Writers and Editors

Copyright, work for hire, licensing,
fair use, public domain, permissions, rights clearance,
contract negotiations, rights grabs, and the like

• Links on copyright, work for hire, licensing, fair use, and contract negotiations
• Clearing rights and finding rightsholders
(licensing organizations and rights clearinghouses)
• Getting releases signed in advance
• Net neutrality
• Google Book Settlement (Pro and Con)

If you found it on the Internet, is it public domain — meaning unprotected by copyright? No. And believing that material on a website or in an e-mail is freely copyable is one of many ways you can get yourself in trouble.

Copyright and fair use guidelines have changed since the advent of digital copies and the Internet, which in effect make the Internet a big copying machine. But copyright law still exists — copyright is, indeed, provided for in the U.S. constitution — and it is important to understand both how to protect your own rights and how not to violate those of others. In many ways, U.S. authors are not protected as well as authors in other countries; U.S. copyright follows the Berne convention in many ways, for example, except in protecting authors' "moral rights." As with other sections of this website, I will add more links and information as I find time. The copyright and fair use "quiz" that I provide when I teach a course on copyright basics is a good way to find out what you know and don't know about copyright. If I can figure out a way to incorporate a self-administered quiz in the framework of this Authors Guild website template, I will do so. In the meantime, click here for a copyright tutorial quiz from an excellent University of Texas website. Save yourself grief by mastering the basics of essential terms: copyright, licensing, fair use, public domain, Creative Commons, work-for-hire, and various forms of rights.

Writers: Be grateful to Dan Carlinsky, who years ago started teaching us that as copyright owners we own the rights to our works. We do not "sell" an article to a magazine but "license" it. Thanks, Dan, for starting an educational campaign we really needed. You in publishing: Pay attention. You, too, may be an author one day.
—— Pat McNees

---

Links on copyright, work for hire, licensing, fair use, and contract negotiations

Issues and explanations

Carmack's Guide to Copyright & Contracts: A Primer for Genealogists, Writers & Researchers by Sharon DeBartolo Carmack

Clearance & Copyright: Everything You Need to Know for Film and Television by Michael Donaldson

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (PDF, summary by U.S.Copyright Office) and Wikipedia explanation of same.

Electronic Rights. Lloyd L. Rich's publaw piece on publishing agreements (grant of rights and royalty clauses) seems to be aimed at publishers but raises at least one issue authors and agents should also be pondering: Are electronic rights sales income, from which author gets a royalty, or subsidiary rights, meaning the publisher and author split the income?

Ellen DeGeneres Sued for Copyright Infringement (Allie, 9-11-09), the plaintiffs "alleging the production has used 'well over one thousand sound recording owned or controlled by Plaintiffs' without permission" during the segment when, to popular music, she dances over to her desk after her opening monologue

Fair use, copyright, social media, and multimedia The Center for Social Media at American University has posted excellent resources, especially on best practices in fair use of various multimedia, including the following documents: • Statement of Best Practice in Fair Use of Dance-Related Materials • Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for OpenCourseWare • Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video • The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education • Fair Use in Media Literacy Education FAQ • Recut, Reframe, Recycle: Quoting Copyrighted Material in User-Generated Video • Frequently asked questions about fair use, based on these statements of practice • The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy • Unauthorized: The Copyright Conundrum in Participatory Video • The Good, The Bad and the Confusing: User-Generated Video Creators on Copyright • Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use • Success of the Statement of Best Practices • Digital Futures: A Need-to-Know Policy Guide for Independent Filmmakers.

Fair Use: What Every Writer Ought to Know (David L. Amkrau provides several scenarios illustrating what's likely to be infringement or fair use, guest-blogging on Joel Friedlander's TheBookDesigner.com)

Fan Fiction (an explanation) and Frequently asked questions (and answers) about fan fiction (Chilling Effects Clearinghouse)

Faulkner vs. National Geographic's Effect on Author's Rights in Electronic Transfer (Allison Hundstad, Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 2006). For those with the patience to read about copyright cases, analysis here starts on p. 9, which links the National Geographic case to the Google Book Search in terms of erosion of authors' rights, saying, "The Faulkner decision seems contrary to Congress’s purpose in creating the Copyright Act of 1976."

