Google has reached a settlement with the group of publishers who filed suit in 2005 over the book digitization project. It is a legal document with many elements, and I cannot hope to make an overall evaluation of the agreement with just the amount that I have browsed (much less with my limited ability to discern the true meaning of legalese). However, there are a couple of sections that raise questions:
7.2 Fully Participating Library Uses… (b) Use of Library Digital Copies… (vii) Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use. The Fully Participating Library, if part of a Higher Education Institution, may allow faculty members and research staff of that Higher Education Institution to read, print, download or otherwise use up to five (5) pages of any Book from its LDC [Library Digital Copy] that is not Commercially Available for the following purposes: (1) personal scholarly use (for each Book, no more than once per person per term) and (2) classroom use in such Higher Education Institution that is limited to the instructors and students in the class and for the term in which the class is offered; provided that (a) the Fully Participating Library does not know at the time of such use that it is in material non-compliance with Section 8.2 (Security Standard, Security Implementation Plan and Security Audits) with respect to uses of the LDC authorized pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use), and (b) the Fully Participating Library keeps track of and reports all such uses of Books to the Registry in the course of the audit conducted pursuant to Section 8.2(c) (Audits) or, otherwise, upon reasonable request of the Registry, provided that such requests may be made no more than semi-annually. The Registry may make information from such reports regarding the usage of an individual Book available to the Rightsholder of such Book upon request of the Rightsholder. A Fully Participating Library may not read, print, download or otherwise use a Book or Insert through its LDC pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use) if such use is available through the Institutional Subscription and the Institutional Subscription service is offered or is available to the Fully Participating Library (whether for a fee or as a beta product) at the time such Fully Participating Library seeks to make such use.” (page 76)
The agreement defines Commercially Available as “…that the Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States.” (Section 1.28 on page 4) Does this mean that if a researcher or faculty is able to read (or print) only up to 5 pages of the scanned book each semester for personal scholarly use - and then only if the book is not able to be purchased through “customary channels of trade”?
Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this not a severe restriction of the “Fair Use” clause of copyright? Why would a researcher want to agree to such limitations when the physical item allows for a broader use? I may be misreading this section, however, and hope to have it clarified in the near future.
Another section that gives me pause:
Section 3.8 (b) Effect of Changes in Law. Google will be able to take advantage of any future legislative change(s), such as legislation allowing the use of orphan works (if enacted), that put Google at a competitive disadvantage in its use of Books in any Google Products and Services that are subject to this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Google may choose to receive the benefit of such change(s) only if a third party is actually taking advantage of such law(s) in connection with services that competitively disadvantage Google in its provision of any such Google Products and Services; provided, further, that no changes in the “fair use” doctrine as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act shall trigger this Section 3.8(b) (Effect of Changes in Law).” (page 37)
So if a legislative body, such as the United States Congress, passes a law that allows for broader use of this type of material (i.e. a change in copyright law), Google can only put the broader use into Google Books if it can demonstrate that another company is already taking business away from them by implementing it; otherwise, Google must keep the higher restrictions in place.
In addition, what happens if “fair use” is broadened? It won’t trigger this section. Does that mean that Google can follow fair use, or that Google cannot? The fair use provision seems to be placed on an equal footing as the “competitively disadvantage” clause. Does Google pass along the broader use understanding, or does it just pass?
For better or worse, this settlement is going to dramatically change how libraries use electronic books. Hopefully the overall agreeement implements a positive experience for all parties involved, and that my concerns (and the concerns of others) are either misread clauses or taking a section out of context.
The element of this agreement that holds great promise is the potential for institutional access to the entire collection of scanned books. Imagine having millions of books available to our patrons via a usable and cost-effective agreement. We are moving towards the future; are we ready for it (and the future for us)?
It is all rumor at this point, but apparently OCLC will be making an announcement on November 2nd regarding its record use policy, and that using any OCLC records services (including WorldCat?) will imply acceptance of said policy.
Some people are worried about the services they have built around OCLC’s records; others feel that the policy may expand the application of the records; most are waiting and seeing.
Many libraries, including my own place of work, have integrated OCLC services into the OPAC and have a significant number of OCLC provided (not necessarily created) MARC records.
So we wait and see… will it be the lady or the tiger, or simply the 800 pound (mostly benevolent) gorilla of of the library jungle we have come to know so well?
Update: I hadn’t noticed a communication in the comments section of the Thingology Blog from Karen Calhoun, OCLC’s Vice President of WorldCat and Metadata Services, regarding this news. She stresses that it is simply their updating of their 20+ year-old policy to reflect the expanded opportunities for the use of OCLC records. So, depending on the actual language of the changes, this seems to be the lady, or at worst an 800 pound lady gorilla. This may go down as an example, both for good and bad, of the rapidity of communication in the blogosphere.
Thanks to Karen for quickly stepping in, and to Mark Barnes for posting her statement as a comment.
So… how will this affect us? Wait and see, with patience.
