More on ALPSP on the Google Library project

The ALPSP has written a second position statement on Google Print for Libraries (August 25). Its first one was released on July 11 (see my blog posting for an excerpt and comment). Excerpt from the new one:

Google Print for Libraries is a very different matter [from Google Print for Publishers]. We firmly believe that, in cases where the works digitised are still in copyright, the law does not permit making a complete digital copy for such purposes. We are willing to work with Google to find a mutually acceptable way forward; however, we do not consider Google's proposal to stop the digitisation program until 1 November, up to which date publishers may exclude their works by supplying full bibliographic details including ISBN/ISSN (a major undertaking), to offer an acceptable solution. We believe that publishers and, where appropriate, other rightsholders (such as authors and artists) must be asked for permission before an incopyright work may be digitised and included in this program. We recognise that this is complicated as there are many thousands of publishers in the world; however, collective licensing agencies (such as CCC in the USA and CLA/PLS in the UK) may be able to perform a useful role in simplifying the process of obtaining permissions. We wish to continue to discuss an 'opt-in' solution and still very much hope to avoid recourse to the courts. In the meantime, however, we shall be advising our members that if they are not sure about the program, they should exclude all their works for the time being. We shall also be recommending (as suggested by Google) that they can protect both in- and out-of-copyright print and electronic works by placing them in the Google Print for Publishers program instead. We call on Google to hold an urgent meeting with representatives of all major publishing organisations, in order to work out an acceptable pragmatic way forward and to avoid legal action.

Comment. Like the ALPSP's earlier statement, this one does not deny that the Google project could be very lucrative for publishers. As before, it asserts an abstract property right without claiming injury. The chief addition here is the threat of legal action. If the ALPSP believes that the absence of publisher injury and the possibility of publisher gain needn't be mentioned because they are irrelevant to its case, then it is mistaken. Apart from their relevance to policy, they will be relevant to any court asked to decide whether the Google copying constitutes fair use under U.S. copyright law.