Yesterday, June 26, marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” which began the worldwide phenomenon that captured the attention of millions across the globe. In the 20 years since the first book was published, the Potter series is still culturally relevant, and has become especially notable in the past year since President Donald Trump rose to power.

J.K. Rowling, who authored the books, has taken a strong stance against Trump and what he represents; she can often be found on Twitter mocking the American president. Whether it’s about Trump’s responses to terrorist attacks or his ridiculous actions, Rowling is quick to criticize Trump, often delighting her youthful fan base. Here are just two examples of the millionaire’s social media commentary:

It’s called ‘leadership’, Donald. The terrorists were dead 8 minutes after police got the call. If we need an alarmist blowhard, we’ll call. https://t.co/NUiy9j4fBt

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 4, 2017

 

I wonder whether Trump talks to Trumpself in the third Trumperson when Trump’s alone. https://t.co/8CEzVTJjBq

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) May 3, 2017

Rowling’s presence on Twitter isn’t the only way Harry Potter fans are staying connected to the series as they resist the Trump Administration. Many fans have compared Trump to Voldemort, the antagonist of the series who comes to power and attempts to create a society of “pure blood wizards.” This Twitter user broke down her feelings on the similarities between the two:

I realized how similar Lord Voldemort and Donald Trump are so I wrote this… pic.twitter.com/UG33ZTUfYf

— Ashley C. (@ItsAshley_C) June 25, 2017

Others have turned to Hermione Granger, the main female protagonist, as a symbol of female power within the resistance. The reason Granger is so appealing to young girls, the Huffington Post argues, is that “here was a smart, hyper-competent, over-achieving woman facing down a cartoonishly unqualified man who spewed hatred at women, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and disabled people.”

a nation of hermiones #WomensMarch pic.twitter.com/hvfDu3oL9m

— Paige (@paigeleighannne) January 22, 2017

Given that Emma Watson, who portrayed Granger in the movies, is a feminist symbol herself, the comparison becomes even more applicable. Watson, who graduated from Brown University in 2014, is an outspoken feminist and a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador.

While the comparisons offer children the opportunity to tangibly relate the real world to something they understand and love, some people are frustrated with the constant comparisons. One writer from The Federalist even argued that the comparisons “contribute to making our politics glib, emotion-driven, over-simplified, and posturing. At the same time, it takes beloved childhood stories and politicizes them in a way that narrows and diminishes their meaning.”

Others are simply tired of the constant references:

READ ANOTHER BOOK pic.twitter.com/SHcVKcTslG

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) January 31, 2017

The final book of the series was published back in 2007, but the series remains culturally relevant as a symbol of youth fighting for justice. Some people may be annoyed by the constant references to the series, but Rowling’s writing has clearly inspired a generation of readers to protest for what they believe in just as Harry, Hermione, and Ron Weasley did throughout the seven book series.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 20 Years Later, Harry Potter is Still Culturally Relevant appeared first on Law Street.

Some people read books to escape from the harsh truths of reality. And some people (or, apparently, a lot of people) read books to better discern the totalitarian threat of the current political environment, I guess?

Much has been said about George Orwell’s “1984” returning to the top of Amazon’s best sellers list, but another dystopian fiction novel has since joined it. This week, Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” hit Amazon’s best sellers list at number two, with “1984” dropping down to the third slot from the top spot it held after the #alternativefacts controversy late last month.

Considered as somewhat of a “feminist ‘1984,’” “The Handmaid’s Tale” is set in a dystopian future where a totalitarian state run by religious zealots, the Republic of Gilead, has replaced America. In Gilead, women are property, a large number of them are infertile, and they are placed in a caste system where their worth is determined by their ability to bear children, race, and class. As warfare rages on throughout the country, fertile women are put in camps and trained to be “Handmaids,” who are tasked with bearing the children of rich white men. Sounds like a fun and breezy read, no?

Like “1984,” which has been banned and challenged many times by school boards since its publication, “The Handmaid’s Tale” has been caught up in similar controversy. Most recently, in 2014, the book was banned by a school board in Pennsylvania because of the novel’s profanity and graphic sexual references. In 2012, according to the Winston-Salem Journal, two mothers in Guilford County, North Carolina attempted to ban the book from schools because of its extreme view of Christianity.

