News

French publisher demands damages from Google

28.09.09 | Barbara Casassus

French group La Martinière has become the first publisher worldwide to sue Google in court, demanding €15m (£13.8m) in damages for copyrighted books digitised by the search engine without permission.

The publisher is also seeking a penalty of €100,000 per day, and €3m for prejudice to its image. The trial opened in France on 24th September and a ruling is expected by 18th December at the latest.

La Martinière, which is backed by French publishers association Syndicat National de l’Edition (SNE) and the French Writers Union, Syndicat des Gens de Lettres, (SGDL) estimates that the search engine has illegally digitised between 6,000 and 9,000 of its titles.

According to press reports, Google lawyer Alexandra Neri argued that the French court was not competent to rule on the case, since the books are digitised in the United States.

"What Google does is absolutely legal," she was quoted as saying. "We have never denied that Seuil holds the copyright on printed works, but it has never proved that it holds the right on digital versions of the works."

But La Martinère’s lawyer, Yann Colin, argued that the prejudice to his client is irreversible. "Digitising is reproduction. Once it is digitised, you can’t undo it," Reuters reported him as saying.

Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say

By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended

By Publisher, London

Neri's quote is ridiculous. If Seuil owns the copyright, it owns the copyright - digitising is reproduction, as Yann Colin states.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Michael W. Perry

"What Google does is absolutely legal," says Google lawyer Alexandra Neri. "We have never denied that Seuil holds the copyright on printed works, but it has never proved that it holds the right on digital versions of the works."

That's a bit like a movie maker, circa 1900, arguing that anyone can make a movie based on a copyrighted book without getting permission. Digital copies, whether they're searchable databases displaying snippets or actual displays of significant portions of the book are derivatives in the same sense that a movie is, so permission is required. Given the newness of the technology, no U.S. court may have ruled that way yet, but if Google thinks it's a sure thing, they're welcome to take it to a court and see what happens. Given the growing popularity of commercial digital publication (a la Kindle), there's no way a court is going to toss out the digital copyright merely because a book is out of print.

It is true that the author may not have formally assigned digital rights to the La Martinere, a traditional print publisher, digital rights being a rather new thing. But one thing is very, very, very certain, and that's that the author never assigned those rights to Google. It's also true that Google derived its digital copy from La Martinere's printed copy, giving the latter more than enough grounds to sue.

--Michael W. Perry, Seattle

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Kelli

How is digitizing it (as Google wants to do) any different than photocopying? All the punctuation, title contents, misspellings, etc. will be the same. It's just photocopying in a different medium, which isn't allowed, as far as I understand.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Dave Morris

Isn't copyright held on the form of a work, ie intellectual property, rather than on a specific instantiation of that work, eg the printed version?

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By albert cosgrove

When are you going to print the truth on who really assassinated JFK in Dallas 1963 because it sure as hell wasn,t Lee Oswald. She not only shot JFK from less than three meters she also killed Lee Oswald in the Dallas Police HQ has her own TV like Walter Kronkite also a conspirator. The French people deserve the truth when are you going to print it. The Book is already Written.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Publisher, London

Neri's quote is ridiculous. If Seuil owns the copyright, it owns the copyright - digitising is reproduction, as Yann Colin states.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Michael W. Perry

"What Google does is absolutely legal," says Google lawyer Alexandra Neri. "We have never denied that Seuil holds the copyright on printed works, but it has never proved that it holds the right on digital versions of the works."

That's a bit like a movie maker, circa 1900, arguing that anyone can make a movie based on a copyrighted book without getting permission. Digital copies, whether they're searchable databases displaying snippets or actual displays of significant portions of the book are derivatives in the same sense that a movie is, so permission is required. Given the newness of the technology, no U.S. court may have ruled that way yet, but if Google thinks it's a sure thing, they're welcome to take it to a court and see what happens. Given the growing popularity of commercial digital publication (a la Kindle), there's no way a court is going to toss out the digital copyright merely because a book is out of print.

It is true that the author may not have formally assigned digital rights to the La Martinere, a traditional print publisher, digital rights being a rather new thing. But one thing is very, very, very certain, and that's that the author never assigned those rights to Google. It's also true that Google derived its digital copy from La Martinere's printed copy, giving the latter more than enough grounds to sue.

--Michael W. Perry, Seattle

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Kelli

How is digitizing it (as Google wants to do) any different than photocopying? All the punctuation, title contents, misspellings, etc. will be the same. It's just photocopying in a different medium, which isn't allowed, as far as I understand.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By Dave Morris

Isn't copyright held on the form of a work, ie intellectual property, rather than on a specific instantiation of that work, eg the printed version?

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55
By albert cosgrove

When are you going to print the truth on who really assassinated JFK in Dallas 1963 because it sure as hell wasn,t Lee Oswald. She not only shot JFK from less than three meters she also killed Lee Oswald in the Dallas Police HQ has her own TV like Walter Kronkite also a conspirator. The French people deserve the truth when are you going to print it. The Book is already Written.

Thu, 27/01/2011 - 11:55

Latest Jobs

eProduct Manager (Maternity Cover)
eProduct Manager (Maternity Cover)...
Available on request
International Sales Executive
We have an exciting opportunity to...
Available on request
Education Co-ordinator
Hachette Children’s Books, part...
Competitive
 

TheBookseller