Pratap Ravindran

Pune , Aug. 17

THE decision by Google Inc. to suspend temporarily a part of its project to make searchable digital copies of the contents of some leading libraries, in order to give publishers and other copyright holders an opportunity to opt out, does not come as a surprise.

Announced in December 2004, the Google Print Library Project planned to digitise the entire book collections of several well-known US libraries and one English library. The ten-year, $200 million project envisaged that the Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, Michigan University, and the New York Public libraries would donate material for scanning and placement online.

According to the search major, the objective was to provide a "virtual card catalogue of all books in all languages" — even while respecting copyrights of authors and publishers. Google had described its perspective on copyright issues as conservative.

All books published in the US before 1923 would be deemed to be in the public domain and the entire text of these books would be made available online without any concerns about copyright infringement. In the case of books published outside the US before 1990, Google proposed to abide by various international copyright laws, which placed them in the public domain. As for books published after 1923 in the US and after 1900 outside the US, Google had decided to provide "snippets" of text related to a search term. These snippets would be designed to help users find the book in their search results and decide whether to go find a physical copy of the book with just bibliographic information and a few short sentences around their search query.

Its clearly enunciated position on copyright laws notwithstanding, Google's online literary digitisation effort had drawn the ire of publishers. Two major associations of publishers had shot off letters to Google, demanding the cessation of the digitisation project that involved scanning the entire text of copyrighted material until all pertinent questions were answered and a collective copyright agreement had been reached.

One letter from Mr Peter Givler, Executive Director of the Association of American University Presses (AAUP), written on behalf of his organisation as well as several others, had alleged that Google Print for Libraries had, in essence, been sneaked in under provisions relating to the well-received Google Print for Publishers.

Mr Givler contended: "... News of Google Print for Libraries came as a complete surprise. It had not been mentioned by Google representatives during any of the discussions they were having with our members, and Google's subsequent explanations of Google Print for Libraries have only increased that confusion and transformed it into mounting alarm and concern at a plan that appears to involve systematic infringement of copyright on a massive scale."

The letter had gone on to raise 16 pointed questions that various associations wanted to be addressed.

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), a non-profit trade association representing over 300 publishers in more than 30 countries, had also written a letter to Google in which its Chief Executive, Ms Sally Morris, had argued that the project was not covered by Fair Use/Fair Dealings, and urged the search entity to work out a collective agreement with publishers.

"We cannot believe that a business which prides itself on its cooperation with publishers could seriously wish to build part of its business on the basis of copyright infringement," Ms Morris had written.

Google's opt-out offer has not placated the publishers and one trade association has, in fact, dubbed it inadequate and its members contend that the entire Google Print Library Project is built on a foundation of copyright violation.

The situation has been pithily summed up by Mr David Sohn, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank, with his assertion that Google's intention is worth pursuing and that it is "an example of how the Internet offers a lot of great new opportunities for disseminating information... and it is important to resolve those [copyright] issues so we really take advantage of those opportunities."

While just about everybody except deadwood medium publishers are rooting for the project, Google will have to tread carefully as, if accused and found guilty of copyright infringement, it faces a penalty of $150,000 per infringement.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line