A Guide to Oral History and the Law by John A. Neuenschwander ((Oxford Oral History, with chapters on legal release agreements, subpoenas and FOIA requests, defamation, privacy issues, copyright, oral history on the Internet, institutional review boards (IRB), and duty to report a crime, with sample legal release forms, oral history evaluation guidelines (Oral History Association), and more.

Hands Off, It's Mine: The case for protecting original work from plagiarists and 'remixers' Jeremy Philips' WSJ article about Mark Helprin's Digital Barbarism: A Writer's Manifesto

Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA, Wikipedia entry about a conditional safe harbor for online service providers)

The Permission Seeker's Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Clearing Copyrights, Trademarks and Other Rights for Entertainment and Media Productions by Joy R. Butler, an entertainment and business attorney, on "using someone else's intellectual property for financial gain"

Random House Claims Digital Rights to Past Books (Jeffrey Trachtenberg, WSJ 12-12-09. If this link doesn't work, google the title and Nat Sobel and the full story may come up.) Random House claims that "the exclusive right to publish 'in book form' or 'in any and all editions'" includes digital rights. But Random House lost its 2002 suit to prevent RosettaBooks publish author-licensed e-book editions of works by William Styron, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and Robert Parker. Agent Nat Sobel says courts have agreed with the position that contracts 20 years ago didn't include electronic rights. This is a big issue.

Updating Copyright Laws to Address Concerns of Google's Cached Page Service (Hal Abelson, Ethics and Law on the Electronic Frontier)

WhichDraft.com (the blog) and WhichDraft.com (the forms), a self-directed legal resource (not legal advice!), for those who can't afford legal advice and can take advantage of this contract assembly web site (with multiple version tracking, comparison red lining, and online collaboration tools). We haven't tested it. Let us know if it works for you!

Writers Guild of America West Registry (WGAWRegistry.org), the official script and screenplay registration service of the Writers Guild of America, West and "the world's number one intellectual property service." Mail them your script,and when they get it they seal it in an envelope, record the date and time, and send you a numbered certificate, which gives you a dated record of your claim to authorship of a particular literary material--useful in court should there be any unauthorized use of the work. They seem to accept nonscreenplay manuscripts as well.

[Go Top]

---

Clearing rights and finding rightsholders

Clearing rights on music is not for sissies. There are probably separate copyrights for the music and lyrics, not to mention synchronization rights (to embed copyrighted music in an audio-visual production), public performance licenses, and so on. Try searching the ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and BMI song title databases by song, title, songwriter, or publisher for information on songs and songwriters registered with these performing rights societies (liner notes on music may tell you to which society a writer belongs). If you don't find a songwriter registered with ASCAP, check with BMI or SESAC.

Songs that are not represented by ASCAP may be represented by the National Music Publishers Association. BMI and SESAC handle some rights, and the Harry Fox Agency (the chief music licensing agency) collects royalties from recording rights for most publishers.

The Permission Seeker's Guide Through the Legal Jungle: Clearing Copyrights, Trademarks and Other Rights for Entertainment and Media Productions by Joy R. Butler, an entertainment and business attorney, on "using someone else's intellectual property for financial gain"

[Go Top]

---

Getting releases signed in advance

When you are taping an interview or performance, or taking photos, or otherwise recording images for later use in a publicaiton or production, be sure to read up first on which releases it makes sense to get in advance -- as you are conducting the interview or taking the picture, etc. I've provided links to some sample release forms below, but this is just to give you a sense of what is needed. You may want to consult a lawyer or at the very least a good professional organization or reference. (If I were doing photos, for example, I would consider joining ASMP, which does good rights education.) Among rights you do not want to violate: rights of privacy (using a nonpublic person's private information or images) or rights of publicity (using a person's image, voice, likeness, or name in a commercial endeavor); in some cases, rights of trademark; and of course claims of libel or slander (depending on what you record or photograph them doing), as well as claims of misuse of content.
[Go Top]

---

Authors Guild reports S&S rights grab:

Simon & Schuster has changed its standard contract language in an attempt to retain exclusive control of books even after they have gone out of print. Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major trade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which rights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print or if its sales are low.

The publisher is signaling that it will no longer include minimum sales requirements for a work to be considered in print. Simon & Schuster is apparently seeking nothing less than an exclusive grant of rights in perpetuity. Effectively, the publisher would co-own your copyright.

