In "Saving Texts From Oblivion: Oxford U. Press on the Google Book Settlement," Tim Barton, President of Oxford University Press, discusses the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

In conclusion. he states:

So we at Oxford University Press support the settlement, even as we recognize its imperfections and want it made better. As Voltaire said, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," the perfect is the enemy of the good. Let us not waste an opportunity to create so much good. Let us work together to solve the imperfections of the settlement. Let us work together to give students, scholars, and readers access to the written wisdom of previous generations. Let us keep those minds alive.

In "Interesting Development in Georgia State Case," Kevin Smith provides an update on Cambridge University Press et al. v. Georgia State University, an important case about copyright and electronic reserves in libraries.

Here's an excerpt:

Earlier this year, the Georgia Regents adopted a new copyright policy after a select committee reviewed and entirely rewrote the older one. The new policy is shorter, more easily comprehended and more pragmatic. . . .

After this new policy was adopted, attorneys for GSU filed a motion for a "protective order" which would state that only information about electronic course content going forward, under the new policy, could be "discovered" by the plaintiffs. GSU argued that since they were a state institution, and therefore entitled to immunity from damages, the plaintiffs could only get prospective relief (an injunction) and therefore should be limited to information about practices related to the policy under which GSU would go forward. After some legal maneuvering, the Judge granted this request last week.

The Association of Research Libraries has published Author Addenda, SPEC Kit 310. The table of contents and executive summary are freely available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

This survey was distributed to the 123 ARL member libraries in February 2009. Respondents were asked to provide information on the use of author addenda at their institutions, which rights authors were encouraged to retain, and the methods by which libraries were conducting promotion and outreach efforts on the topic of author rights and addenda. Seventy libraries (57%) responded to the survey. Of those respondents, 35 (50%) indicated that authors at their institutions were using author addenda, and 33 libraries (47%) indicated that they “did not know.” Only two libraries indicated that authors at their institutions were not using author addenda.

The majority of respondents (77%) did not formally collect information on the use of author addenda on their campuses at the time of this survey. Evidence was gathered mostly in an informal way, either when an author contacted the library with a question related to copyright or an author addendum, or through anecdotal stories of success or failure in using an addendum. Fifty-two percent (36) of the responding libraries reported that an author addendum had been endorsed by administrators or a governing body at their institution or by their consortia, while 62% (43) responded that there had been no endorsements. There had been more endorsements at the consortial level than at the institutional level. Eight libraries (12%) reported that an institutional endorsement was under consideration at the time of the survey. A larger number of libraries (46 or 68%) reported that their institution or consortium had worked to promote the use of an author addendum by providing links to an author addendum and copyright information on library Web sites or making faculty presentations on author rights (particularly pertaining to the NIH Public Access Policy).

This SPEC Kit includes documentation from respondents in the form of sample addenda, brochures, handouts, and author rights Web sites and slides from presentations to faculty and library staff.

Version 4 of the Google Book Search Bibliography is now available from Digital Scholarship.

This bibliography presents selected English-language articles and other works that are useful in understanding Google Book Search. It primarily focuses on the evolution of Google Book Search and the legal, library, and social issues associated with it. Where possible, links are provided to works that are freely available on the Internet, including e-prints in disciplinary archives and institutional repositories. Note that e-prints and published articles may not be identical.

For a discussion of the numerous changes in my digital publications since my resignation from the University of Houston Libraries, see the Digital Scholarship Publications Overview.

The Copyright Clearance Center has released an interview with Michael Healy, expected Executive Director of the Book Rights Registry (digital audio of the interview is also available). The Book Rights Registry will be established as part of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

Here's an excerpt:

And let’s be clear, what we’ll be building here is a remarkable and unique resource, the like of which has not been seen in the industry before, which is a very comprehensive data set, which links publications back to works around which those publications are clustered. And then, you’ll have those works and publications linked for the very first time to comprehensive metadata records about rights holders, who owns what. Then, layer on top of that again, the opportunity that the settlement gives authors and publishers to express what Google and others do with these digitized books, the display rights, the pricing, etc. Then, you have a very complex mix of data sets, which need to interoperate successfully for the Registry to succeed. And I think that highlights an important point of this settlement, which we may come on and talk about later when we discuss the benefits, but it is important to emphasize that the Registry will be a vehicle through which—and the settlement document underpins this—the Registry will be a vehicle through which rights holders can exercise control on the use made by Google and others of these digitized works.

Read more about it at "Authors Guild/AAP/Google Settlement Gives Authors, Publishers 'Unprecedented. . . Control' Over Their Copyrights."

Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf of the Harvard Business School have released "File-Sharing and Copyright" as a working paper.

