Opt-in vs. Opt-out: US Court Rejects Google’s Digitized Books Deal 4

For several years, Google has been working to scan millions of printed books and make them widely available in an epic, digital library.   This ambitious undertaking hit a setback this week when the US Court of Appeals rejected ‘the deal’ that Google negotiated with authors and publishers to actualize this plan.   A critical issue in the court’s rejection was that the agreement reached with authors and publishers was an ‘opt-out’ vs. an ‘opt-in’ deal.  This means that folks would have to proactively ‘opt-out’ of being included in Google’s digital library, rather than ‘opting-in’ to the library.  This decision is in line with standard licensing deals and contracts, where a signature (which is an official ‘opt-in’) is required to enter a binding agreement regarding the use of copyrighted works.

Why is Google pushing for the ‘opt-out’ deal instead of the ‘opt-in’?  For the obvious reason that more books will be included in the digital library if the automatic default is inclusion.  Additionally, an ‘opt-out’ deal would automatically include millions of books that are currently under copyright protection, but whose authors are unknown or can’t be found (these types of works are known as ‘orphan works’).

What will happen next?  It is possible that a substantially revised agreement could keep this ambitious digital project moving forward.  However, for now, the deal has been rejected for several reasons… including violation of copyright and antitrust laws.

BY: Vanessa Kaster, Esq., LL.M.

vk@kasterlegal.com


 

4 comments

  1. Dear Vanessa

    Thanx for the great job you are doing with this website. I am not sure if this is too much to ask, but I am sure many of us readying your blog and the rest of the community would appreciate a guide (articulation of pro/cons for the uneducated) around GOOGLE’s Terms of service & privacy policy.

    I was reading through it recently and despite their 1st line where they state the user never looses property of their content IP
    they claim the right to do basically anything they want with it. Is that right? Am I not understanding it correctly?
    Also how does this apply to their different services: translation, translator toolkit, books, scholar, etc..

    • Thanks for your comment and for following my blog. I appreciate your topic suggestion, too. You’re right that the Terms of Use and Privacy Policies can grant website broad discretion to use user content AND they also change frequently. Here are links to a few related posts about the Terms of Use and Privacy Policies on Facebook and Pinterest: , , http://wp.me/p10nNq-iv, ,

      I hope you keep reading and following my blog!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s