Authors Have One Week to Opt Out/In on Google Settlement

Update:  According to Publisher's Weekly, New York Judge Denny Chin has granted a four month extension of the deadline to opt out or object to the Google Settlement.  This comes as a direct result of the intiative brought forward by Gail Knight Steinbeck and several other concerned parties, including Mike Perry, mentioned at the bottom of this post.  Thank you Mike, Gail, Rt. Hon. Denny Chin, etc.  You guys rock!

The article quotes Author's Guild Prez Paul Aiken thus:  "We’d hoped for a shorter extension of time, since we’re eager to get on to the next phase of the process."  Yeah, I bet you were, Paul.

I know that back in December, I posted that the settlement Google reached with Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers sounded like it would be of benefit to authors.  I apologize.  I was so wrong.  Having taken a closer look at the terms of the agreement, I think this is a rotten deal, for a number of reasons. 

First of all, the way the deal is structured makes it cost-prohibitive for anyone else to do what Google is doing re scanning and making searchable enormous quantities of books.  It effectively gives Google a monopoly on searching and distributing any book written before January 5, 2009.

In the $110 million dollar settlement, Google is paying the lawyers from the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers $30 million for their work in the so-called class action suit.  Another $35 million goes to establish a brand new entity created by the agreement called the Book Rights Registry (BRR).  Every author whose copyrights were found to be infringed by Google's activity up until now gets to divide up the remaining $45 million, which comes to about $60 a title.

The BRR (I feel a chill) is a monopoly in its own right, established with no industry or governmental oversight.  They will collect the money from licensing and advertising, take a percentage and distribute the rest.  Payments to authors are divided between the author and the publisher of the work, regardless of whether or not the publisher previously held electronic rights. (Are you still wondering why publishers aren't yelling about this?) BRR is in effect a mandatory electronic rights agent for all authors, answerable to no one.  There is no mechanism for removing BRR from its position.  This to me is the scariest aspect of a settlement that has no shortage of horrors.

So, Author's Guild and AAP took an issue which many believed to be fair use, conflated it with copyright violation, and now, is selling authors' electronic rights down the river while pocketing a tidy sum for themselves.  Thanks guys, so glad to have you watching my back.  Hey!  What's that knife doing there?

Anybody want to make a bet as to whether BRR hires the suit's law firm, Boni & Zack, when all is said and done?

I digress.

Since this is a class action suit, the terms of the settlement apply to you whether you consent to it or not.  The only way not to be bound by the terms of the agreement is to opt out by May 5, 2009.  That's a week from today, folks.  I urge you to take action on your behalf.  The Greyson Agency (not my agent but my agent forwarded their guide to me) has a downloadable .pdf with guidelines for each of your options here: http://graysonagency.com/blog/uncategorized/guide-to-the-google-settlement-in-pdf/

Briefly, you can opt in, and register your works with Google, in which case you are eligible to collect the monies BRR feels you are due.  You can opt out, which does not mean Google can't or won't scan your work, but your electronic rights will remain intact and you are entitled to sue them for breach of copyright if you so choose.  (And good luck with that, friend.)  You can opt in and object, which requires the services of a lawyer, and, should your objection fail, leaves you still bound by the agreement.  You can do nothing, and still be bound by the terms of the agreement, plus lose your right to sue, plus be ineligible to collect money from BRR. 

With such a plethora of delightful options, how can one choose?

You know, I try to be upbeat around here.  Nobody likes a hater, and I'd rather focus on love.  But on a day like today, when the disregard, the contempt, the hatred for authors that permeates every nook and cranny of the industry is so blatant, so unavoidable, well, I find myself hating too.  In particular, I have a big hate boner for the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers, who brokered this shit pile.  Boy, did they pull one over on us, pretending to be championing our interests, when in reality this was nothing more than an opportunistic money grab.  They're collecting a fat fee in exchange for the future economic well-being of every author in North America.  They deserve to be disbanded for this. 

So, if you're as pissed off as I am, here are few things you can do:

SPREAD THE WORD.  The fact that this isn't all over the internet suggests to me that people are not aware of it.  Tell everyone.

Make a decision regarding the future of your electronic rights.  If you have an agent, speak with her about your best option among these very poor choices.  Go to http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ to exercise your option. 

If you wish your book to be listed and searchable in Google's registry, writer-editor Anita Bartholemew comments in a Publisher's Weekly post that you can still arrange that with them without opting into this settlement.   The way to do this is through their Google Books Partner Program.

Write to your congressperson, the White House, the Register of Copyrights, and local news services regarding this issue.

Check your copyrights and register any that you wish to protect through traditional copyright law:  http://www.copyright.gov

Support small press publisher Mike Perry's initiative to extend the May 5 deadline.  More info here:
http://www.teleread.org/2009/04/25/why-the-google-settlement-is-anti-author-and-why-writers-deserve-four-more-months-for-opt-outs-and-objections/

Don't let the Author's Guild and the Association of American Publishers get away with their chicanery.  Contact them and let them know exactly what you think of the way in which they have represented your interests.

The Authors Guild
31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Phone: (212) 563-5904
Fax: (212) 564-5363

E-mail: staff@authorsguild.org

Association of American Publishers, Inc.
Washington Office:

50 F Street, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20001
202.347.3375
f: 202.347.3690

New York Office:

71 Fifth Avenue, 2nd floor
New York, NY 10003
Phone: 212-255-0200
Fax: 212-255-7007

And, once again, SPREAD THE WORD.

Comments

[Nancy Jane Moore]

I note that the judge has extended the period for opt outs and comments, and that the Justice Department is looking more closely at the deal -- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/technology/internet/29google.html?_r=1&hp

Now you've got me thinking I should check into what happens to stories in anthologies. I own the copyright on those stories, but I don't have the copyright on the book as a whole.

[Sarah Peters]

I'm glad to hear about the extension. It really needed to happen.

Now, hopefully, things can be addressed more fully.

[Mer]

I feel like there's a lot of missing information. I'm generally PRO Google and their fair use displays, even from an author standpoint, if only because I believe that the overall market effect on my work would be positive.

I work in an academic research library, and I'm pretty freaking ecstatic about the orphaned works, too--from a dayjob standpoint.

But the BRR parts *don't make sense to me*. And I don't know how to handle things that don't make sense to me. ARGH!?

I don't understand the implications for me as an author. And I don't understand how Google went from doing a public good (imo) to having a monopoly. Of course, part of the last one... I'm not sure that it is a monopoly. "Monopoly" might just be an interpretation. Or Google might be holding merely a de facto monopoly, and nothing is to stop the rest of the world from going out and scanning as many books as they like.

We need time to think about this, mull it over, consult with legal experts. I'm not even sure any of this applies to me--yet--and I'm worried about the BRR. Really worried.

[Jessica Freely]

Another fantastic question and one I have no answer for whatsoever. My agent and I are both puzzling over this.

This is why the extension granted this afternoon (see top of post) is so crucial. Everybody is struggling to figure out what all this means.

Now, it's up to us as authors to be strong advocates on our own behalf, and not take for granted that self-appointed "protectors" have our best interests at heart.

[Dakota]

I think I need to do some major reading on this, as I'm confused about the implications I think. What about books that are published after Jan. 5th, 2009?

(Sorry if that's an obvious question/answer)

[Sarah Peters]

It seems a good idea to me, Jessica, to cover one's @$$ that way. I'll do that.

Thanks!

[Jessica Freely]

Sarah,

Excellent question. My reading of the settlement FAQ (http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en)
indicates that it applies to print books only, but the language on inserts, which may include short stores, seems less clear.

FWIW, when I opted out, I listed my epublished work as well, to be on the safe side, but I encourage everyone to do their own research before making a decision.

[Sarah Peters]

How about authors who have strictly e-books? Is this strictly a print concern?

[Jessica Freely]

*Nods* I opted out of the _settlement_ but did not check the box requesting that Google not scan my work. I checked the box asking that they contact me about it instead. The excerpts they are displaying may in fact be fair use, and could be of promotional benefit.

[Steven Harper Piziks]

I opted my work out of Google's program.