August Brown Bag Lunch

Steve Wasserman: The Role of the Literary Agent
Thursday, August 22nd

Steve Wasserman spoke at our August Brown Bag Lunch and gave a retrospective of his remarkable career as an editor, reviewer and agent. Before his cross-coast move to take on the role of director of Kneerim & Williams, Wasserman served as editor of the Los Angeles Times Book Review for nine years. He has also worked with such companies as New Republic Books, Hill & Wang, and the Noonday Press. He has had vast experience in both the book publishing and journalism industries, and now applies such experience in his role as a literary agent.

For him, the biggest question that publishing faces today is the challenge of cutting through the avalanche of noise created by a busy culture and new media to draw attention to books. Potential readers only have so much time in their day, and many times they choose to do other things rather than read. Moreover, bombarded by other forms of entertainment many readers, used to hour or half hour television segments, have also lost the stamina to withstand longer narratives.

But not all hope is lost. Wasserman spoke of his surprise to find so many foreign investors involved in American publishing. While it seems that many American companies have given up on the printed word, Wasserman suggested that these foreign investors might have a longer world view. Publishing may indeed be falling to other media forms, but Rome did not fall in a single day; it took 800 years. And really, the printed word, the book, will never disappear.

The Trials and Tribulations of Google Book Search

By Tracy Kaufman

A full library’s worth of books, at one’s disposal through a simple Google search, sounds like a lazy researcher’s dream come true. However, Google is a corporation, not a library.

In October, the behemoth search engine found itself pummeled by lawsuits, first by the Author’s Guild and second by the Association of American Publishers, after months of talks fell through concerning the Google Print Library Project, now up and running as Google Book Search. In late 2004, the company visualized millions of published books, scanned and made available as a searchable online database. Understandably, the general public would find such a venture extremely helpful. Meanwhile, equally understandably, authors and publishers have their copyrights at stake.

The issue is that collections from the libraries of Stanford University, Harvard University, and University of Michigan, including works still under copyright, are being scanned for use in the project, but permission was never obtained from the books’ authors and publishers. Google claims that only excerpts of works will be available for online viewing, but still the full texts are copied and retained by Google in its own database.

Publishers recognize that the search engine’s efforts could be innovative and beneficial to all involved, but have requested that the plans be modified in order to respect the rights of everyone. AAP President Pat Schroeder stated that though Google Book Search “could help many authors get more exposure and maybe even sell more books, authors and publishers should not be asked to waive their long-held rights so that Google can profit from this venture.”[1]

If a solitary person or a small company were to attempt to copy and distribute copyrighted materials on this massive scale without permission, they would most certainly find themselves in serious trouble with the law. Many feel that Google, as a large corporation, considers itself above the laws that apply to others, and that a bad precedent would be set if the company is allowed to pursue their project unchecked. Google claims that publishers can choose to opt individual books out of the program, but as Sally Morris of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers counters, “Publishers should be asked to opt in to the project and not to opt out.”[2] During earlier talks, AAP proposed that Google utilize ISBNs to seek out which particular books were under copyright, so that permission could be sought appropriately. Google rejected that plan.

In addition, there have been fears that Google would place lucrative advertisements on search results pages, thereby generating considerable revenue from the venture. The issue of “fair use” of copyrighted materials gives leeway in educational or nonprofit use, but does not apply to large commercial organizations. Says Schroeder, “The bottom line is that under its current plan Google is seeking to make millions of dollars by freeloading on the talent and property of authors and publishers.”[3] Paul Aiken of the Author’s Guild has echoed concerns that Google’s Book Search is a commercial project, and has also expressed worries about security, speculating that full copyrighted works, not just the promised excerpts, could be made available to users if the Google servers are hacked.[4]

Google maintains that its practices are lawful, and defends that they fall under fair use. "Creating an easy to use index of books is fair use under copyright law and supports the purpose of copyright: to increase the awareness and sales of books directly benefiting copyright holders,” they stated. When AAP’s lawsuit was initially filed, Google’s David Drummond said in an online statement:

We think you should be able to search through every word of every book ever written, and come away with a list of relevant books to buy or find at your local library. We aim to make that happen, but to do so we'll need to build and maintain an index containing all this information.It's no surprise that this idea makes some publishers nervous, even though they can easily remove their books from the program at any time. The history of technology is replete with advances that first met wide opposition, later found wide acceptance, and finally were widely regarded as having been inevitable all along.[5]

Indeed, Google’s plan, regardless of its opposition from publishers and authors, has met plenty of support from the public, and is recognized as an incredibly useful innovation. On the resource’s Press Mentions site, a list of media quotations praising Google fills the page.[6] Still, Drummond’s statement above is quite provocative. Is he implying that copyright laws as they now stand are becoming outdated? Does he suggest that publishers should adapt their business models to the new technology, rather than defend them against such dramatic change?

The more examination that goes into the question of Google Book Search, the more questions arise, and the bigger those questions get. Currently, neither publisher nor internet juggernaut shows signs of backing down from their respective positions. How the struggle will end is still anyone’s guess.

[1] http://publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=292
[2] http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2141154/google-backtracks-print
[3] http://internetweek.cmp.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=172302562
[4] http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051024.asp
[5] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-we-believe-in-google-print.html
[6] http://books.google.com/googlebooks/press.html

The Production Point of View

By Shirley Chan

My job as Production Coordinator for Penguin reprints is both rewarding and challenging. The reward comes from working with books that I (and the public) love to read, and the challenge is in keeping up with demand for these beloved books.

At no other time is the duality of my job more apparent than when an author wins a prestigious award! This past November, William T. Vollmann won the National Book Award for Fiction for Europe Central. The next morning, both my Outlook inbox and my voicemail were full of frantic messages before I’d even gotten to the office.

Problem #1: We needed to produce tens of thousands of books to meet the new demand for Europe Central, and we needed to do it quickly. All other reprints had to be prioritized to make room, which was no easy feat considering I handle over 100 reprints per month. Imagine setting up a row of Dominoes when you suddenly need to insert an extra Domino without knocking all the pieces down. (And there are 20 people calling while you’re doing it to ask if you are in fact doing it.)

Problem #2: We needed to change the cover to proclaim Vollmann’s status as a National Book Award winner, and we needed to do it before producing those tens of thousands of books. Cover changes are not as easy as pressing a button on a computer. The changes go through stages of approval with the Editorial and Art departments before being sent out to a cover printer. The printer produces a proof that must again go through all the stages of approval before the covers can finally be printed. Imagine a game of Telephone where you run from person to person trying to get everyone to agree on one thing. (And everyone speaks a different language.)

Problem #3: We needed to meet increased demand for Vollmann’s backlist titles, but had to avoid printing too many. We needed to keep books in stock, while still updating covers and author biographies. Reprint quantities kept fluctuating, and changes kept coming in until the moment when everything had to be finalized or else we wouldn't get books. Imagine a juggling act run amok. (And people keep tossing in more things to juggle.)

Production is a tough place. Everyone, from the Sales department to the Publisher, looks to us to make the books happen. That’s the challenge. For me, the reward lies not only in the exceptional titles that I work on, but also in the extraordinary effort that other people, either within my company or at an outside vendor, make to facilitate this whole crazy process.

So consider joining the circus, and apply for a Production position today!