Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Article on Google Book Search Settlement

May 8, 2009/in /by Veronika Gaertner
image_pdfimage_print

Yesterday’s issue of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) contains an interesting article on the Google Book Search Settlement written by Prof. Burkhard Hess:

The settlement concerns a class action lawsuit between Google and – as plaintiffs – the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers as well as individual authors and publishers about books scanned for the Google Book Search without the authors’ consent. Basically, the proposal for the settlement provides on the one side the payment of compensation for class members and the establishment of a registry of rights to books while it contains on the other side an authorisation of Google to scan books, maintain an electronic database and to make worldwide commercial uses of books.

The problematic issue the present article is dealing with, is the opt-out-mechanism provided by the settlement: Authors who do not object within the opt-out deadline (which has been extended until 4 September 2009) will be bound by the settlement. Thus, authors are “compelled” to take action if they don’t want to be bound by the settlement. In other words – the opt-out mechanism is meant to substitute the authors’ consent in the digitalisation and marketing of their books.

Hess points out in his article that the strategy of an opt-out mechanism might involve difficulties in view of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works since this Convention guarantees a certain minimum standard of protection: In his article, Hess raises doubts whether the opt-out mechanism – which would lead to an automatic deprivation of the authors’ copyright – meets the requirements of this protection standard.

With regard to the fairness hearing – which will take place in New York on 3 September – Hess suggests that it is not only the concerned authors who should intervene – rather he suggests that also the German Federal Government could do so, as an amicus curiae, in order to submit the reservations against the settlement.

The article titled “Es wird Zeit, dass die Bundesregierung eingreift” can be found (in German) also online on the website of the FAZ.

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Veronika Gaertner https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Veronika Gaertner2009-05-08 04:30:272009-05-08 04:30:27Article on Google Book Search Settlement

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
Link to: China Antitrust Gets Global Link to: China Antitrust Gets Global China Antitrust Gets Global Link to: West Tankers and Indian Courts Link to: West Tankers and Indian Courts West Tankers and Indian Courts
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top