On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Russell Perreault, head of publicity for Anchor Books, which now publishes “The Handmaid’s Tale,” said that sales of the book shot up 60 percent in the last year and, since the election, sales increased by 200 percent.

While some of the book’s success can be attributed to the impending April premiere of the Hulu show based on the novel (Hulu premiered the show’s second trailer during last Sunday’s Super Bowl), it’s not out of the question to consider the book’s renewed prominence could be connected to an increase in political anxiety.

This spike in sales for “The Handmaid’s Tale” is similar to the sales numbers posted by “1984.” According to CNNMoney, which spoke to a Penguin spokesman, Penguin reprinted 75,000 copies of “1984” the week after the inauguration–which is a significantly larger reprint than normal for the novel. This upsurge in sales for “1984” is similar to but larger than the spike that sales of the novel saw in the midst of the NSA surveillance scandal in 2013.

Following this gloom and doom of the future reading trend, Sinclair Lewis’ cautionary novel “It Can Happen Here” as well as Aldous Huxley’s even more cautionary novel “Brave New World” can be found further down the Amazon best sellers list. However, it should be noted that the children’s books “Llama Llama I Love You” and “Love from the Very Hungry Caterpillar” sit at fifth and sixth on the list, so do not despair, for children’s reading habits have not been affected…yet.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post “The Handmaid’s Tale” and “1984” Sit at Top of Amazon’s Best Sellers List appeared first on Law Street.

Emma Watson continues to fight the good fight of gender equality, and is channeling everyone’s favorite bookworm Hermione Granger, with an online feminist book club.

It’s official – ‘Our Shared Shelf’ is up and running. First book – My life on the road. https://t.co/nVWNPy21za

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 7, 2016

So grab a glass of wine and sign up for Goodreads, because this is going to be excellent. Almost as excellent as this moment:

…almost.

Aside from her acting career, Watson serves as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, famously making a speech introducing the HeForShe campaign in 2014. She called all women and men to the fight for gender equality.

A feminist book club is a most appropriate way to continue the message that feminism is, in fact, for everyone. Not only is it online, free, and readily accessible for anyone with an Internet connection, but the club promises to be ready with open arms for any and all discussions and debates.

Watson says she was inspired to begin the club through her work with UN Women:

As part of my work with UN Women, I have started reading as many books and essays about equality as I can get my hands on. There is so much amazing stuff out there! Funny, inspiring, sad, thought-provoking, empowering! I’ve been discovering so much that, at times, I’ve felt like my head was about to explode… I decided to start a Feminist book club, as I want to share what I’m learning and hear your thoughts too.

She also promises to try and get featured authors and experts in various fields to join the discussion. The best part? Over 80,000 people have already joined. Who knew that all we needed to get every feminist in one place was a book club?

Clearly, 80,000 doesn’t encompass the totality of the feminist movement, but Watson only started floating the idea last week, so there’s plenty of time for the numbers to grow.

Hi Team, I want to start a feminist book club but so far have only brainstormed ‘Feminist Book Club’ and ‘Emma Watson Book Club’.

— Emma Watson (@EmWatson) January 6, 2016

And the first book on the list? Gloria Steinem’s “My Life on the Road.” Which, I can attest, is a brilliant manifesto of the feminist icon’s life.

Naturally, this being the age of the Internet and thus of Internet trolls, an online discussion forum with a lead topic of feminism will be susceptible to mean-spirited comments and remarks of those who just don’t understand what feminism is. Luckily, those tens of thousands of feminists already signed up will be ready with witty comebacks–or at least a few good reaction gifs:

So go forth and read, you wonderful feminists!

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why We Should All Join Emma Watson’s Feminist Book Club appeared first on Law Street.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome in terms of providing education for lower-income American children is the sheer lack of resources and money that some schools and states have to spend on things like books and libraries. However, a new plan proposed by the Obama Administration–and involving the help of large book publishers and others–is aimed at closing some of those gaps. The new goal is to provide thousands of free e-books for low-income children.