The new contract would allow Simon & Schuster to consider a book in print, and under its exclusive control, so long as it’s available in any form, including through its own in-house database -- even if no copies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.

Other major trade publishers are not seeking a similar perpetual grant of rights.

We urge you to consider your options carefully:

1. Remember that if you sign a contract with Simon & Schuster that includes this clause, they’ll say you’re wed to them. Your book will live and die with this particular conglomerate.

2. Ask your agent to explore other options. Other publishers are not seeking an irrevocable grant of rights.

3. If you have a manuscript that may be auctioned, consider asking your agent to exclude Simon & Schuster imprints unless they agree before the auction to use industry standard terms.

4. Let us know if other major publishers follow suit. Any coordination among publishers on this matter has serious legal implications.

Feel free to forward and post this message in its entirety.

The Authors Guild (www.authorsguild.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest organization of published book authors.

Links to other resources on Writers and Editors website

[Go Top]

---

NET NEUTRALITY

[Go Top]

---

Google Book Settlement (Pro and Con)

There are HUGE issues involved in this book settlement (see especially Mary Beth Peters on the dangers of changing copyright law about orphan works through litigation rather than legislation). This kind of issue may give you a headache, but you should read up on it if you have ever written and published a book. Deadline for filling out the Google Book Settlement Claim form (which is not user-friendly) has been extended. The court overseeing Authors Guild v. Google extended the time for authors and publishers to opt out of the settlement by four months, to September 4th (Judge Chin's order). The fairness hearing will be on October 7th. Check out Kristine Smith's instructions for filling out the form (link below). See also links to stories about Orphan Works legislation.

The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers support the agreement. Among those who oppose it are Mary Beth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, calls the settlement "a compulsory license for the benefit of one company," and believes it's the wrong way to go about handling the "orphan works" issue. Orphan works are copyrighted works for whom the rights-holders cannot be identified or located -- the very rights-holders who are also unlikely to come forward and opt out of the settlement. As Brewster Kahle writes, summing up objections of others: "Google would get an explicit, perpetual license to scan and sell access to these in-copyright but out-of-print orphans, which make up an estimated 50 to 70 percent of books published after 1923. No other provider of digital books would enjoy the same legal protection.... We need to focus on legislation to address works that are caught in copyright limbo. And we need to stop monopolies from forming so that we can create vibrant publishing environments."

"In the short run," concludes intellectual property expert Pamela Samuelson, "the Google Book Search settlement will unquestionably bring about greater access to books collected by major research libraries over the years. But it is very worrisome that this agreement, which was negotiated in secret by Google and a few lawyers working for the Authors Guild and AAP (who will, by the way, get up to $45.5 million in fees for their work on the settlement—more than all of the authors combined!), will create two complementary monopolies with exclusive rights over a research corpus of this magnitude. Monopolies are prone to engage in many abuses.

"The Book Search agreement is not really a settlement of a dispute over whether scanning books to index them is fair use. It is a major restructuring of the book industry’s future without meaningful government oversight. The market for digitized orphan books could be competitive, but will not be if this settlement is approved as is."
~ conclusion from Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement by Pamela Samuelson (O'Reilly Radar, 4-17-09)

The SFWA statement (see below) provides another clear outline of objections to the settlement. Those who object may want to sign Ursula LeGuin's Petition Letter to the Judge of the Google Book Settlement (to be sent to Judge Chin by January 28th, 2010, attached as an exhibit to the brief to be submitted to the court by the NWU, ASJA, and SFWA, who oppose the settlement).

One member of ASJA, encouraged to sign LeGuin's petition, responded: "I can't sign the petition because I do not agree. I feel the agreement is useful and worthwhile. It verifies that Google's preemptive scanning was wrong and prevents others from going about it the same way. It sets up a best practices standard and mechanism for the transition from print to digital publishing. I respect the people who oppose the settlement and I know they have put much thought and concern into the matter. But I have not found their arguments convincing."

