forced to pay them royalties based on the sales of her album.

You can find mention of the case here in the San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=47931 among other places.

Ellen Degeneres is in trouble too. In the popular opening segment of her talkshow she dances to chart topping hits as she moves through her studio audience on the way to her desk. The only problem is her show does not obtain the permission to use this copyrighted music. A television show must obtain a license to use a piece of copyrighted music in its broadcast and apparently the Ellen people skipped this step. Now her show is being sued by a coalition of record companies including Sony and Warner Brothers who are seeking damages. My favorite part of this story is that when the record companies asked why they had not followed the proper channels and obtained licenses Ellen's people said they "did not roll that way" You can find the Ellen copyright story here http://allieiswired.com/archives/2009/09/ellen-degeneres-sued-for-copyright-infringement/

Jessica Seinfeld the wife of comedian Jerry Seinfeld was recently vindicated after a copyright lawsuit filed against her was dismissed this week. Mrs Seinfeld was being sued by Missy Chase Lapine who claimed she had stolen her idea about a cookbook which would suggest devious ways to "sneak" healthy foods into appealing meals for children. Ms. Lapine claimed she had pitched her book to Mrs. Seinfeld's publisher Harper Collins twice and been rejected. The publisher later published a very similar book authored by Mrs. Seinfeld. The judge in this case decided that two books were distinct from each other and that no copyrights were violated. Ms. Lapine is now suing Jerry Seinfeld for defamation because he made fun of her on "The Late Show with David Letterman" Read all about it here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/business/media/11seinfeld.html?_r=2&ref=business