Google-UC contract fuels copyright brawl

The book-scanning contract between Google Inc. and the University of California has made the Association of American Publishers (AAP) even more distressed over Google's project to digitize millions of volumes from libraries.

Last year, the AAP sued Google on behalf of five of its members -- The McGraw-Hill Companies, Pearson Education, Penguin Group USA, Simon & Schuster and John Wiley & Sons -- alleging massive copyright infringement in the Google Books Library Project.

But the University of California contract, released publicly two weeks ago, has the AAP even more dismayed than before, said Allan Adler, the AAP's vice president of legal and government affairs.

In particular, the University of California agreement contains eyebrow-raising provisions that don't appear in the Google Books Library Project contract with the University of Michigan, which is also available publicly, Adler said.

"Some aspects of the University of California contract that differ from the University of Michigan contract raise additional questions both about Google's liability and the possible liability of the universities," Adler said.

Adler points to the University of California contract's definition of university library patron as "all individuals and organizations that the University Libraries serve from their Web sites." The contract lets the university use its digital copies for services offered to its patrons, subject to copyright law.

Adler finds that the "patron" definition seems broad and could include the general public, not just faculty, students and staff. The contract also allows the university "to recover copying costs" incurred in providing services to patrons. "What's the extent of copying that this agreement would permit the University of California library patrons to engage in?" Adler wonders.

Jennifer Colvin, a University of California spokeswoman, said that some online library services are available to the general public and others are limited to university community members. She stressed that the university hasn't decided how it will use its digital copies, but that the uses will comply with copyright law.

Adler also noted that the contract, unlike the Michigan agreement, lets the University of California share up to 10 percent of its Google-provided digitized book collection with other libraries and educational institutions for noncommercial purposes. "There's a much tighter set of restrictions on what the University of Michigan can do with the digital copies it receives from Google," Adler said. The University of California seems to have negotiated access for its copies to a more broadly defined universe of so-called patrons, he said.

Asked about the differences between the two university contracts, a Google spokeswoman said that each agreement is individually crafted to meet each partner's requirements. She declined to explain why the sharing limit is set at 10 percent.

Adler also saw indications in the University of California contract that Google may have grown more concerned and aware of potential liabilities since late 2004, when it signed the Michigan contract.