European works left out of Google Books deal

Reacting to the settlement, the Federation of European Publishers (FEP), which represents 26 national publishers, "acknowledged that the parties considered the concerns of European publishers and made some steps," but announced its intention "to analyse more thoroughly the new settlement before giving a final comment". 

"The Parties listened to some of the objections we raised in excluding non-English books, although we need to analyse better the implications of this exclusion and the practical effects of the adopted definition, which includes also non-English books under certain conditions," read a FEP statement. 

"Also the definition of commercial availability has been significantly improved and some provisions about orphan works, in particular the plans to locate actual rights holders, seem to be a signal that the settlement is moving to the concept of prior authorisation before any act of reproduction (scanning) and/or making available, which is the key principle enshrined in the Berne Convention, pursued by European publishers, and agreed with other European stakeholders," FEP concluded. 

FEP supports Europeana as a single access point for Europe's cultural content, alongside initiatives such as Germany's 'Libreka!' and France's 'Gallica2'. 

Reacting to the weekend's settlement, Peter Brantley, co-chair of the Open Book Alliance, which represents among others Amazon and Microsoft, said that "by performing surgical nip and tuck, Google, the Association of American Publishers and the Authors' Guild are attempting to distract people from their continued efforts to establish a monopoly over digital content access and distribution". 

Brantley also accused them of trying to "usurp Congress’s role in setting copyright policy; lock writers into their unsought registry, stripping them of their individual contract rights; put library budgets and patron privacy at risk; and establish a dangerous precedent by abusing the class action process". 

"The digitisation of books has the potential to unlock huge volumes of our shared cultural knowledge, and the Open Book Alliance supports efforts to make books searchable, readable, and downloadable. But there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. The right path embraces openness, competition, and the public good," the Open Book Alliance said in a statement. 

Reacting to the settlement, Paul Aitken, executive director of the Authors' Guild, is quoted by the FT as saying "there are substantial changes but we’ve protected the core," adding: "There's a basic deal that’s quite good for everyone." 

Dan Clancy, head of book digitisation at Google, said certain fundamental parts of the original settlement could not be changed. Only an amendment to US law would make it possible for other Internet companies to offer orphan works online in the same way that Google will be able to do legally under the settlement, Clancy is quoted by the FT as saying.

"Google's newest settlement proposal, like the earlier version, is a disaster. It would give Google a monopoly over millions of the world's books. It would also further entrench Google's dominance in search, including in Europe, and stifle innovation and harm consumers in a vitally important sector of the Internet ecosystem. It should be - and for the good of the Internet must be - rejected," according to I-COMP, the Initiative for a Competitive Online Market Place.