A new chapter is unfolding in the long-running lawsuit between the Authors Guild and Google.
Google is now allowed to appeal a book scanning class action ruling against Authors Guild, the US Circuit Court of Appeals announced yesterday in an order, according to paidContent.
Google is now allowed to appeal a book scanning class action ruling against Authors Guild, the US Circuit Court of Appeals announced yesterday in an order, according to paidContent.
Only
last week, Authors Guild claimed the online giant would pay US$750 per unauthorized scanned
book if the company loses the case, making a total of as much as $2 billion in
copyright damages, reported
the Christian Science Monitor.
In
2004, Google partnered with several universities to scan their libraries, in
order to make the digital copies available online. However, Google was scanning
books withouth the rights holders' permission, which resulted in Authors Guild
suing the company for copyright infringement the following year.
After
extensive negotiations, both parties reached a settlement last year: Google
would continue scanning books and displaying up to 20 percent of the text online, as well as allowing to sell entire books online. On the other hand, the rights holders would get 67 percent of the
revenues, reported
Wired.
However, Google would scan without first asking for permissions, which meant that any published book from any author, letting Google go too far upon the limits of copyright law. Plus, this also included the so-called orphaned works, (whose authors are unknown or can not be located) into Google's digitization project.
However, Google would scan without first asking for permissions, which meant that any published book from any author, letting Google go too far upon the limits of copyright law. Plus, this also included the so-called orphaned works, (whose authors are unknown or can not be located) into Google's digitization project.
US
District Judge Denny Chin rejected this settlement as it would have granted
Google a “de facto monopoly” and the right to profit from books without the
permission of copyright owners. He acknowledged that “the creation of a
universal digital library would benefit many,” but said that the proposed
agreement was “not fair, adequate and reasonable," reported NY
Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment