NYU’s Mandel: Google Book Search Incremental, Transformative, Worrisome
Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 3/18/2009
- Tipping point or flipping point?
- Orphan works legislation needed
- Orphan works a "zombie army"?
| Go back to the Academic Newswire for more stories |
(This article first appeared in the March 17 issue of the LJ Academic Newswire. For a set of links, go to LibraryJournal.com/GoogleBookSearchSettlement.)
At one session of the March 13 conference held on Google Book Search at Columbia University, New York University (NYU) library dean Carol Mandel, suggested there would be three types of impacts on libraries: incremental, transformative, and worrisome.
“I think we need to put this agreement in the context of the transition that libraries have already made from a paper print world to an electronic one,” Mandel said. “It’s happened smoothly enough that I think people take it for granted.”
NYU, for example, spends more than half its acquisitions budget on e-resources. That’s also true in terms of pre-20th century books. And, as is expected with Google, she pointed out, those resources are licensed via negotiated terms.
Among the issues libraries have dealt with in the digital transition: privacy, preservation, and permitted uses, calling Google’s effort “another incremental product” that will push libraries a little harder. “How much are we going to be able to achieve in those licensing agreements?” she asked. “Where we can talk about privacy…where can we, in theory, talk about pricing?” More library input, she said, would have benefited the settlement.
A flipping point?Mandel asked rhetorically if the Google Book Search database would be transformative, “not a tipping point, but a flipping point.” She said time would tell, and would depend on changing user behavior. “One thing I’m disappointed in the agreement is that print-on-demand" is not provided as a core service for libraries, she said.
Mandel also noted that Google has been quite open that its scans are not of preservation quality and, “I think in some cases they may not be print-on-demand quality.” That means libraries, even though they make less and less use of actual print books, will “have to be careful about how much we throw away or store.”
Impact on copyright, orphan works
What about the public interest in copyright? “We think [the settlement] is consistent with the core principles of copyright law,” Association of American Publishers (AAP) attorney Jeffrey Cunard said, as well as fulfilling “the fundamental copyright bargain in the constitution, which is to promote the creation of copyrighted works, while at same time ensuring public has access.”
New York Law School professor James Grimmelmann called the orphan works issue absolutely central. He said books still under copyright but without findable authors or rightsholders “not orphans but zombies… animated into a shambling army under the sole control of Google.” He suggested that the settlement created a “concentration of power into the hands of Google and, to a lesser extent, the registry.”
(The issue of orphan works generated the most comment among those blogging the conference, including Paul Courant, Peter Hirtle, and Peter Brantley.)
Beyond threats of price-setting, Grimmelman cited Harvard University librarian Robert Darnton’s concerns about a single dominant cultural source of such works. “Databases of information valuable to society hardly need to be kept exclusive to give Google and the registry incentive to create them,” he said.
While Google officials have long-maintained that the settlement would ease the problem of orphan works, Grimmelman said the settlement should encourage meaningful orphan works for all—not just a deal for Google. “If this is a reasonable deal, it should be open to all,” he said.
Orphan works legislation “should not be done through a settlement.” Mandel concurred. “Before this morning, I was most concerned about the power of the registry,” Mandel said. “Listening to discussion, I can’t emphasize enough the importance of orphan works legislation to making this all work.”
Darnton questioned whether the benefits from orphan works should go to the registry, to authors and publishers who don’t own the copyrights. “It should go to the public good,” he said. Courant similarly questioned the distribution of benefits.
Google’s Alexander Macgillivray allowed that Grimmelmann has “a reasonable point,” and said that orphan works legislation would be good. “I haven’t seen all of you there,” he said, challenging the audience to pursue it.
Read more Newswire stories:
Library Journal Releases 2009 Movers & Shakers List
Lean and Green: Technology, Environment Front and Center at 14th ACRL National Conference
The ACRL Virtual Conference: Experiencing the Webcasts
At Columbia Conference, Harvard’s Darnton Asks: Is Google the Elsevier of the Future?
Another Harvard School Embraces OA Mandate
People