The initiative was proposed by President Obama at Anacostia Library, part of a low-income neighborhood in Southeast Washington, D.C.

The plan has a lot of high profile players involved. In addition to the Obama Administration, the five major publishers–Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck’s Macmillan, CBS Corp’s Simon & Schuster Inc, Penguin Random House, Lagardere SCA’s Hachette Book Group Inc, and News Corp’s HarperCollins Publishers LLC–have all signed on to help. Overall, 10,000 books will be added to the list that will be provided to low-income children via an e-book format. The books will be chosen from volunteers from the Digital Public Library of America. Yet another organization lending a hand will be the New  York Public Library, which has agreed to develop the application through which the children will be able to access the works. Overall, the plan allots $250 million for the project.

Both libraries and schools are beginning to provide more hardware so that students can access the internet–presumably these e-books would be read on those. This is part of Obama’s ConnectEd program, which encourages using technology to promote and further the American education system. Additionally, tech leader Apple recently pledged to donate $100 million in tech devices to lower-income schools.

One of Obama’s domestic policy advisors, Cecilia Muñoz, pointed out how odd this push for e-books may seem to older American generations, stating:

It’s very different than from our generation. More and more, you’re going to be seeing kids using devices, and what we’re doing is making sure that there’s more books available on those devices.

That assessment does seem accurate. But given that low-income families have significantly less access to the internet and corresponding devices with which to access it, the move to incorporate schools and libraries into the plan is a good call.

The exact specifics of the plan seem to still be up in the air. Whether or not the books will only be accessible in some places, for example, such as libraries or schools, or whether children with accessible devices will be able to access them at home, doesn’t seem to be set in stone. Whether or not the books will be “loaned” like from a library, or distributed freely also seems undecided.

Regardless of how those details are sorted out, however, this certainly seems like a good move to provide more students with access to books. Moreover, the partnership with publishing companies and public institutions is laudable. Someday I hope we can reach a point where every child has access to all the resources he or she needs to reach educational success–this is a small, but great step, in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Education Initiative to Provide Free E-Books For Low-Income Students appeared first on Law Street.

My publishing career is unique because it has solely been through an intern’s eyes. I attended the 2010 NYU Summer Publishing Institute–where, I might add, I met my fiancée, who is currently a book editor. Like most English majors, I wanted to be an editor; however, by the end of the six-week program, my tune changed 180 degrees, and I knew I wanted to be a literary agent and a book publishing attorney. Two years later, I enrolled in law school.

Excluding one summer internship at talent agency William Morris Endeavor, the bulk of my legal internships have been with book publishers like Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and Hachette Book Group. You can say that I’ve found my way across the publishing landscape.

Regardless of where I’ve interned, however, I’m continually amazed at the people I’ve come across and the amount of effort it takes to publish books, which outsiders—consumers, critics, and dare I say, even authors—may not realize.

It’s no secret that the majority of employees in book publishing are grossly underpaid (interns included, if they are paid at all). For the majority of departments, employees start earning larger salaries once they reach senior positions, which can take more than a decade at times. However, the lack of pay produces camaraderie among book publishing industry members, especially younger employees who trade in their lack of a paycheck for the opportunity to assist in creating great art and surrounding themselves with books all day.

From top to bottom, book publishers are made up of mostly English majors who are editors, or who had dreams of becoming editors, but gravitated toward marketing, publicity, production, finance, art, contracts, subsidiary rights, or if you’re like me, the legal department. For this reason, publishing companies are unique in that each department contains members who are just as passionate, or even more passionate, than the next department about books.

This passion creates a work ethic within employees that the public may associate with big law firm attorneys, doctors, or investment bankers. Bringing work home and working on weekends can be the norm for some, especially when first beginning a book publishing career. Editorial assistants, in particular, are known to work extremely long hours, and their lives, which used to contain a full social calendar, are suddenly taken over by their authors’ books. They live and breathe through their authors’ successes or lack thereof. Life isn’t much better for mid-level and senior employees who bear the brunt of the responsibility for producing great books, turning a profit, and essentially keeping the book publishing industry afloat.

