You are viewing your 1 free article this month. Login to read more articles.
Publishers Association chief executive Simon Juden has said Europe does not need to change its copyright laws governing so-called "orphan works"—books where no rights-holder can be traced.
Juden could be about to face what would amount to the fifth major review of copyright law since he joined the PA two and a half years ago, after the two relevant European commissioners, who this week hosted an inquiry into the Google Settlement, called on Europe to "turn over a new e-leaf on digital books and copyright", or risk harming the continent's culture.
The two commissioners advocated a solution which would offer every citizen access to "books that today lie hidden on dusty shelves", something Google is close to realising in the US after it digitised millions of books without prior permission.
Juden said there was "sufficient infrastructure [around orphan works] in Europe", citing reproduction rights organisations and the Arrow Project, launched last December, which is seeking to clarify the status of orphan works.
Speaking at the hearing, Juden played down the role Google could have in fulfilling the commissioners' requirements: "We don't need a settlement to allow reasonable access to orphan works. Google is a partner for many publishers and may certainly have a role to play alongside other service providers. But any EU solution must create an open market—this will bring best value to the consumer."
Earlier in the week Google moved to quell fears over the deal by stating that it would regard books in print in Europe as "commercially available" under the settlement, moving the onus back on Google rather than the rights-holder. It also acceded to demands to have European representation on the Book Rights Registry.
Nevertheless, the New York court that will decide the fate of the Google Settlement faced a barrage of last-minute objections to the settlement itself, including submissions from Microsoft, Yahoo, France, and Hachette Livre.
Hachette, supported by its UK subsidiary, argued that the proposals would have "significant unfair and inequitable effects
. . . on all non-US authors and publishers". Microsoft said: "monopolisation [was] the wrong means to carry out the worthy goal of digitising and increasing the accessibility of books".