First Authors, Now Publishers, Sue Google Over Scanning Plans

Just weeks after a leading authors' organization sued Google for copyright infringement, the Association of American Publishers has also filed suit against the search engine giant's plans to scan and index books for the Internet. In papers filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the publishers association sought a ruling that would support an injunction against illegal scanning.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Just weeks after a leading authors’ organization sued Google Inc. for copyright infringement, the Association of American Publishers has also filed suit against the search engine giant’s plans to scan and index books for the Internet. Under the Google Print Library Project, millions of copyrighted books from five major libraries — including the University of Michigan and the New York Public Library — will be indexed on the Internet unless the copyright holder notifies the company by Nov. 1 about which volumes should be excluded. A few sentences from each book would be viewable, but could not be printed or downloaded. Google has called the project an invaluable chance for books to receive increased exposure. The library project is an offshoot of the Google Print program, for which publishers voluntarily submit copyrighted material. But in papers filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the publishers association sought a ruling that would support an injunction against illegal scanning and cited the “continuing, irreparable and imminent harm publishers are suffering … due to Google’s willful (copyright) infringement to further its own commercial purposes.” The suit named five publishers as plaintiffs: McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, Penguin Group USA, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons. The suit seeks recovery of legal costs, but no additional damages. Google, in a statement issued Wednesday, called the legal action “short-sighted” and said the project was a “historic effort to make millions of books easier for people to find and buy.” “Creating an easy to use index of books is fair use under copyright law and supports the purpose of copyright: to increase the awareness and sales of books directly benefiting copyright holders,” David Drummond, Google’s general counsel and vice president, corporate development, said in the statement. The Authors Guild, which represents about 8,000 writers, filed a class action suit for copyright infringement last month. Besides an injunction, the guild is seeking monetary damages. Patricia Schroeder, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, said Wednesday that the publishers’ lawsuit followed months of negotiations with Google. “We spent so much time on this I think half of our board ended up having trouble with their families because of canceling vacations,” she said. Publishers worry that Google is scanning entire books, even though just a limited amount of material will be displayed online. The library project’s Nov. 1 deadline, Google’s so-called “opt out” provision, was established over the summer in response to such concerns. But Schroeder said Wednesday that the company still wrongly placed the burden on copyright holders. By contrast, publishers don’t object to the larger Google Print program because nothing would be used without explicit permission. Google has countered that it does not need permission for the library project and calls the “opt out” clause a courtesy. Google’s Drummond said through spokesman Nathan Tyler that even after Nov. 1, copyright holders can request that material be removed. The Google controversy reflects a general debate over the Internet and copyright law. Even the publishers association acknowledges that the project could benefit the book industry, if rights are respected. Science fiction author Cory Doctorow made his most recent book, “Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town,” available for free last summer on the Internet, believing that the promotional value greatly outweighed any lost sales. Schroeder noted that viewpoint, but cited two reasons for still objecting to Google’s program. “First of all, it sets a dangerous precedent. If you allow Google to do it, you allow anybody to do it. It’s going to be an impossible task for copyright owners to defend themselves,” she said. “Secondly, the whole principal of copyright law is that you get to decide if it’s good for you. Why should Google get to decide? Earlier this week, Google announced a version of its print program was now available in eight European countries, including France, Germany and Spain. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.