So, should you have opted out? Here are a few of the last-minute aids to decision-making that ASJA posted for its members at the time of the January 2010 deadline for opting out:
• Here's where to opt out: Google Book Settlement (you no longer have to list all your works).
• GBS frequently asked questionshttp:/​/​www.googlebooksettlement.com/​help/​bin/​answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en
• Here is an explanation of your options by law professor Pamela Samuelson of UC Berkeley (who objected to the settlement, hoping to make the settlement deal fairer for academic authors).
• Here are some of the objection letters, posted on The Public Index.
• Here is a webcast of a Jan. 20 panel worksop in New York, which ASJA cosponsored with the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, the National Writers Union, and the Internet Society. Speakers are NYU Law professor James Grimmelmann, AG executive director Paul Aiken, Lynn Chu of Writers Reps LLC, with Ed Hasbrouck of NWU, Salley Shannon of ASJA, and Michael Capobianco of SFFW. Webcast (video and audio). This is DEFINITELY WORTH LISTENING TO:http:/​/​www.isoc-ny.org/​?p=1282 and podcast (audio only): http:/​/​punkcast.com/​1704/​1704/​1704_google_books.mp3.
• Here's a podcast of a similar event in Berkeley, with Pamela Samuelson, the law professor, and Ed Hasbrouck (NWU's book division co-chair):http:/​/​punkcast.com/​1704/​sf/​NWU-GBS-Berkeley-22JAN2010.mp3.

Here is the Justice Department's Feb. 4, 2010, statement: Despite Substantial Progress Made, Issues Remain. And here's the New York Times on the Justice Department's statement(Miguel Helft, 2-10-10): "In a 31-page filing that could influence a federal judge’s ruling on the settlement, the department said the new agreement was much improved from an earlier version. But it said the changes were not enough to placate concerns that the deal would grant Google a monopoly over millions of orphan works, meaning books whose right holders are unknown or cannot be found.
"The department also indicated that the revised agreement, like its predecessor, appeared to run afoul of authors’ copyrights and was too broad in scope.
"The revised agreement 'suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class-action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,' the department wrote."
Here's the Authors Guild response:( To RIAA or Not to RIAA, That was the Question), explaining why they didn't press litigation through to the end. AG cites the Pyrrhic court victories of the Recording Industry Association of America and the collapse of the music industry. "The ace in the hole for musicians is that they're not as dependent on copyright as book authors are. Music is a performing art: people buy tickets to see musicians. Writing is decidedly not a performing art. Nearly all authors give away their performances, through book tours and readings, and are glad for any audience they can find. For most authors, markets created by copyright are all we've got.Protecting authors' interests has always been our top priority: in this case a timely harnessing of Google was the best way to do it."

The following links are to explanations, arguments, etc., that have been available for some time:

• Authors Guild v. Google Settlement Resources Page (AG)

• Authors Guild Memo to Agents and Authors: William Morris's Google Memo Off Target. AG corrects both Morris memo and various myths circulating about the settlement. AG says that by staying in the settlement you aren't limited to the (quite favorable) royalty rate we've negotiated; you have the right to veto your publisher's decision to make your in-print book available in any way through the settlement; you have the right to block all displays of your out-of-print books, even if rights haven't reverted to you, even if your publisher wants to display the books; you have the right to have your work in Google's searchable database and display only snippets to users, blocking all other uses by Google; you have the right to change your mind (allow books you'd previously blocked to be displayed; block books you'd previously allowed to be displayed) at any time. Do read this one.

• Google Book Search Settlement Notice for Authors and Other Rightsholders. There's a page here for opting out of the settlement; the deadline for opting out is Sept. 4, 2009. The Final Fairness Hearing is Oct. 7, 2009. If you opt out, you may want to read this overview of the Google Books Partner Program, one alternative that allows you to be part of the Google action.

• Google Books Settlement FAQ

• Public Index (an open archive of documents filed with the court, including objections. Scott E. Gant's objection is particularly cogent.

• Justia (a second site of open access to documents filed on the case in Federal District court)

• The Laboratorium: New White Paper on Settlement Objections (clarified by James Grimmelman of New York University)

• ASJA joints groundswell of opposition to Google Book settlement

• The best bit of the Google Book Settlement (access to the scholar's treasure trove of out-of-print books), Nate Anderson, Ars Technica

• Bill Keller's Best Frenemy (John Koblin, The New York Observer, 5-19-09, on Google's Relationship with NY Times)

• A book grab by Google (Brewster Kahle, Washington Post, 5-19-09)

• Chilling effect of Google tracking your online book browsing (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

• Consumer Group Protests Google Settlement (Jim Milliot, PW, on Consumer Watchdog asking for delay on settlement because of orphan works issue and "most favored nation" clause)

