We’ve already heard queries about, or objections to, Google’s proposed online book copyright deal from the Department of Justice, Amazon, the French and German governments, the New York Library Association, and the European Union. Now you can add five states and the U.S. Copyright Office to that list.

For those who haven’t been following the saga, a brief summary: Google was sued by author and publishing groups for scanning books without permission. The two sides have reached a settlement covering various copyright points, which is awaiting approval by a court. Critics of the deal object to a section giving Google the rights to orphan books: those which are in copyright but where the copyright holder can’t be identified or traced.

The latest opposition comes from the attorneys general of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Those from Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Washington say the system, which would allow a newly created copyright registry to keep royalty payments due to the original copyright holders of orphan books would violate state laws covering the seizure of unclaimed property.

The Missouri attorney general noted that in his state, author groups were already required to deposit unclaimed royalties with the state treasurer. His Connecticut counterpart raised similar objections as well as noting that the deal itself could breach antitrust rules.

The court considering the settlement, which has received more than 400 submissions about the case, is set to hold a formal hearing on Oct. 7.

As well as the ongoing court investigation into whether to approve the deal, the House of Representatives is holding its own hearing into the digital books market. The head of the U.S. Copyright Office, Marybeth Peters, submitted written evidence to the hearing this week.

She argued that allowing Google rights over copyrighted books simply because the authors or publishers couldn’t be traced would fundamentally change U.S. copyright policy; while she neither backed nor attacked such a change, she insisted such a decision must only be made by Congress.

Related:

Entry was posted on Friday, September 18th, 2009 at 1:41 pm under Google, Legal.

Read more entries by John Lister.
Stumble It!