Copyright reform, including some means of cutting into the fur-ball of orphaned works is long overdue. I’ve even heard some very appealing suggestions on how it could be done fairly. . . but that takes us far afield of the current topic.

While it’s obvious that something needs to be done, I don’t think letting a private settlement between two parties snowball into a full-fledged re-writing of copyright law is an acceptable solution. Particularly since the Author’s Guild, after getting to courts to certify it’s class status (so that they officially represent ALL authors), immediately quit rattling it’s saber, stuck out it’s hand, and said, “OK Google, we have the proverbial keys to the kingdom. How much is it worth?” It smells strongly of collusion.

Writing is an art, but it’s also a business, and we take both parts seriously. Our contracts are closely studied and negotiated with care. Having uninvited parties horn themselves into those contracts by legal skulduggery is NOT something we’re prepared to be equitable about.

On the other hand, copyright is a fur-ball when it comes to access of materials for whom an author or rights owner cannot be located, and a sword for breaking through that mess is long overdue. Music is even more of a mess. Great productions from the fifties and sixties can’t be broadcast again today because the rights clearance process is excessively expensive and often fruitless. A better international copyright convention that takes into account the lack of national boundaries on the web would be another huge improvement.

A system like the one BMI employs in the radio industry would be a marked improvement. Once licensed by BMI, radio stations can play whatever music they like, and BMI calculates, collects and distributes the royalties. If radio stations had to behave the way some authors would like Google to behave, there would be mighty few songs played.

While it's not a conspiracy by several entities to take over and defraud consumers, I'd think the Antitrust Division should be involved in something of this magnitude.

The Justice Department has apparently begun an inquiry.

Obviously we are lacking an entity to address these kinds of right/property grabs when they happen on the internet. While it’s not a conspiracy by several entities to take over and defraud consumers, I’d think the Antitrust Division should be involved in something of this magnitude.

But my main issue is with the fact that it’s somehow legal that AG got to make a deal on behalf of all authors, all over when they had no way of polling the impacted people to find out what they wanted! It’s bizarre!

As Meljean said, in the case of published books, the publisher will generally do this, but if they don't, the author can.

A fairly prominent pair of SF authors recently found out that their (now defunct) publisher did not do the registering for several of their books. It might be a good idea for authors with smaller print pubs to ascertain if their publishers did do so or if not. I assume that the big houses do so automatically, but I may be wrong.

I cannot get over the fact that the whole deal is considered legal in any way, shape or form. It baffles me that any court can look at the scope of Google’s ambitions and financial goals and the way they disenfranchise the little authors and can consider this is legal and proportionate. I cannot get my mind to bend that way and I’m very glad I’m not an author with any copyrighted work.

everything that one writes is copyrighted, but if you ever want to enforce your copyright against potential infringement, it must be registered with the US copyright office.

Thanks Robin and Meljean. That’s how I understood things to work, also, but when I read the Google definition of a rightsholder it made me wonder if the author did not qualify as a rightsholder if the book was not officially registered at the copyright office.

This google business really is a major pain. As if authors don’t already have enough things to do that we don’t get paid for….

A new wrinkle in this whole thing…

I assumed you didn't actually have to register for a copyright with the US copyright office. A printed book that has a copyright statement was sufficient.

Most of the time — it depends on your contract — but most print publishers will register the copyright for you. So that copyright statement at the opening of the book refers to the official copyright date.

If you aren’t sure, you can go to the copyright web page and do a search by title, name, or pseudonym. (Although I’m not sure how up-to-date they are. I just looked, and a few of mine are missing.)

Works that are out of copyright and in the public domain are fair game, anyway. The concern and the confusion comes in with orphaned works — which are books that are still under the protection of copyright, but they are no longer in print (that is, the publisher isn’t printing new copies when the distributors run out of them). According to the settlement, Google can snatch up orphaned works and essentially republish them.

This is great for the books that are hard-to-find, and for books where no publisher is likely to renew the contract with the author to get them into stores again. But when you’ve got authors like, say, Mrs. P. Boggs, who has a backlist that might be out of print but whose recently skyrocketing popularity makes that backlist valuable again, it’s a problem. Because if Google grabs the “orphaned works” in her backlist and makes them widely available, there is less commercial incentive for her publisher to do it, and suddenly Boggs is out a whole crapload of money and she’s lost control of her work and Google is her new publisher, even though she’s never made a single agreement with Google. And depending on her contracts with her publisher regarding in-print and out-of-print works and when she gets back her distribution rights after the books go out-of-print, she and/or they might be suddenly breaking the contract terms, even though she hasn’t actually made another agreement with a different publisher — the settlement did.

Also, what if you want to let Google show the cover and sales information as a marketing tool? I don't think there's anything wrong with them doing that, as long as they don't put the entire book on-line for anyone and everyone to read.

My understanding is — and maybe Jane will touch on this later in her series — that there is another program called Google Books Partners (Terms of Service here: https://books.google.com/partner/terms) that essentially gives you the same benefits of the settlement (search capabilities, online purchase) without handing over your rights. As far as I know, it’s completely separate from the settlement, although the method is the same: they scan your books.

If you don’t opt out, they don’t show your entire book for free, only excerpts (much like Amazon’s Look Inside feature). There will still be a purchasing requirement before someone can read the whole thing.

But I don’t think you can have it both ways with the settlement — opt out but still get them to market for you.

Also, what if you want to let Google show the cover and sales information as a marketing tool? I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them doing that, as long as they don’t put the entire book on-line for anyone and everyone to read.

And are they calling the same book with a different isbn a separate book? For example, if a book was originally released as a hardcover by one publisher under one ISBN, then the book went out-of-print and was re-released by a different publisher under a different ISBN, are they going to say they have rights to the hardcover because it’s no longer being sold when there is a paperback copy being sold and the text of the book is the same? (That’s what I got from the “Principal Work” definition.)

I don't even want to wrap my head around this, so I keep putting it off. I can't even grasp the summaries, never mind the actual settlement.

I’m so glad to know I’m not the only one. :)

Ditto.

I don’t even want to wrap my head around this, so I keep putting it off. I can’t even grasp the summaries, never mind the actual settlement.

Freakin’ Google.

As Nora Roberts said: why can’t we fill out a form to GIVE permission? Hunh?

Which means I have to physically opt out on round about 200 books, listing titles, USBNs, etc. It’s going to take a huge chunk of my time.

Why should I have to fill out a form to say no? The logical thing is to fill out a form to give permission not to deny it.

I have said many, many very bad words over this business.

The Author's Guild (to which I do not belong and have come to thoroughly dislike) has decided (after Google paid them Big Money) that Google can be my publisher -’ no matter what the contracts that I and my current publishers have worked out between us.

Yes. This! Yes. I’m trying very hard not to use words that should be covered up by punctuation marks, but they are what comes to mind when I think of what this settlement has done.

With new technology and different distribution models, there needs to be a new definition of rights (especially digital) and how different entities can use them. This settlement isn’t the way to do that, IMO.