• DOJ Inquiry Over Book Deal Puts Google on Notice (Sam Gustin, wired.com)

• European Opposition Mounts Against Google’s Selling Digitized Books (Kevin J. O'Brien and Eric Pfanner NYTimes, 8-23-09)

• European publishers target Google (Richard Waters, Ben Hall, Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson, Financial Times, 8-12-09, on strong European opposition to the settlement)

• The fight over the Google of All Libraries: A Wired.com FAQ (Ryan Singel)

• Google Books Settlement at Columbia, Part 1 (Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog,reporting 3-15-09 on a conference at Columbia University on The Google Books Settlement: What will it mean for the long term?)

• Google Books Settlement at Columbia, Part 2 (Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog)

• Google's Book Settlement Is a Ripoff for Authors: Why allow a single publisher to throw out a functioning copyright system? ? Lynn Chu's piece in the Wall Street Journal and a letter to the editor in response from Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild: The Google Book Deal Will Help, Not Hurt, Authors, which points out essential errors in Chu's piece. Anita Bartholomew, in turn, says the Authors Guild is providing false information.

• Google Books Settlement Conference: What Will It Mean for the Long Term? (recording of conference of experts held at The Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts available for viewing online)

• Google Book Deal in DOJ Sights (Erik Sherman, BNET, 6-11-09)

• Google Book Search settlement gives Google a virtual monopoly over literature (Cory Doctorow, Boingboing, 4-17-09)

• Google Faces Antitrust Investigation for Agreement to Digitize Millions of Books Online (transcript of Brewster Kahle, founder of Internet Archive, and Amy Goodman on Democracy Now Radio)

• Google Hopes to Open a Trove of Little-Seen Books (Motoko Rich, New York Times, 1-4-09, on Google's massive book scan and search project)

• Google Loses in French Copyright Case (Matthew Saltmarsh, NY Times, 12-18-09). Paris court rules against Google after publisher argues the industry is being exploited by Google's Book Search program, launched in 2005.

• The Google settlement, answering some of the questions about the windfall (Mike Shatzkin 4-18--09)

• Google settlement: What the Google Settlement Means for Authors and Publishers (Jonathan Kirsch, IBPA, 2-09)

• Google’s Plan for Out-of-Print Books Is Challenged (Miguel Helft, NY Times, 4-3-09)

• Google's tangled quest for a universal online library (Farhad Manjoo, Slate, 5-6-09, Your Search Returned 12 Million Books) -- calls on authors and publishers to grant Google's competitors the same rights they're giving Google, to create a truly vibrant market for books

• Google to cut the e-book middleman (Stan Schroeder, Mashable)

• How to fill out the Google Book Settlement claim form (PDF file of instructions by example, compliments of Kristine Smith, chair of the digital rights management committee of Novelists Inc, via NASW)

• How to fix the Google Book Search Settlement (PDF of James Grimmelmann's article in Journal of Internet Law)

• How to understand the objections just filed in the Google settlement (Anita Bartholomew, Ask the Editor, who writes:
"it’s as if Search Engine X infringed my copyright but not yours. But in settling the case, I made a deal with Search Engine X that it could have your future rights along with mine, in exchange for something else I wanted. Do you think it would be fair for you to be forced into such a deal? I don’t either. And, aside from a dozen other arguments that could be made, I hope that Judge Chin recognizes the inherent injustice of such a deal and stops it right there.")

• Internet Archive's objection to the Google Book Settlement ("give other companies that have scanned printed books the same copyright protection of orphan works that would be granted to Google in the settlement"), as reported in PW by Jim Milliot

• In Google book settlement, business trumps ideals (Juan Carlos Perez, IDG News Service, PC News)

• It’s Not Just Microsoft That’s Balking at Google’s Book Plans (Miguel Helft, NY Times, 4-4-09)

• Judge Issues 4-Month Delay in Google Book Search Settlement (Ryan Singel, Wired.com)

• Justice Department Seeks Information From Publishers on Pact to Make Text Available Online (WSJ, "Probe of Google Book Deal Heats Up," 6-10-09)

• Justice Dept. Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Books Deal *Miguel Helft, NY Times, 4-28-09)

• Kernochan Center Conference Scrutinizes the Google Books Settlement (in four parts)

• Lawyer and Author Adds His Objections to Settling the Google Book Lawsuit (Miguel Helft and Motoko Rich, NY Times, 8-18-09: Scott E. Gant "argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.")

