The Authors Guild, Inc. et al v. Hathitrust et al
DECLARATION of Trond Andreassen in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society, Pat Cummings, Erik Grundstrom, Angelo Loukakis, Norsk Faglitteraer Forfatter0OG Oversetterforening, Roxana Robinson, Helge Ronning, Andre Roy, Jack R. Salamanca, James Shapiro, Daniele Simpson, T.J. Stiles, Sveriges Forfattarforbund, The Australian Society Of Authors Limited, The Authors Guild, Inc., The Authors League Fund, Inc, Union Des Ecrivaines Et Des Ecrivains Quebecois, Fay Weldon, the Writers' Union of Canada. (Rosenthal, Edward)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., et al.,
- against :
HATHITRUST, et al.,
Index No. 11 Civ. 6351 (HB)
DECLARATION OF TROND ANDREASSEN
I, Trond Andreassen, hereby declare as follows:
I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-captioned action and submit this
declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
I have served as Secretary General of plaintiff Norsk faglitterær forfatter-og
oversetterforening (“NFF”) since 1986, with the exception of 1995-1997 when I served as Head
of division for the higher education department of Scandinavian University Press, a Norwegian
academic publishing house. I have written and published a comprehensive account of the
Norwegian literary system and the changes the book industry has gone through from a variety of
perspectives in the industry including authors, readers, publishers, booksellers, book clubs,
libraries, and public policy literature.
The Work At Issue
I am the sole author and copyright holder of the non-fiction work Bok-Norge: En
Litteratursosiologisk Oversikt (Norwegian Books: A Sociological Overview of Literature)
(hereafter the “Bok-Norge”), and holder of a valid copyright to it under Norwegian law.
Although I have licensed to my publishers certain exclusive rights in connection
with the commercial exploitation of Bok-Norge, I did so in exchange for the payment of royalties
and I remain the legal and/or beneficial owner of all rights in and to Bok-Norge. I never assigned
to any third party the copyright to Bok-Norge.
Unauthorized Uses Of My Work
It has come to my attention that a print copy of my work Bok-Norge was copied
without my permission when it was digitized by one the defendant universities (collectively
referred to herein along with HathiTrust as “Defendants”) in partnership with Google, as part of
the HathiTrust and/or Google Books projects. This digitization took place without my
knowledge, consent, or approval. I did not authorize Google, HathiTrust, or any of the university
defendants to digitize or make any other use of Bok-Norge. To date, I have received no
compensation of any kind for Defendants’ digitization and various uses of Bok-Norge.
Harm Resulting From Defendants’ Use Of My Work
As an author who depends in large part on the value of my work to earn a living, I
brought this action because the Defendants’ unauthorized digitization and use of Bok-Norge has
harmed or threatens to harm me in a number of ways.
I have reviewed the Declaration of T.J. Stiles and I agree with and incorporate by
reference Mr. Stiles’ descriptions of the various harm and potential harm caused by the
Defendants’ actions. One difference between Mr. Stiles and me is that (as described below) I
have not yet chosen to make Bok-Norge available in digital form. However, this difference does
not change the fact that Defendants’ actions are causing and threatening to cause damage to me
and to the value of Bok-Norge.
I believe that I am entitled to determine whether, when and under what
circumstances Bok-Norge is scanned, digitized, copied and used. Defendants’ insistence that the
new, complex, technologically-enabled uses they intend to make of Bok-Norge should be
permitted without my consent dangerously presupposes that copyright law does not give authors
any right to control how their works are used and exploited in these contexts. To the best of my
knowledge, this is not the law in the United States, and it certainly is not the law in Norway.
While Bok-Norge is not yet available in digital form, I reserve the right to license the creation of
digital versions of it when I choose to.
Defendants argue that uses of Bok-Norge that do not allow individuals to read the
text, such as non-consumptive research and full-text searching, do not inhibit sales of Bok-Norge
or deprive me of licensing opportunities and therefore do not require my permission. This is not
so. As the Declaration of T.J. Stiles points out, these kinds of uses represent a new market
whose value is evidenced by Defendants’ use of Bok-Norge, as well as the works owned by the
other Plaintiffs and the millions of other works Defendants scanned and copied. I believe that I
have the legal right to decide whether or not to permit these uses, and to seek remuneration for
these uses if I do decide to allow them. Defendants could have asked my permission to digitize
Bok-Norge, or offered to purchase one or more additional copies for their library collections.
In addition, by failing to seek a license, Defendants eliminated the usual
mechanism that authors use to exercise control over our work: licensing or other agreements that
powerless to dictate terms as to how Bok-Norge may or may not be used. I also have no ability
to insist that HathiTrust take security measures to protect my work. I have no power to ensure
that the infringing copies of my work are truly in a “dark archive” that is not accessible for
viewing or further copying. I have no assurance that Defendants’ actual use of Bok-Norge is
limited to the uses they claim to intend to make, and no power of enforcement if their uses
exceed this scope.
[The rest of this page intentionally left blank]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: Oslo, Norway
June 22nd, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?