Google Book Search Settlement Claim Forms Now Online

Was your book scanned by Google? Mine was. Claim forms from settlement now on line. Opt out deadline in May of this year. Claim deadline is next year.

For more information, see my Writer's Notebook post at: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Malcolm

Malcolm, how does one find out if their book was scanned? I have a Google account but I can't log in!

Malcolm,

If Lulu sent a pdf copy of your book to Google without your consent, how are Google to blame? Surely, Lulu gave permission and should be held to account for doing so.

Hi Marie,

Your book is only listed. It isn't part of the book search programme:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You can't do anything about that. Can you imagine the number of products on sale in the present recession that are no longer available to buy? There must be thousands listed all over the web.

The writer must give Lulu permission to send a book to Google.
What is the downside of have your book previewed on Google? I see it as a benefit.

Hi Marie,

This is an example of how out-of-print books remain online:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This book was first published in 1983 and has gone through three different publishers. On Amazon "Springer" is listed as the publisher but the first publisher was MTP Press (academic publishers) and Springer didn't publish the book until much later. The sales rank of over seven million isn't because a new book was sold but maybe a secondhand book was sold through Amazon.

The second edition of the book was published in 2006 by Elsevier (Churchill Livingston). The book has been updated with new chapters added and a new title:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The second edition has a new ISBN #, while the first edition retains the ISBN that was used by the first three publishers.

I agree with Dick, Shelagh, you are the copyright holder. Lulu is essentially working as a printer and distributor and never held the copyright. POD books are always like this since iUniverse, PA, Lulu and the others are not serving as publishers in the traditional sense. More and more authors, even in mainstream, are the copyright holders these days.

Brew, I have a Google account as well, mainly for use on Blogger. That number isn't the one they want on the site. You need to create an account on that site maintained by Rust, Inc. There you can find out if your book is included. If not, no worries. If so, you can opt out of the settlement or file a claim by the deadline next year.

Also, when the settlement was announced last year, I posted something here about it and I think I included a link one could use to find out whether one's book had been scanned. That link can probably also be found by doing to the link in yesterday's blog post and poking around there until you find references to last year's settlement. There should be a link in that initial settlement info where one can find or not find one's book on the list.

Malcolm

Malcolm,

I still don't see how Google are to blame for using a file sent to them by Lulu. If an author did not give permission and the file was sent, surely Lulu is breaching copright by sending the file.

In future, will Google contact authors to check that files sent to them through Lulu have permission from those authors?

I for one think as Dick that Google book search is a boon for us struggling writers.

I think the Sewers are just looking for a big manhole.

Sewers? Suers?

deleted by merri

Once again, Lulu has a spot for each book called "Enable Google Book Search." If the writer doe not click there, the book will not go to Google.

As a result of the litigation, Google will maintain a giant database that's available online, but with compensation provisions for authors.

I agree that it will help authors, but see no point in allowing Google to violate fair use copyright rules.

The search feature has been especially useful to me in finding out-of-copyright books that are either hard to find or haven't been available for years.

Malcolm

P.S. Shelagh, if you were to send me a copy of a manuscript and I posted it on the Internet, it wouldn't be your fault that I chose to violate copyright laws. I know better than to do that anyway, and Google's attorneys also should have known it. Having a copy of something isn't construed anywhere as authorisation to reproduce and sell it.

Shelagh,
yes it is Suers, but I chose to use Sewers since that's what I think about all the suing that takes place.

Malcolm,

If I own the copyright of the manuscript I sent to you then you are legally bound to not use that work in any way without my permission. If I were to send to you a manuscript that I did not own and lead you to believe that the owner of the copyright had granted you permission to use that work, who is breaching copyright? You or me?

When authors on Lulu click a link to allow a pdf file to be added to Google's book search programme, there is no interaction between Google and the author.

When the Power of Persuasion was added to the programme by Lulu, the front cover sent by Lulu was too small and enlarged appears blurred and unattractive:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have an account with the book search programme and contacted Google to ask if I could upload a cover to replace the one sent by Lulu. They said no, I had to contact Lulu, which I did but, as you can see, the cover has not been replaced.

Covers are very important for generating sales, consequently, I did not agree to send the pdf file of Forever Friends through Lulu. If the book was going to be added, I would do it through my account.

However, recently, Lulu has given blanket permission for all books sent for distribution to be added to Amazon's book search feature, "Look Inside" without permission from the copyright holders. Twice the "Look Inside" feature has been added to Forever Friends on Amazon and, twice, I have battled with and won the fight to remove the feature.

I can see the advantage of the programme but that is negated when Amazon introduce mistakes that are not in the book. Italic print does not convert to their excerpts taken from the book and are corrected by a team of computer operators with low language skills. This is an example of the type of mistakes that are likely to decrease rather than increase sales. Result of a search on Amazon for "Forever Friends Shelagh Watkins":
1.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Forever Friends by Shelagh Watkins (Paperback - Sep 21, 2008)
Buy new: $9.99
3 Used & new from $9.99
In Stock
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] (7)

Excerpt - Front Matter: "... Shelagh Watkins, the editor of Forever Friends, is the administrator of PublisbedAutbors. ..."Surprise me! See a random page in this book.

"PublisbedAutbors" should be PublishedAuthors. The quote taken from the book, inside the book, is in italic print and therefore had to be retyped in. These mistakes are actually detrimental not helpful.

Shelagh,

Well, that Lulu programme might be a little different.

As for you giving me a manuscript and telling me the owner said I could publish it, I sure as heck wouldn't do it without written permission from the author. I don't have the right to reproduce and sell anything on hearsay or even a verbal agreement. If the book became a bestseller, I doubt the author would sit back and let me earn all that money from his/her work without considering a way to get the matter into court.

After teaching college-level copyright law, I'm going to be the last one to take chances. That's one reason I worry about people copying and pasting copyrighted articles, poems and songs into posts on this forum. It's not legal any more than what Google was doing without written permission (and they may have had it with books from Lulu).

Malcolm

Hi Malcolm,

None of what you said explains if Google are breaching copyright or not. I don't have any complaints about Google but I do have several against Lulu and Amazon.

Having clicked on a link to allow Lulu to send a pdf file to Google, I lost all control over it. Any mistakes made by Google can only be changed upon request from Lulu. I cannot do anything at all because I did not send the pdf file to Google; Lulu did and only Lulu can request changes. I find this unsatisfactory.

I did not give permission for a pdf file of Forever Friends to be sent to Amazon and, because I did not sign up to Amazon for the "Look Inside" feature, I cannot request any changes to mistakes made. In other words, I lost control over how that pdf file is used on Amazon. I find this totally unacceptable. Lulu do not have the right to send any pdf files to Amazon, but they have assumed the right and sent thousands of pdf files to be used by Amazon in their "Search Inside" feature without requesting permission from the copyright holders, who are powerless to ask for mistakes to be corrected because they are not signed up to Amazon for this particular feature and have no control over how their own work is displayed on Amazon.

" I find this totally unacceptable. Lulu do not have the right to send any pdf files to Amazon, but they have assumed the right and sent thousands of pdf files to be used by Amazon in their "Search Inside" feature without requesting permission from the copyright holders, who are powerless to ask for mistakes to be corrected because they are not signed up to Amazon for this particular feature and have no control over how their own work is displayed on Amazon."

All of this thread is disturbing. I had just about decided on Lulu and now have extreme doubts. Is anything being done about the above Lulu/Amazon breach of copyright?

I think that it's a good thing because it gives readers the chance to look inside the book they are thinking of buying as if they were in a book shop. Yes Lulu should ask their authors if they wish for this to happen but I for one don't have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with the feature itself and I was happy with the book I sent to Google:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The book looks very attractive and is far superior to this sent by Lulu:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As for the pdf being sent to Amazon without my permission, I find that totally unacceptable. That was a breach of copyright.

I don't want to be on the losing end of a disagreement, but I'm very pleased with Lulu sending books to Google, which I told them to do by hitting the "enable Google bok search" key, and that they also sent them to Amazon's "Look Inside" feature. I can see no downside to either program. As for a variation in quality, that must be the fault of Google because Lulu would have sent the exact same material as a writer would send.

I agree Dick, with the price being as low as it is with Lulu at the moment I think its a bargain. Then to add such an easy way to get your book on google book search is a blessing. Though I do understand why some may find send things without permission might be wrong. As the old saying goes you can make some people happy some of the time but you can't make all the people happy at the same time. In the end some will love the feature, others will hate.

Dick Stodghill wrote:

As for a variation in quality, that must be the fault of Google because Lulu would have sent the exact same material as a writer would send.

No, Dick, no fault on Google's side. Lulu did not send the correct cover file. This is the cover of The Power of Persuasion on Lulu.com and it was not sent to Google:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Lulu sent a thumbnail of the cover that detracts from the book. Although I have added a link to Mr. Planemaker's Flying Machine to my website for visitors to look inside the book on Google, I haven't added a link to The Power of Persuasion because it is so bad.

I know your experience with Lulu has been all good and that is as it should be but my experience has been entirely different.