Illustrators sue Google over book scanning

Google has been scanning millions of books to create a digital library and electronic bookstore but the project has been dogged by controversy because of copyright, anti-trust and privacy issues.

Quote by Jillicious
What would be the difference from reading books at Google and checking one out from a library?
You can't really keep the books from Google, but you can read them.

Google would be able to scan them, sell them and place up to 20 percent of a title’s words in search results — all without the rights holder’s consent.

On the surface, that’s an apparent breach of the Copyright Act. But it begs the question: Does copyright law mean books have to stay on paper unless Google, or others, acquire permission by anybody who has a financial interest in any book?

Google answered “no.” The Justice Department and others, however, said “yes.”

The Justice Department claims Google’s proposition turns copyright law on its head and alters the “Copyright Act’s specific delineation of exclusive rights to authors.”

Quote by nicola

Quote by Jillicious
What would be the difference from reading books at Google and checking one out from a library?
You can't really keep the books from Google, but you can read them.

As far as I'm concerned Jill, if the money isn't being passed on fully to the author / publishers, it's akin to torrent sites and software / music theft.

Quote by fystee
btw, I paid $9.00 at the library in late fees today. Where does that money go? just curious.

Quote by Jillicious
I'm pretty sure that when I check out a book from a library they do not pass on money to the author or publisher. The only difference is the medium. So are you sure it is akin to theft?

"Google Books is an historic effort to make all of the knowledge contained within the world's books searchable online," the spokesperson said. "It exposes readers to information they might not otherwise see, and it provides authors and publishers with a new way to be found."

Quote by NobeUddy
What we have here is Google, having failed to manipulate copyright law to their advantage, are just going to ignore it.

Quote by Jillicious
I think there is a bigger issue than Google's actions.

Copyright law in the US is badly in need of re-examination.

When copyright law was first developed a copyright could last just under 30 years. Over time publishers have used their power in order to push this copyright law to complete ridiculousness. Now copyrights in the US are the life of the artist PLUS 70 years. That is rather insane. Once an artist is dead their copyrights should die with them, in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law


I am of the opinion that if an artist, author, composer, musician, ect... can not make a decent profit off of their work within a reasonable time period, then their work is not worth the copyright in the first place. Copyright laws have gotten to the point where copyright renewals will basically keep the majority of creative works under copyright for centuries. This will eventually hinder the creative process for many. If somebody makes a new animated version of Cinderella would Disney feel they are entitled to royalties? The story of Cinderella is in the public domain but Disney has a copyright on it. I could only imagine how terrible it would be if Beethoven was still under copyright.

It is my adverse view of current copyright laws that I have chosen to publish the stories that I post here under a Creative Commons license. I never expect to make money on any of it. I never expect to be compensated for any of it. What I do expect is that those who read what I write will be entertained. I would be completely flattered if anyone took advantage of the Creative Commons options that I grant to everyone. You can modify, expand, or rewrite any of my work. The only request is that I am given credit as the original author and that your work is released under a similar license.

Google may be breaking current copyright laws but I am of the opinion that those laws are broken to begin with. Yes, creative artists should be reimbursed for their work. But there has got to be a limit. To me it seems as if there is a hefty amount of greed on both sides. It reminds me of young grade schoolers bickering over who came up with an idea first. Rather silly if you ask me.

Quote by NobeUddy
I would have to respectfully disagree. My income comes from my copyright. It supports my family. When I die, does that mean my wife and children, who has supported me for 25 years through thick and thin times, are sorry out of luck? A copyright not only protects my creative work from unapproved use, It is a legacy that protects the vision of that creative work for years to come. If I am a writer, and I want my work to die when I die, and never be published again, that is my right. It is through the endowment of copyright that makes this possible (until it falls into the public domain.) To take this right and reverse the power so that when I die, anybody can do with it as they see fit, is galling in the extreme.

For artists especially, who's works often doesn't become valuable until AFTER they are dead, it is short sighted. To say "if... an author or artist ... can not make a decent profit off of their work within a reasonable time period, then their work is not worth the copyright in the first place." is an affront to masters like Van Gogh.

It is so very difficult to make a living as a creative. Most struggle their whole lives following a path that doesn't make economic sense to other people. I also have quite a few works covered under Creative commons licenses. They are gifts of sorts. Mine to give. I have never met a artist or author who is greedy. Most fight tooth and nail to keep what little rights and profits that they have coming to them. Most B list authors are lucky to keep 5% royalties of published works. Do you know how many books you need to sell to make that kind of math work against advances, and against marketing? With the exclusion of a few, authors are the the most famous middle class schmucks I know. Illustrators are even worse. Why do authors look to sell movie rights, and Illustrators look to sell image rights on calendars or coffee mugs? They do it to hopefully see some small percentage return for their work. Most will not. It is not greed to hope that some of my work will be enjoyed by my children and possibly my grandchildren; To see them harvest a crop that I spent a lifetime sowing. It is love for what I do.

Theodor Geisel set up Dr. Seuss Enterprises as a way to protect his creations after his death. Much of the money from holding this copyright, owned by his estate, goes to foundations and libraries and public works which benefit the greater whole while respecting the vision of the author and artist behind them. Would I trust Google to do this? I don't think so.

I am not meaning to rant here, and I don't want to offend. It is just my opinion -- but it hits very close to home for me. Life of the artist, plus 70 years is a small token when measured against generations creative consumption.