1. Google Book Settlement NIH Public Access Act The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act FRPAA Institutional Mandates OA Day

2.  2005 - Class action lawsuit by authors and publishers groups against Google for copyright infringement  2008 - $125 million settlement reached  2009 - still requires federal court approval

3. Three classes of works  Books in copyright and currently in print  Books in copyright and not in print  Book in public domain, out of copyright Creation of Book Rights Registry to oversee collection of copyright fees on behalf of rights holders  63% of revenues go to rights holders, 37% to Google  Nonprofit group governed by board of publishers and authors participating in lawsuit  Administer royalties and negotiate rates  Help identify rights holders of orphan works

4. Licensing conditions – Google:  Cannot show any portion of books in print unless rights holder specifically allows  Can display up to 20% of books in copyright but not in print  Can show all of public domain books

5. Participation models  Libraries providing collections for scanning have access to at least some digitized collections  “Research Corpus” of scanned books hosted at several sites plus at Google  Individuals buy access to books for price set by Google and Book Rights Registry  Institutions buy subscription access based of FTE of users. Can also purchase discipline based collections  Public access service - not-for-profit higher education institutions and public libraries can have upon request one terminal on which access is free

6.  Future Schedule: Comment period for public extended to September 4, 2009 DOJ launched investigation in April to see if settlement breaks antitrust laws. Results due September, 2009 “Fairness Hearing” in Federal Court hearing in October 7, 2009

7. Concerns:  Changing copyright law via litigation versus legislation  Monopoly of information access  Orphan works limits  Power of the Registry  Copyright limits  Privacy issues

8. Additional information:  “Impact of the Google Book Settlement on Libraries”, Revised Version. Ricky Erway, Senior Program Officer, OCLC Research. http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-01.pdf http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-01.pdf  “Google and the Future of Books” by Robert Durnton, New York Times Review of Books, February 12, 2009. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281 http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22281  Law Library Blog: Google Books Settlement at Columbia, Parts I & II. http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books- settlement-at-columbia-part-1.html http://blog.librarylaw.com/librarylaw/2009/03/google-books- settlement-at-columbia-part-1.html  Google Book Settlement Agreement. http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/agreement- contents.html http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/agreement- contents.html

9. NIH Public Access Act Passed in law December 2007 Requires peer reviewed final manuscripts resulting from research funded by NIH to be deposited within 12 months of publication into PubMed Central, an open access literature repository Went into effect April 7, 2008 Made permanent law March 12, 2009

10. Opposing legislation: H.R. 801 – The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act  Re-introduced by Rep. John Conyers, Chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee in February  Would reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place  Would rewrite sections of copyright law

11. Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 (S.1373)  Reintroduced to Congress in June 2009 by Senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman  Requires creation and implementation of OA policies by US govt funding agencies with extramural research budgets greater that $100 million  Researchers funded must deposit final manuscript version of research when accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal into stable digital repository.  Requires free online public access to articles within six months of publication  Only published research; not classified research

12. Information sources on legislation:  Alliance for Taxpayer Access http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/  Open Congress (Sunlight Foundation) http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111- h801/show http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111- h801/show  Open Access Newsletter from Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/

13.  2008 was the year of mandates – NIH Public Access Act and Canadian Institutes of Health Research mandates went into effect Harvard FAS in February followed quickly by 13 other institutions or oa mandates or near mandates that year  2009 continues the trend another 20 institutional oa policies by end of June including MIT and University of Kansas FRPAA reintroduced ; approved funder policies in Canada, Australian, France, China, India & many other countries

14. Mandate or not mandate?  Funder versus institutional  Why do we need mandates?  Are stronger or weaker policies better?

16. From Alma Swan’s Optimal Scholarship Weblog, May 23, 2009 http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2009/05 /more-multiplying-mandates.html Data comes from ROARMAP http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2009/05 /more-multiplying-mandates.html

17. More Information:  ROARMAP – Registry of Open Access Repositories Material Archiving Policies http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/ http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/  Open Access Newsletter from Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/ http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/  Sherpa Juliet – Research funders’ open access policies http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/ http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet/  Blogs