1.  December 2004 announcement by Google of the Project  August 2005 announcement of the “opt-out” policy  September-October 2005 lawsuit  October 2008 Original Settlement  November 2009 Amended Settlement  February 2010 Final Fairness Hearing  March 2011 rejection of the Settlement  June 1 st 2011 status conference

2.  Non-profit entity to represent right holders  $34,5 million to fund launch and initial operations  In exchange, the fully participating and cooperating libraries and host sites were authorized “(a) to make Display Uses and Non- Display Uses of their Books and Inserts in GBS and other Google Products and Services, (b) each Fully Participating Library to use its Library Digital Copy and (c) each Host Site to make the Research Corpus available, all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, a Library- Registry Agreement or a Host Site-Registry Agreement

3.  Preview -- Allows users to freely preview a limited number of pages of in-copyright works to help users decide if the book is right for them to buy. (out-of-print books will be available for preview, and in-print books will not unless the rightsholder decides to activate previews through their participation in this settlement or through the Book Search Partner Program)  Consumer Purchase -- Offers individual users the ability to purchase access to view an entire in-copyright book online. The rightsholder may set the price or allow the price to be set by a Google algorithm.  Institutional Subscription -- For academic, corporate, and government organizations. Gives members of the institution full access to in- copyright, out-of-print books.  Free Public Library Access -- Authorizes free, full-text, online viewing of in-copyright, out-of-print books at designated computers in U.S. public and university libraries at no charge to the library or the reader, with added revenues to the rightsholders through per page printing fees.  Future Services -- The agreement allows for other services and uses, such as Print-On-Demand, Consumer Subscription and others, to be agreed in the future.

4.  Definition: works whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be located after diligent search.  3 problems: a)Google is accused of negligence regarding their copyright status b) Concerns have been raised regarding the limited breath of the class action representation of orphan works rights holders c)Antitrust issues

5.  1)to remove many foreign rights holders from the settlement class by redefining “book” to include only non-U.S. works registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or published in Canada, Australia, or the United Kingdom;  2) to remove the provision granting Google the right to any more favorable terms that the Registry negotiates with third-parties over the next 10 years  3)to explicitly recognize rights holders’ right to authorize, through the Registry or otherwise, any third party to use their copyrighted content “in any way, including ways provided for under this Amended Settlement Agreement”  4)to appoint an independent fiduciary to represent rights holders who have not claimed their works and authorize the fiduciary to spend part of the revenue derived from unclaimed works in searching for their rights holders  5) to extend the date for rights holders to request “removal” of their works from the books database to April 5, 2011 later extended to March 9, 2012  6)to allow rights holders to direct the Registry to make their books available at no charge pursuant to one of several standard licenses (e.g., Creative Commons licenses) or similar contractual permissions for use authorized by the Registry  7) to allow the Registry, in its discretion, to authorize more than one free terminal per public library and  8) to specify that Google will not provide personally identifiable information about users to the Registry “other than as required by law or valid legal process.”

6.  The “forward-looking business plans” contemplated by the settlement may be a good idea, but they were outside the scope of the settlement. This turns copyright law on its head”, William Cavanaugh Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Matters DOJ  modification in order to comply with Rule 23  The Parties have not demonstrated that the class Representatives adequately represent absent class members “This settlement has the effect or rewriting contracts”  Publishers and the Authors Guild do not have a right to enable a third party such as Google to use an author’s work without their permission  Antitrust laws  “Full scale commercial exploitation with essentially no limits whatsoever”, Amazon lawyer David Nimmer referred to the project as a vehicle for Google to profit from orphan works and boost the capabilities of its search engine

7. Copyright Liability-three target points  i) The creation of intermediate copies/Digitization of full text into the Google search Database  ii) Partial availability of scanned and stored works by user request-the so called “snippets”  iii) The distribution provision regarding the partner libraries-the digital library copy

8.  The four factor test  Purpose and character of the use  Nature of the copyrighted work  Amount and substantiality of the portion used  The effect of the use on the market  The Kelly v.Arriba case  The Perfect 10,Inc v.Amazon case

9.  How is it determined that a book is out-of-print if it is not available in the States but is widely available in Europe? (Great Britain)  “France is not going to be striped of what generations and generations have produced in the French language just because it isn’t capable of funding its own digitization project” (Nicolas Sarcozy)  “Competing digital libraries in Germany and throughout the world do not enjoy right to such authors or “orphan works” because Germany requires licensing of rights prior to the usage of orphan works. Such a sweeping de facto compulsory license would require legislative action in Germany” (Germany’s written intervention before the Court)

10.  A comprehensive index such as this can very difficultly be created requiring permission of all copyright owners.  The fair use doctrine should be used as an equitable rule of reason.  “There is no other way to create a market for out-of-print works”. They can be preserved and will come back to life.  Books will become more accessible. Libraries, schools, researchers will gain access to many more books.  Digitization will facilitate the conversion of books into Braille and audio formats increasing access for individuals with disabilities.  New audiences and sources of income for publishers and authors.  There should be diversity in your choice of retailers.  Consumers should be able to read books on any device.