Walt Crawford has posted his list of 607 library-related blogs (this one included). This is as definitive and current a list as one is likely to find, and Walt has done an excellent job compiling and checking the links.
If you cannot get your fill of library blogging from this source, then you are more hard core than I.
Slightly over 85% of those surveyed use social networks, with Facebook and MySpace topping the list.
Younger students (under 30) tended to use Facebook, while older ones tend towards MySpace.
About 50% use social networking for discussing classwork with other students; only about 5% use it for discussing classwork with instructors.
The only one of these three that surprised me was the tendancy towards Facebook/MySpace by age. I have thought of MySpace as appealing to younger users than Facebook.
Social networks are definitely here to stay. In five years we may not be discussing Facebook or MySpace (because they might have been superceded by a yet un-created network), but people will be more interconnected, not less.
The third point is one that should make us take notice. Half of the surveyed students have used social networks to discuss classwork; the main reason they haven’t discussed it with instructors (and by extension, the library folk) is that we view it as some sort of cyber malt shop, a place only for their peers.
If we make ourselves available on social networks, we aren’t going to find ourselves becoming an overnight sensation. We will, however, give people one more way to view us as being there to assist them.
Whether we create OPAC search tools to embed (or even highlight the good ones that exist, like WorldCat and CiteMe in Facebook - also here), create an institutional identity, or just make ourselves more visible as individuals, there is much we can do to assist students and promote our services.
We can jump on board the trolley, or be left behind. The choice is ours, both individually and collectively. I am on Facebook and LinkedIn, btw… and you should be too.
The International Music Score Library Project is a great concept: a collection of public domain musical scores made freely available to musicians, composers, and everyone else as well!
Note also that the site was built using MediaWiki software.
When Tears for Fears created a video for their song Head Over Heels way back in the 1980s, they used a library for the set. The lyrics, however, had nothing to do with libraries.
OpenOffice.Org released version 3.0 of their office suite on Monday. The changes aren’t dramatic, but it is definitely a step forward for the user in many ways.
Also of note: this is the first version of OpenOffice that runs natively on Macintosh!
The cover story for the October issue of Library Journal is titled What We Need. It centers on the results of a survey of Movers & Shakers, the annual group of people recognized by Library Journal for innovation and leadership. It contains a lot of great information, and even a few surprises.
Most of all, if you are in a job situation where people are not encouraged or rewarded for innovation, don’t feel that you are isolated and alone. Many of those surveyed come from similar circumstances. What emerges from this article is not so much the people who excel because of a supporting environment and management, but in spite of it. Most received more support and encouragement from their peers at work than from their supervisors.
What surprised me so much that I had to put down the article and simply let it sink in was the following passage:
Nearly half of all respondents (48.6%) stated that their organization did not celebrate their being named as an LJ Mover. Many of the total respondents commented that internal recognition was limited to a librarywide email from the director or a brief comment at a staff meeting.
Think about that. Library Journal picks about 50 people each year to recognize their enthusiasm and contributions to libraries. Nearly half of their workplaces didn’t think this recognition important enough to celebrate. My first thought was about the unhealthy workplaces; however, that large of a number signifies to me a sickness in the profession. Consider the following:
Some respondents noted that the recognition from outside of the library actually hurt their work life. When asked if and how their being named a Mover was celebrated, one respondent answered “not at all, created a lot of problems.” Another noted “friends and colleagues celebrated; administration ignored the award.”
These are the cream of the crop! How many potential Movers & Shakers (and I am not limiting this to those officially recognized as such) have been demoralized over the years by this environment? More importantly: what can we do about this?
Simply put: celebrate innovation, wherever it may come from. Support your coworkers, whatever their “level” or title, when they succeed at something new. Support them even more when they fail… the attempt is of the utmost importance.
I feel strongly for these people when I hear these stories, because I have experienced those environments. I know people who are still existing in situations that rob most people of their enthusiasm for libraries. I can tell stories, but often do not because of the pain and frustration the memories invoke. Not only careers but lives can and do get ruined.
What you can do is this: Take heart, and keep on striving to do everything you can to learn, and apply what you learn. Try… Fail… Try again. Support each other, because sometimes all you have is each other.
It features five drafts of the famous speech, displayed so that you can compare and contrast the different versions and gain an insight into Lincoln’s approach to speechwriting.
Oh, and it also has an audio layer: Johnny Cash reading the speech.
I am playing catch-up in many areas right now, and as a result there hasn’t been as much activity here. Hopefully the time of less activity has reached a middle…
An interesting new feature that has begun to appear in OPACs is the ability to send the location/call# of an item to your cell phone as a Short Message Service (SMS) text. The Iowa City Public Library has implemented this into their Innovative (III) catalog, as you can see in this example. It becomes the equivalent of writing yourself a quick note for when you are physically in the library to find the item.
While this service might seem to be targeted to a small portion of library users, I suspect that it is worthwhile to implement. if only because the people who will use it will find it exceptionally handy.
