Here's an article from the New York Times about the terms of the revised Google Settlement. And here's Publisher's Weekly's report, which includes a handy timeline for what comes next.
The revised agreement is now limited to books registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in Australia, Canada, or the U.K. I'm pleased to see that unclaimed funds from orphan works now go to philanthropy and efforts to find authors of orphaned works after ten years, rather than into the Book Rights Registry operating fund after five years. The original payment structure of 63% to rights holders and 37% to Google remains the same.
Not everyone is satisfied with the changes. The Open Book Alliance, which includes Amazon (open book, ha, that's funny), Microsoft, and Yahoo! had a post on their blog describing the changes as "sleight of hand." The new agreement stops short of empowering the Book Rights Registry to grant Google's competitors licenses to use oprhaned works on the same terms as Google. Instead it places such decisions under the responsibility of an independent trustee who can grant the licenses with congressional approval. In other words, it provides for potential competition later, but not real competition now. The Open Book Alliance has also posted a list of requirements for what they want to see in a revised Google settlement.
The best article on the revised settlement that I've read so far is this one from Library Journal. It goes into detail and quotes, among others, our old friend New York Law School professor James Grimmelman.
Sorry, what was this post about again? *stares at the hot pic some more while I wait for the lightning strike*
Seriously, I had originally opted in, then turned around and opted out after I saw Google basically wanted rights to my out-of-print book in exchange for that $200 settlement.
Posted by: Katrina Strauss | November 14, 2009 at 07:55 PM