William Morris and I Agree - OPT OUT!!!

The New York Times has reported that the William Morris Agency is urging all their clients to opt-out of the Google Author Settlement.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/william-morris-advises-clients-to-say-no-to-google-settlement/?scp=1&sq=william%20morris%20endeavor&st=cse

All I have to say is I'm not the only one with half a brain after all.

In a memo to clients obtained by The New York Times, William Morris advises writers to opt out of the settlement because it would “bind copyright owners in any book published prior to January 9, 2009 to its terms.” The terms of the agreement call for authors and publishers to split 63 percent of any revenue that Google generates from the sale of a digitized book either individually or in a database, as well as ad revenues from pages where an author’s work appears.
“Now they’ve got this license to sell your books at a pre-negotiated one-time royalty that you’re stuck with unless a court changes the settlement,” Eric Zohn, an attorney in business affairs at William Morris, said in an interview. “It’s like a legislative change. Under copyright law, you don’t have anything without express written consent from the copyright holder. Now the court is saying Google is free to sell your book unless you expressly tell them not to.”

Yep, it is pretty plain, that the Google Author Settlement is a very bad deal for any writer interested in protecting their copyrights. Eric Zohn, I salute you.

The comments on this article, however, make me want to cry.


1.I don’t understand - is WME going to initiate a separate class action suit on behalf of its authors? How does opting out achieve anything other than reserving one’s right to litigate the matter?
— Paul
2. August 9, 2009 11:57 am Link
Google is replacing the old record companies by hoarding copyrights of artists and now authors. Very few content originators understand that the “gold” is in the copyright, not the “front money”. Good move on WM’s part.— Michael Scott Gallegos
3. August 9, 2009 5:31 pm Link
I suspect this has more to do with WM fearing it will lose money for itself rather than the authors the agency represents. Then again, if they do negotiate a separate deal, the only ones to really make money will be the agency lawyers.— Eric Welch
4. August 9, 2009 6:44 pm Link
This article is contradictory. Mr. Zohn appears to be advising clients to opt in.— Anna Petrakis
5. August 10, 2009 9:10 am Link
I don’t think they mean “opt out” I think they’re advising their authors to claim their titles, and then remove all display uses…except Zohn says that displaying snippets of text is a good idea. I think someone needs to edit the opening para of this article - v confusing— Alex
6. August 10, 2009 9:36 am Link
Yes, Paul correctly notes perversity #1 of this. Perversity #2 is that what Zohn agrees to in the last graf is effectively the program that Google had originally proposed—scan & snippets. But scan and snippets was too much for the AAP and Authors’ Guild, so they come up with the current settlement. It would be funny if it weren’t so painful.— Richard Eoin Nash
7. August 10, 2009 3:13 pm Link
I think it’s possible that Rich isn’t distinguishing here between the Google Settlement and the Google Books program. One involves books scanned without permission (the settlement) and the other is a “partner program” that makes current books searchable via Google via arrangement with the publishers. There is so much misinformation about the settlement out there and inexact reporting like this only perpetuates the confusion.
Still, the memo begs the question: Is Wm. Morris Endeavor planning its own suit on behalf of its clients? Encouraging them to sue on their own? Rich’s article really doesn’t tell you all that much about what this means.— Stuart