In a brief, Google has asked the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the class certification decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in The Authors Guild et al. v. Google Inc. case.

Here's the brief.

Read more about it at "Google Asks Court to Ax Book-Scanning Suit from Authors Guild."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

The Authors Guild is appealing the Authors Guild, Inc. et al. v. HathiTrust et al. ruling.

Here's an excerpt from the "LCA Issues Statement on Authors Guild's Appeal of HathiTrust Decision":

We are deeply disappointed by the Authors Guild's decision to appeal Judge Baer's landmark opinion acknowledging the legality, and the extraordinary social value, of the HathiTrust Digital Library. Libraries have a moral and a legal obligation to provide the broadest possible access to knowledge for all of our users, and the HathiTrust and its partners have assembled an invaluable digital resource that will ensure for the first time that library print collections can be made available on equitable terms to our print-disabled users. The database also facilitates preservation and cutting-edge scholarship, all with no harm to authors or publishers. As we predicted, Judge Baer did not look kindly on the Guild's shortsighted and ill-conceived lawsuit, saying, "I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that . . . would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts that at the same time effectuates the ideals espoused by the ADA." If there is an upside to this misguided appeal, it is that the Second Circuit will now have the opportunity to affirm that powerful insight.

Read more about it at "Google Scanning Is Fair Use Says Judge" and "Unintended Consequences in the HathiTrust Case"

| Digital Scholarship's Digital/Print Books | Digital Scholarship |

The OECD has released E-books: Developments and Policy Considerations.

Here's an excerpt:

The essential distinction between permanent and effective ownership of a physical book, and conditional rights of access to the e-book, has, so far, been somewhat obscured by marketing strategies and use of visual images, which tend to present e-books as a superior, but also substitutable, version of the print book product. Given the virtual reality of "traditional books" presented by e-Book platforms, buyers of e-books are likely to confuse their rights (i.e. after purchase) with the property rights model for print books. Users may be surprised to find that they are prevented from doing certain things7 with their e-book, within their private/ personal sphere.

| Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Digital Scholarship |

What open access book has had over 11 million file requests? Answer: the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography. As of the end of 2011, it had over 11.9 million file requests.

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography presents selected English-language articles, books, and other printed and electronic sources that are useful in understanding scholarly electronic publishing efforts on the Internet. The bibliography covers a wide range of topics, such as digital copyright, digital libraries, digital preservation, digital repositories, e-books, e-journals, license agreements, metadata, and open access.

Since initial publication, the digital versions of the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography have been freely available. On July 13, 2004, the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography was put under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License.

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography was published by the University of Houston Libraries from 10/25/1996 to 10/17/2006 (versions 1 to 64).

Digital Scholarship began publishing the Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography with version 65 of the bibliography (11/02/2006).

Over the years, the bibliography has been made available in a variety of formats: HTML, Microsoft Word, paperback, PDF, and XHTML. Currently, 80 HTML/XHTML versions and three paperback/PDF versions have been published (Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography: 2008 Annual Edition, Digital Scholarship 2009, and Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010).

The Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography is archived at Digital Scholarship and the Internet Archive. The University of Houston Libraries have an incomplete archive that contains versions 60, 61, and 62.

| Digital Scholarship Overview | Digital Scholarship |

The OAPEN-UK project has released the OAPEN-UK HSS Researcher Survey Results.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Here are some of the highlights:

• Only 50% of researchers are aware of OA and only 30% familiar with it.
• Around 50% of researchers think it is ok to make a profit from OA publishing as long as that profit goes back into supporting the discipline or making more OA content available — 20% think you can make a profit and use it however you like and 20% think that you can make a profit but only to cover costs.
• Almost 80% would prefer the most restrictive Creative Comms licence, but what is interesting is that the responses show that researchers are more concerned about protecting their work than it being used commercially.
• 60% had read a monograph in the last couple of days â 39% had bought it and 33% had got it via the library
• Early career academics are more willing to consider self-publishing than later career researchers.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Rowland Lorimer has published "Libraries, Scholars, and Publishers in Digital Journal and Monograph Publishing" in the latest issue of Scholarly and Research Communication.