No matter how little they’re paid or how hard they work, what amazes me the most about the publishing industry is how genuine and kind everyone is.  Somehow they manage to wake up, wait in rush hour traffic—sometimes traversing across states lines—and walk into the office, smiling brightly or laughing, knowing deep down that they get to develop their own piece of culture.

This is why I’m glad Amazon and Hachette agreed to e-book and print price terms yesterday.  Forget the economic reasons. Forget who was right or who was wrong. The book publishing industry produces wonderful, kind people who help create art that can change you. Let’s not forget about that, and more importantly, let’s not forget about them.

Sometimes, I feel they were lost in the shuffle during the dispute. The media didn’t pay attention to them. Why would they? They didn’t create newsworthy events. Nevertheless, for six months they all sat in their cubicles and wondered aloud or to themselves what would happen if Amazon won. Would the book publishing industry meet the music industry’s fate? Would they be out of a job? Would they have to find a new career?

Fortunately, they’re not going anywhere.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hachette v. Amazon Deal Matters (But Not For the Reasons You Think) appeared first on Law Street.

The Paladin Group has filed a complaint with the California Labor Commission against the RSWG Literary Agency and its agent Geoffrey Sanford. Paladin claims that neither RSWG nor Sanford are licensed agents or attorneys under California law, and thus illegally took 20 percent commissions for licensing the late John Steinbeck’s literary works.

Before getting into the complaint, let me first walk you through what literary agents do to get a better idea why Paladin is suing RSWG.

What is a Literary Agent?

Literary agents are an author’s first step toward publication, and they are essential to the publishing process unless an author decides to self-publish. It’s extremely difficult to land one since hundreds of thousands of books are published each year. If an author obtains a literary agent, that person helps with the manuscript and/or proposal before pitching the book to acquiring editors. Auctions, or bidding wars, can occur if multiple editors want the book and believe it can be a best seller; however, most books get acquired by one editor who expresses interest.

The author then signs an author agreement with the editor’s publishing company, which states the author’s advance (i.e., how much the publisher is paying the author for his book before royalties), grants (usually) the author the copyright to his or her literary work, and gives the literary agent a 10-15 percent commission. The literary agent’s commission can be peanuts if a book’s advance is say, $10,000, which is an average debut novelist’s advance.  However, take Bill Clinton’s advance, which was reportedly more than $10 million. Who wouldn’t want 10-15 percent of that?  Thus, it is easy to see why agents are extremely picky about who they represent because best-selling authors can generate the agent millions of dollars.

What is a Co-Agent?

However, that isn’t the end of the road for an agent’s and author’s potential revenue. When a book publisher grants an author the copyright to his literary work, the author receives a bundle of exclusive rights (e.g., motion picture, television, audio book, e-book, large print, Braille, book club, abridgements, first serial, second serial, etc.) to do with what she pleases. Usually, the author’s agent hires a co-agent or sub-agent to license these rights, which are known as subsidiary rights in the book publishing industry, to third parties.

Sub-agents may specialize in licensing certain rights.  For example, a sub-agent may license rights of an author’s book, such as motion picture rights to help get a novel adapted as a feature film. More frequently, however, sub-agents try to sell an author’s book in countries around the world. You may have seen book covers with the words, “Published in 37 Countries.” You can thank sub-agents for that. Sub-agents generate commissions of 10 – 20 percent depending on the right that is licensed.

Enter Steinbeck

In Steinbeck’s case, Steinbeck’s literary agency is McIntosh and Otis, which is located in New York City.  McIntosh and Otis hired RSWG as a sub-agent, and RSWG negotiated motion picture rights for remakes of Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” and received 20 percent commissions for its services.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Paladin Group, created by Thomas Steinbeck who is Steinbeck’s only living son, argues that RSWG had no right to negotiate the motion picture rights for “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” without the Paladin Group’s consent.

Attorney William Briggs who spoke on RSWG’s behalf, however, argued that the heirs of the Scott family are the rightful owners of Steinbeck’s literary works, so the Paladin Group could not object to RSWG’s negotiations. In 1968, Steinbeck left the majority of his estate to his third wife, Edith Scott, who died in 2003, and left all of Steinbeck’s rights to her heirs.

Briggs also alleges that the Paladin Group misunderstands California law because there is no rule that RSWG must be licensed to sell rights of Steinbeck’s literary works.

Although I do not have access to the Paladin Group’s complaint, the company is rightly concerned about RSWG’s actions. The Paladin Group receives a portion of revenue for every license that is negotiated for Steinbeck’s works, so it is invested in who licenses that work. If RSWG is not properly licensed, the license agreements are null and void and the Paladin Group receives no money. However, even if RSWG is licensed, the Paladin Group may have been able to receive more money than what RSWG negotiated. The 20 percent commissions that RSWG received are likely a huge number, but given that Steinbeck is a Nobel Prize-winning novelist, the price for remaking motion picture rights for any of his works, let alone “Grapes of Wrath” and “East of Eden” — two of his most popular books — can be potentially millions more.

Hence the value of choosing a literary agent and sub-agent.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Steinbeck’s Son Suing Literary Agency Over Motion Picture Rights appeared first on Law Street.

This summer has been filled with celebrity defamation lawsuits, particularly against video game makers.  Early last month, Lindsay Lohan filed suit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto 5, Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and its subsidiary Rockstar Games, claiming that they used Lohan’s likeness without her permission.  Two weeks later, Panama dictator Manuel Noriega filed a legal action against Activision, the maker of Call of Duty: Black Opps II, also claiming that it used Noriega’s image without his permission.

Courtesy of [Chris Alcoran via Flickr]

The book publishing world also felt the sting of defamation lawsuits this summer brought by Hollywood starlet Scarlett Johansson and former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

In May 2013, Scarlett Johansson filed a libel lawsuit against French novelist Gregoire Delacourt for using Johansson’s name and image without her permission and for making false statements about her personal life in his best-selling French novel, The First Thing We Look At. The novel contains a scene in which the female protagonist, a French model who looks identical to Johansson, seeks the help of the lead male protagonist, a mechanic who mistakes the French model for Johansson. The character then has two affairs as Johansson, but her name is later revealed to be Jeanine Foucaprez. Johansson’s lawyer claimed that the two affairs that Jeanine had were untrue, and that the novel depicts Johansson as a sex object. Delacourte argued, however, that Jeanine was meant as a “tribute” to Johansson.

Courtesy of [pop torrent via Flickr]

Last month, a French court ruled in favor of Johansson and ordered Delacourt to pay damages in the amount of 2,500 euros (approximately $3,400) for his demeaning portrayal of Johansson.  Although Delacourte had to pay damages to Johansson, it seems that Delacourte’s publisher, J-C Lattes, won at the end of the day because the court denied Johansson’s attempt at an injunction to stop translations and film adaptations of the novel.  According to the Guardian, Emmanuelle Allibert of J-C Lattes said, “The book has already been translated into German and Italian and there has been interest in translating it into English, but publishers were waiting for the outcome of the case. Now we are open to offers.”

Across the pond in the United States, another defamation case unfolded this summer in federal district court in Minnesota, which book publishers took note of nationwide. Former Navy SEAL, pro wrestler, and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, sued the estate of Chris Kyle for libel in Kyle’s book American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History¸ published by HarperCollins. Kyle’s book contains a chapter entitled, “Punching Out Scuff Face,” which detailed a California bar fight that Kyle had with a celebrity in 2006. Ventura was not mentioned in the book, but Kyle said in interviews after HarperCollins published his book that Ventura was “Scruff Face.”  Ventura acknowledged that he was in the bar with Kyle but did not say that the Navy SEALS “deserved to lose a few,” nor did Kyle punch him in the face as Kyle alleged in his book. The district court in Minnesota favored Ventura and awarded him $1.8 million consisting of $500,000 for damages and $1.3 million for unjust enrichment.