• Libraries weigh in with worries on Google's book settlement (John Timmer, Ars Technica, 5-5-09)

• Lynn Chu: Agent Unplugged, Barbara DeMarco-Barrett's interview with this principal of Writers' Representatives LLC in the public part of the January 2010 issue of ASJA Monthly, is as helpful an analysis of what authors should know about their rights in the new electronic world as you are likely to read. It starts on pp. 6-7 of this PDF file,then jumps to p. 13. Print those pages out and mark them up! Her comments on the Google Book Settlement appear on p. 13, and her most valuable comments are on how book publishers are trying to becoming licensing agents for e-rights while taking a print publishers' share of income and without doing what a licensing agent ought to do, and since authors will very quickly learn how much they can do without the publishers, they are playing a dangerous game.

• **Mary Beth Peters, Register of Copyrights, on the Google Books Settlement (as reported by Mary Minow, LibraryLaw Blog, reporting 3-15-09 on a conference at Columbia University on The Google Books Settlement: What will it mean for the long term?)

• Open Book Alliance: Diverse Coalition Unites To Counter Google Book Settlement. "One of the most significant developments in the history of publishing could be co-opted by the settlement of a class action lawsuit that creates an unprecedented monopoly and price fixing cartel," write Peter Brantley and Gary Reback in Open the Book on the Open Book Alliance blog. They claim the ettlement is bad for consumers and book-lovers; is bad for libraries and schools; is bad for authors and small publishers; and sets a dangerous and unprecedented process precedent.

• Opposition to Google Books Settlement Jells (Miguel Helft, Bits, NY Times, 4-17-09)

• Opting out of the Google Book Settlement, Pro and Con (Slashdot)

• Pros and cons of the Google book deal (David Weinberger, KMWorld, covering content, document, and knowledge management)

• The Public Index (a site to study, discuss, browse, and annotate the settlement, section by section)

• PublishersLunch on the settlement, citing various foreign publishers and Amazon. Amazon's objection is that it is anticompetitive and amounts to price fixing; PL points out that Amazon fears a competitor with overhwelming power. "Among the objections repeated by many of the filers from abroad are assertions of problems in providing notice to class members around the world; failures to translate the entire settlement into other languages and inadequate translation of key legal terms such as "work for hire" for countries where such legal terms of art do not exist; errors in the books database that have made it difficult for rightsholders to identify all of their works; undue burdens in the process of having to opt out for historical lines of thousands of titles; and broadly incorrect classification of works in other languages as commercially unavailable."

• A Raw Deal for Libraries (Open Content Alliance--an interesting discussion)

• Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America statement on proposed Google book settlement. This is one of the easiest to understand statements against the settlement, covering issues of particular importance to fiction writers, and these: "the settlement makes no distinction, nor does it provide a mechanism for discovering the difference, between works deemed out-of-print and works in the public domain"; the AG and AAP "are poor representatives of the class as neither represents the types of work perhaps most significantly affected by the settlement, namely scholarly works"; the "'opt-out' mechanism proposed for the settlement contradicts the very foundation of copyright; the "the class does not reflect the interested parties, primarily the holders of copyrights in 'orphan works' where the rightsholder(s) cannot be identified or found."

• Some Fear Google’s Power in Digital Books (Noam Cohen, NY Times, Link by Link 2-1-09)

• Steinbeck Heirs Seek to Slow Google Books Settlement (Miguel Helft, NY Times, 4-27-09)

• What the Google settlement means for publishers and authors (Jonathan Kirsch, IBPA, 2-09)

• Where to get a better deal than the Google Settlement? From Google (Anita Bartholomew).

• Who's Messing With the Google Book Settlement? Hint: They're in Redmond, Washington (Steven Levy, Wired, 3-31-09), points out that Microsoft helped fund Grimmelmann.)

• Why the Google Settlement Matters to You (pdf file, Access, the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency)

• William Morris Agency Advises Clients to Say No to Google Settlement (Motoko rich, NY Times, 8-7-09). See William Morris's Google Memo Off Target on Authors Guild site.

Links to other resources on Writers and Editors website