Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law
Show Less

Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law

Edited by Jan Rosén

Individualism and Collectiveness in Intellectual Property Law embraces fundamental, eternal and yet very contemporary elements in IP law dealt with in all parts of the world. There are certain classic values embedded in the protection of human effort and the creativeness of individuals. This book examines the relationship of those values to the questions inherent both in individual creativeness in a collective setting, and in the tendency to build national, regional or global monopolies based on IP rights. The respect for original ownership, the occasional need for collective management of IP rights, the idiosyncrasies of co-ownership of rights and the ever present tension to be found in encounters between exploitation of IP rights and competition law are extensively exposed in this book.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 9: Two Perspectives on the Proposed Google Book Settlement

John Cross and Fredrik Willem Grosheide


John Cross and Fredrik Willem Grosheide On September 20, 2005, the Author’s Guild and three individual authors sued Google, Inc., in a federal district court in New York.1 The complaint alleges that Google’s deal with several major US research libraries, under which Google scans millions of books in those libraries and makes “snippets” of the books available online, constitutes “massive copyright infringement.” Plaintiffs sought to have the case certified as a class action. One month later, the Association of American Publishers and individual publishing companies filed a similar case against Google in the same court.2 Google’s primary defense in both cases is the “fair use” defense provided by US copyright law.3 Before the court could reach the merits of the claims and defenses, however, the parties in both cases reached a tentative settlement. Numerous perceived flaws in the original proposed settlement led to further negotiations, resulting in the filing of a revised proposed settlement (hereinafter called the “RPS”) in November, 2009.4 The RPS still awaits court approval as of the time this chapter was written. The RPS has been the subject of widespread discussion and debate among academics, authors, publishers, and the general public. While some of the comments have been generally favorable, most have been critical of one or more aspects of the RPS. Much of the criticism argues the RPS is highly favorable to Google, while unfair to certain rightholders. The Author’s Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 05-CV-8136 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 20, 2005). 2 McGraw-Hill Cos. v. Google,...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.