Here's an excerpt:

In the 1970s, research libraries developed data systems and expertise that, in the 1990s, led to new services such as institutional repositories and journal hosting and, in the 2000s, led to forays into monograph publishing. In contrast, also beginning in the 1970s, university presses found themselves being cast out of their traditional role as providers of research publishing services that created the public record of knowledge and into the marketplace. Continued development of information and communication technology (ICT) in library operations and in research activity stimulated entrepreneurship and scholar/library partnerships with scholar-controlled digital journal publishing. Again in contrast, the market orientation of university presses, combined with a lack of appreciation in the library community for the value added by professional publishers, hampered the extension of collaboration into three-way partnerships among scholars, libraries, and publishing professionals. Recognition of the roles of all parties holds the greatest promise for the evolution of digital scholarly publishing.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Matthew L. Jockers, Matthew Sag, and Jason Schultz have self-archived "Brief of Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Authors Guild v. Google" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The brief argues that, just as copyright law has long recognized the distinction between protection for an author's original expression (e.g., the narrative prose describing the plot) and the public's right to access the facts and ideas contained within that expression (e.g., a list of characters or the places they visit), the law must also recognize the distinction between copying books for expressive purposes (e.g., reading) and nonexpressive purposes, such as extracting metadata and conducting macroanalyses. We amici urge the court to follow established precedent with respect to Internet search engines, software reverse engineering, and plagiarism detection software and to hold that the digitization of books for text-mining purposes is a form of incidental or intermediate copying to be regarded as fair use as long as the end product is also nonexpressive or otherwise non-infringing.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

ALA has released E-Books And Libraries: An Economic Perspective.

Here's an excerpt:

This paper provides a preliminary economic analysis of how publishers provide digital content to libraries, focusing mainly on the value that libraries place on access to e-books and how that is affected by the various restrictions that publishers place on access and use. However, because publishers are just starting to adapt to the new environment, and appear uncertain as to how to adapt, we consider not only the behavior of publishers that we currently observe in the marketplace but also possible "models" of the library-publisher relationship that may come into existence in the future.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

Google and the Association of American Publishers have settled the copyright lawsuit over Google Library Project. The related Authors Guild lawsuit has not been settled.

Here's an excerpt from the Google press release:

The agreement settles a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google on October 19, 2005 by five AAP member publishers. As the settlement is between the parties to the litigation, the court is not required to approve its terms.

The settlement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders. US publishers can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project. Those deciding not to remove their works will have the option to receive a digital copy for their use.

Apart from the settlement, US publishers can continue to make individual agreements with Google for use of their other digitally-scanned works. . . .

Google Books allows users to browse up to 20% of books and then purchase digital versions through Google Play. Under the agreement, books scanned by Google in the Library Project can now be included by publishers.

See also the AAP press release.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

The Justice Department and the National Federation of the Blind have reached a settlement with the Sacramento Public Library about alleged ADA violations in its e-reader loan program.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Justice Department announced today that it and the National Federation of the Blind have reached a settlement with the Sacramento Public Library Authority in Sacramento, Calif., to remedy alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement resolves allegations that the library violated the ADA by using inaccessible Barnes & Noble NOOK electronic reader devices in a patron lending program.

Under the settlement agreement, the library will not acquire any additional e-readers for patron use that exclude persons who are blind or others with disabilities who need accessible features such as text-to-speech functions or the ability to access menus through audio or tactile options. The library has also agreed to acquire at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to persons with disabilities. The settlement agreement also requires the library to train its staff on the requirements of the ADA.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals has released Ebook Acquisition and Lending Briefing: Public, Academic and Research Libraries .

Here's an excerpt:

This paper presents some of the legal, strategic and technical problems that arise from the addition of scholarly and trade ebooks to library collections, together with possible solutions. Some of the most common business models are briefly set out. The latest data on ebook usage is also included.

Also of interest: ALA's recent Ebook Business Models for Public Libraries.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

Walt Crawford has published "It Was Never a Universal Library: Three Years of the Google Book Settlement" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt:

Remember the Google Books settlement? It was going to settle a four-year-old pair of lawsuits (four years old then, eight years old now) against Google (by the Association of American Publishers, AAP, and the Authors Guild, AG) asserting that Google was infringing on copyright through its two-line snippets from in-copyright books scanned in the Google Library Project—and by the scanning itself. Later, a third group representing media photographers also sued Google for the same actions. . . .

This is a long set of notes and comments (cites & insights). It strikes me that the topic and complexity deserve that length—but note that I'm offering much briefer excerpts and comments on most items than I normally would in this sort of roundup.

After two sets of general notes and overviews (one before the settlement was rejected, one after) I'm breaking the discussion down by topics rather than chronologically.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |