1. A work that has gone out of print is not an "orphan work." That term refers specifically to works for which the original creator is not named or cannot be found. In most cases, the author and publisher information to a published work can be found on the title, credit and legal pages of a given work. If there are names on those pages, it's not an orphan work.
2. "Out of print" merely means that a publisher has decided that the sales of a work do not create enough profit after the costs of production and distribution are taken out. It does not mean the work, or the rights to that work, have ceased to exist. Books, stories and albums often go through various editions through different publishers. This allows artists and writers to make a living from their work.
3. Googlebooks posts only a portion of the books in their "stock." To obtain a download of the whole book, a customer pays Google for that download.
Until the court case, Google was not sharing that profit with the publishers or authors of the work they were selling.
Thanks to the court decision, they must do so now. To get that money, however, an author or publisher must jump through complicated, time-consuming hoops. I know this. I did it myself. It was not easy, and doing so blew the better part of my day. I should not have to do that in order to retain rights to work that was already mine to begin with.
As an extra kicker, Google "decided" that authors or publishers who do not jump through those hoops have voluntarily given up their rights to that work. In short, if you don't fight for it, they own it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Final Clarifications About "Orphan Works," OOP, and Googlebooks
1. A work that has gone out of print is not an "orphan work." That term refers specifically to works for which the original creator is not named or cannot be found. In most cases, the author and publisher information to a published work can be found on the title, credit and legal pages of a given work. If there are names on those pages, it's not an orphan work.
2. "Out of print" merely means that a publisher has decided that the sales of a work do not create enough profit after the costs of production and distribution are taken out. It does not mean the work, or the rights to that work, have ceased to exist. Books, stories and albums often go through various editions through different publishers. This allows artists and writers to make a living from their work.
3. Googlebooks posts only a portion of the books in their "stock." To obtain a download of the whole book, a customer pays Google for that download.
Until the court case, Google was not sharing that profit with the publishers or authors of the work they were selling.
Thanks to the court decision, they must do so now. To get that money, however, an author or publisher must jump through complicated, time-consuming hoops. I know this. I did it myself. It was not easy, and doing so blew the better part of my day. I should not have to do that in order to retain rights to work that was already mine to begin with.
As an extra kicker, Google "decided" that authors or publishers who do not jump through those hoops have voluntarily given up their rights to that work. In short, if you don't fight for it, they own it.
Oh. Hell. No.
Hence, the continuing court battle.
Just wanted to clarify those things.
Going to do work now.
Thanks!