U of Michigan and Amazon To Offer 400,000 OOP Books 160
eldavojohn writes "Four hundred thousand rare, out of print books may soon be available for purchase ranging anywhere from $10 to $45 apiece. The article lists a rare Florence Nightingale book on Nursing which normally sells for thousands due to its rarity. The [University of Michigan] librarian, Mr. Courant said, 'The agreement enables us to increase access to public domain books and other publications that have been digitised. We are very excited to be offering this service as a new way to increase access to the rich collections of the university library.' The University of Michigan has a library where Google is scanning rare books and was the aim of heavy criticism. (Some of the Google-scanned books are to be sold on Amazon.) How the authors guild and publishers react to Amazon's Surge offering softcover reprints of out of print books remains to be seen."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would the authors' guild care? (Score:2, Informative)
They can't sell reprints unless they are public domain. How many people who published works before 1929 are still alive?
Not all of these books are in the public domain. While I do not have a list of them, the article said only some of them are in the public domain. There are plenty of non-public domain books that are no longer in print and difficult if not impossible to get a hold of even if you have money to pay for them. That was why Google paid the Authors Guild and publishers $125 million (see the article I linked that is related to this story).
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:1, Informative)
At least in the US, Project Gutenberg has establish a pretty long standing precedent that scans do NOT constitute a new copyright. So, in your example, the scan docs are as public domain as the original book and if you get a copy of it, you have permissions to do whatever you want with it.
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:4, Informative)
I am curious about the right to copy a rare public-domain book. Let's say someone owns the only copy of a book. They do not allow anyone else to scan it. But, they do scan it themselves.
Do they own the "scan". Can they copyright that?
yes
Could they sue me for copying their scanned version?
Yes
Suppose they ran it through some OCR. Then they changed the layout but not the text. Now could they use that as a basis from stopping me from copying it? It's their font/layout configuration after all.
Yes
I suppose further, I could run their scanned work through my own OCR, and since the text itself is not copyrighted, I could then distribute the text.
no because you used their work without permission An example of this is taking a photo of a work in the public domain. If it is your photo you can reproduce it and use it all you want. If it is someone else's photo you are SOL if you do not have rights to work with their photo.
Sounds silly and convoluted, but this is the kind of argument we can expect to see as information becomes easy to control and manipulate. And as more and more public domain items come into the light, there will be more and more "stake holders" trying to protect their cash cows.
you could however do it anyways and then they would have to prove that you used their copies to create your work. the problem is if it is a one of a kind and they can show you had access to it once again you are SOL.
Already done (Score:2, Informative)
This has already been done. There are several websites which do the same thing - reprint public domain content on the fly:
http://bibliolife.com/ [bibliolife.com]
http://www.kessinger.net/ [kessinger.net]
http://www.publicdomainreprints.org [publicdomainreprints.org]
Interesting enough, BiblioLife was founded by the same people who founded BookSurge.
Re:Public domain trampled on again (Score:5, Informative)
This is a dangerous idea, because it will either cost Amazon money since they won't be able to maintain their business model on expired works ...
You are extremely misguided in your analysis of this situation. To address your immediate concerns, the books have been scanned digitally. What's done is done. Amazon's Surge process is print on demand. So there's no loss of anything right now. Not one sale could be made and little cash would be lost as no books would be printed. Granted, these soft cover bindings aren't the nicest books, they're books. And you're also overlooking the fact that now libraries can have public domain books in physical copy on the cheap. Let's look at the FAQ [umich.edu]:
Q. What is provided for in the agreement with BookSurge, part of the Amazon group of companies?
The University of Michigan will make thousands of books -- some rare and one-of-a-kind -- available on Amazon.com as reprints on demand. BookSurge will use the digital copies of the original works from the U-M Library collection to create a soft-cover reprint and mail it to customers.
Q. How long does the agreement run?
The initial agreement is for two years.