Courtesy of Pesky Librarians via Flickr

Ventura’s award may be surprising due to the higher “actual malice” standard that public figures face in prevailing in libel actions throughout the United States. In libel lawsuits, public figures are placed in two categories: public figures and limited-purpose public figures. Public figures are people who are of great public interest (e.g., President Obama, Michael Jordan, Julia Roberts, etc.). Limited-purpose public figures are people who thrust themselves into a public issue or controversy to try to influence the resolution of that issue (e.g., guests brought on national news networks like MSNBC and Fox News to argue about ways to resolve various issues). In this case, being an ex-governor of Minnesota categorized Ventura as the former. Since Ventura was deemed a public figure, he had to prove that Kyle wrote false statements of fact about him that were made with “actual malice” (i.e.,  Kyle knew the statements he wrote were false, and Kyle deliberately or recklessly disregarded the false statements and published them anyway). Ultimately, the court believed that Ventura overcame the difficult “actual malice” burden of proof and awarded him damages.

The case isn’t quite over, however, as  on August 19, 2014, Kyle’s widow, Taya Kyle, filed a lawsuit in Dallas County Court against her attorney, Christopher Kirkpatrick, for malpractice. She claims that Kirkpatrick was negligent in his legal services and did not explain or disclose to the Kyles the various conflicts of interest that he had.

Ventura’s verdict is disconcerting to U.S. book publishers not only because of Ventura’s million dollar verdict, but because the lawsuit against Kyle’s estate could possibly have been avoided.   Publishers routinely tell authors to edit their respective manuscripts in order to avoid potential libel lawsuits (e.g., referring to Ventura by a different name, “Scruff,” and not mentioning Ventura’s name in the book). Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins, likely did not bet on Kyle’s admission in an interview that “Scruff” was Ventura. Kyle’s confession serves as a warning to publishers that they cannot be too careful in fact checking and advising authors during the pre- and post-publication processes.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured image courtesy of [Clyde Robinson via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2014 is the Summer of Celebrity Defamation Suits appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as if Google is always caught in the midst of a lawsuit. This time, has Google gone too far? Judge Denny Chin doesn’t think so.

Over the past eight years, Google has been in constant conflict with the Authors Guild, the not-for-profit American organization of and for authors, arguing the legality of Google Books.

Google Books, formally known as Google Print, is a revolutionary technology, initially introduced at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2004, that compiles millions of full-text books and magazines for public use.

Since the inception of Google Books, not much has changed. The documents continue to be scanned and converted into text through a process called optical character recognition where they are finally stored in a digital public database for users all around the world to use.

This has been an excessively drawn out copyright fight between juggernaut Google and the Authors Guild. And now, it is finally over, as Judge Denny Chin ruled in favor of fair use as it is something that benefits the masses. So as long as it benefits the masses, should it be partially free? (Healthcare anyone?) 

John Locke is probably turning in his grave right this instant.

John Locke, an english philosopher and physician, unequivocally believed in the idea of private property. If you create it, you claim that territory, conceive an idea, it is all yours—a sacred western value that the United States treats very seriously.

The ruling on Google Books completely turns this idea on its head. Furthermore, this is a landmark case because it could create a precedent for future court cases when it comes to copyright law.

Judge Chin’s overarching argument is that Google allows readers to discover books, therefore it will bring new income to the readers.

Judge Denny Chin made the ruling based on the fact that Google’s digitization of the source material is “highly transformative” and won’t interfere with the original market.

Now, this case is much bigger than it actually seems. On the surface, Judge Denny Chin’s decision seems great, enabling the world access to more than 20 million books. Unfortunately, this ruling utterly decimates the idea of copyright.

Copyright is a legal concept that gives the creator exclusive rights and protection over original works of authorship, ranging from literary artistic, and musical intellectual works. The author alone has the right to replicate, distribute, perform or display copies of his or her work.

This court case may be appealed as the judge basically ruled that as long as it benefits the masses, copyright really isn’t much of an issue. It renders everything copyright stands for utterly useless.

Will this court case be appealed? Probably. As of now, this “essential research tool” is available for everyone to use.

[Business Insider] [Gigagom]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lin Kristensen via Wikipedia]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google vs. Authors Guild: The Fight is Finally Over appeared first on Law Street.