Here's an excerpt:

As our survey indicates, the empirical evidence on sales displacement is mixed. While some studies find evidence of a substitution effect, other findings, in particular the papers using actual file-sharing data, suggest that piracy and music sales are largely unrelated. In contrast, there is clear evidence that income from complements has risen in recent years. For example, concert sales have increased more than music sales have fallen. Similarly, a fraction of consumer electronics purchases and internet-related expenditures are due to file sharing. Unfortunately, we know little about the distribution of these impacts. How markets for complimentary goods have responded to file sharing remains an area of inquiry that is largely unexplored in academic research.

The American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries have released A Guide for the Perplexed Part II: The Amended Google-Michigan Agreement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The University of Michigan, one of the original participating libraries in the Google Book project, recently entered into an amended agreement that will govern the relationship between Google and Michigan if the proposed Google Book Search settlement is approved by the judge.

Jonathan Band, author of "A Guide for the Perplexed: Libraries and the Google Library Project Settlement," has provided a concise description of the Google-Michigan amended terms. The document highlights some rights and responsibilities of participating libraries, including the following:

• Michigan and any partner library can initiate a review of the pricing of the institutional subscription to determine whether the price properly meets the objectives set forth in the settlement agreement.

• Google must provide to partner libraries information on books, such as whether Google is treating the book as in the public domain and whether a book is being excluded from any display uses for editorial or non-editorial reasons.

• Google will provide Michigan with a free institutional subscription for at least 25 years.

• Michigan is permitted to provide digital copies of the public domain books to academic institutions and research or public libraries for non-commercial research, scholarly, or academic purposes, as long as the library uses reasonable efforts to prevent bulk downloads of the copies.

ACRL has added materials from its Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics Workshop to its Scholarly Communication Toolkit.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) is extending the reach of the "Scholarly Communication 101: Starting with the Basics" workshop by adding related materials to its popular Scholarly Communication Toolkit. The materials—including short videos, presentations templates and handouts—were developed for the half-day workshop offered at the ACRL 14th National Conference in Seattle and traveling to five locations around the country this summer (http://www.ala.org/ala/newspresscenter/news/pressreleases2009/april2009/acrlscroadshowhosts.cfm). Now librarians can make use of these tools to enhance their own knowledge or adapt them to offer related workshops on their own campuses. The Scholarly Communication Toolkit is available online at http://www.acrl.ala.org/scholcomm/.

Developing a basic understanding of scholarly communication issues should be a high priority for every librarian. Enhancing understanding of how scholars work along with the systems, tools and technology to support the evolving work of the creation, personal organization, aggregation, discovery, preservation, access and exchange of information in all formats is one of six strategic priorities for 2009-13 developed by the ACRL Board of Directors (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/about/whatisacrl/index.cfm). The newly developed tools support this strategic priority, with a focus on new methods of scholarly publishing and communication, copyright and intellectual property and economics along with open access and openness as a principle.

The Harvard Graduate School of Education faculty have adopted an open access policy. (Thanks to Open Access News.)

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) voted overwhelmingly at its last faculty meeting to allow the university to make all faculty members' scholarly articles publicly available online. The resolution makes HGSE the fourth of Harvard's 10 schools to endorse open access to faculty research publications. The Faculties of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Law School, and the Harvard Kennedy School all passed similar policies in recent months. . . .

As a result of the resolution, HGSE faculty will now provide their scholarly articles to the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication for deposit in an open access digital repository that is currently under development. When the repository launches later this year, the contents will be freely available to the public, unless an author chooses to embargo or block access. The policy makes rights sharing with publishers and self-archiving the default, while allowing faculty to waive Harvard's license on a case-by-case basis, at the author's discretion.

In "Google Book Search Settlement: Foster Competition, Escrow the Scans," Peter Eckersley proposes that digitized books involved in the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement be put in escrow for some period, then made freely available.

Here's an excerpt:

One good compromise might be to require that anyone who takes a blanket license (whether under the Google Book Search settlement, or under any legislation that might expand the settlement to others) must deposit a copy of the raw scans that they create with the Library of Congress or with the entity that administers the blanket license (e.g., the Books Rights Registry). After a period of years, let's say 14, the term of the Founder's Copyright, those scans should be made available at no cost to any others who take the relevant copyright licenses.

This would not only encourage market entry and competition in the online digital books arena, but would also foster innovation in the field. There's nothing that encourages digital innovation quite like access to an enormous dataset. After all, before Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google, they were graduate students at Stanford. They were able to build a new search engine by downloading their own copy of the web, messing around with it, and figuring our a better algorithm for querying it. New start-ups working with digital books should have the same kind of opportunity.