Q. Is this an exclusive agreement?
No. The agreement does not limit the U-M to offering reprints only on Amazon. In the coming year, the university will be extending the program and working with other potential printing and distribution partners.
Q. How will this work?
The public will be able to search for a title through the U-M Library or on Amazon.com. On the U-M Library Web site, for instance, there will be a "buy this book" link added that will allow users to order a reprint. Anyone with a link to the Internet and a credit card will be able to order reprints.
Q. When will these additional titles be available for purchase?
We expect to have the books available for reprint later this summer. We'll continue to add titles as books are digitized for the next several years.
Q. Where are the original books?
All of the titles offered for reprint are books or other publications that exist in the U-M Library collections. Some are very rare. Some are deteriorating badly and cannot safely be handled. All are being carefully preserved.
Q. Who will buy these reprints?
We think there will be wide interest in public access to these books. History enthusiasts, scholars, students, teachers and other libraries are among those we believe will make use of this new, low-cost reprint service.
Q. What will the reprints cost?
We estimate that costs will range from as little as $10 to about $45 for larger and longer books. Books will be mailed directly to customers.
Q. Who sets the price?
The U-M determines the list price of each book, which will be based on the length and size of the book. Amazon may discount that price, but may not charge more than the list price.
Q. Will the U-M make money on the reprints?
Yes, but that is not the primary goal. We want to make these books more available to the public and to scholars and this agreement accomplishes that. The books will be priced to cover the costs of production and a small profit. The university will use its proceeds to cover the cost of production and some infrastructure costs related to the digitization effort.
Q. Why would Google agree to sales on Amazon?
The university has an agreement with Google to do what it does best: Create digital copies of these books. Now the university has an agreement with a unit of Amazon to do what it does best: Sell books and other items very efficiently on the Internet. We think both are great partnerships and the companies
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:4, Informative)
You may disagree all you want to but you would still be wrong. I was involved in a lawsuit 3 years ago that says otherwise. Scans are considered original works and are copywritable.
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OOPs (Score:3, Informative)
Why do they need to enter into an agreement with anybody to publish (in print or digitally) books in the public domain?
Because Amazon doesn't have the books and presumably the U of Michigan library doesn't want to be in the business of reproducing (either physically or electronically) the books that they have on their shelves.
Just because you happen to have a rare out of print book on shelf in your living room doesn't entitle me to come barging in your front door with my photocopier or scanner to make myself a copy, nor does it obligate you to hand out copies to everybody who walks by. However, we could enter into an agreement where you let me come into your living room at a convenient time and make a copy of your rare out of print book at my own expense. We could not legally enter into that agreement regarding the latest bestseller that you picked bought yesterday because copyright law prohibits me from copying it and you from inviting me in to copy it.
Juris-whose-diction? (Score:4, Informative)
Do they own the "scan". Can they copyright that?
yes
Under what law in what jurisdiction? In the United States, Bridgeman v. Corel [wikipedia.org] excludes photocopies of an uncopyrighted work from copyright because they lack originality.
Juris-whose-diction? (Score:3, Informative)
I was involved a few years ago with a rather stupid lawsuit where a publisher got ahold of a database containing tens of thousands of scanned pages of documents well into the public domain. (original documents were from the 17th and 18th century) They argued that they could publish the documents as they were in the public domain. The Owner of the scans argued that they were reproducing copyrighted work. The courts agreed with the owners of the original scans.
The United States has a 1991 Supreme Court case to the contrary: Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service [wikipedia.org]. Which country are you talking about?
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:3, Informative)
The decision turned on the collection issue. The court ruled that since entire works were scanned that they constituted a collection and reproduction of said collection was a copyright infringement.
Re:Technically in the Public Domain But, (Score:3, Informative)
You say here [slashdot.org] the court ruled that the works in question constituted a copyrighted collection. That doesn't mean the individual scans are protected by copyright, but that the collection itself is so protected. From your own description of the case, your assertion that copying the scans or text of public domain works constitutes copyright infringement remains altogether unsupported.