Talk:Authors Guild

Conflict With Google

This organization is sueing Google for their Book Search project and is notable in this respect. It also has around eigth thousand members. Jonathan Bowen 20:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to see more information about the legitimacy of the group. Is 8000 members a lot? Who are these members? How many of the top 100 best-selling authors are members? Does this group really represent a significant cross-section of authors, as they claim to? Or are there in fact many authors who are upset with this organization's claims to represent the needs of authors everywhere? 74.9.81.10 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict With Amazon

Seriously? Yes, disabling text to speech tech will adversely affect blind owners of the Kindle, but to call the whole organization "Anti-blind" and the agreement with Amazon a "victory over the blind"? Ridiculous and far beyond what could possible be considered a neutral point of view, even for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.223.150 (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be revised

As sympathetic as I am, this discussion of the Authors Guild isn't helping. Especially with regard to the Google Books settlement, the implication is that the Authors Guild will itself make $50 million from the suit. As I understand it, this is factually incorrect. While their lawyers profit, and probably to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, the AG is itself a non-profit organisation and has two discrete sources of revenue, namely members contributions and web services (which they sell on their site).

Much more significant would be an attempt to document the various people on the AG board and their respective positions, relations, and histories, and also to explore the relationship between the AG and the yet-to-be established Book Rights Registry, which will have enormous influence in deciding access to 20th century literature, particularly so called "orphan works" from 1923-1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.177.193 (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision

This article is an embarrassment, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I have a conflict of interest, because I am a member of the Authors Guild's board of directors. I'm pretty sure that means I must not correct or edit the article myself, so I'm declaring my interest here in Talk, and I will make a few comments that I hope will be helpful. (If there's anything else I should do, or not do, please let me know.)

First of all, to put it simply, the Authors Guild is the nation's oldest and largest professional society of published authors. Since its founding in 1912, it has been a leading advocate of free expression and copyright protection. It provides its members contract advice, health insurance, web and other services. It organizes programs and symposia to explore issues of interest to writers and readers.

Here are some errors in the current version:

• It is false (and weird) to say that "The Guild is primarily a litigation agency." The Guild is not even remotely a litigation agency (whatever that means exactly). It helps writers negotiate with publishers, and it lobbies with lawmakers, but it rarely resorts to litigation at all. There have been two big exceptions: It sued Google in 2005, as part of a class of authors, accusing the company of infringing copyright; and a decade before that, it sued a group of big publishers on behalf of freelance writers whose work was being distributed electronically without the writers' authorization. Both of these were class action suits. The first was settled (approval for the settlement now pending in federal court); the second went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the writers. In neither case did the Authors Guild, however, receive a penny. (The financial statements referenced in the article actually show that quite clearly.) It is a nonprofit organization, financed by dues from members and some charitable donations.
• Likewise, it is incorrect to say that "In 2009, direct and indirect revenue to the Guild should exceed $50 million due to the Google settlement." Direct revenue to the Guild from that settlement was, and will always be, zero. I don't know what "indirect revenue" means. In the future, if the settlement takes effect, when Google profits from licensing the work of authors, it will have to share that money with the individual authors (but not the Authors Guild).
• It's not quite right to say that "among" its members are "literary agents and attorneys." Of course there are literary agents and attorneys (and teachers and cabdrivers and politicians) among its members, if they also happen to be authors.

It would be great if someone without an axe to grind would take this on.

JGleick (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the information about the Google case to the Google section of the article. Hopefully it reads a bit more neutral now. You are free to edit the article as long as you provide references. Racklever (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Racklever; this is definitely an improvement. However, the statement "In 2009, direct and indirect revenue to the Guild should exceed $50 million due to the Google settlement" is still there and it is still incorrect. Obviously it's in the future tense, and speculative, and 2009 is over. Direct and indirect revenue to the Guild from the settlement was exactly zero. The sources cited actually make this quite clear.

The phrase "while generating $30 million dollars [sic] in 2009 for the law firm" is also inaccurate (the settlement has not been approved, and the law firm hasn't gotten a thing) and, to my ear, tendentious (the word "generating," especially; it seems argumentative to say that the Guild will be "generating" legal fees, if a law firm collects them as the result of a successful class action).

One of these days, Judge Chin will rule on the settlement, and all this will have to be updated again.

JGleick (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Judge Chin Ruling in Authors Guild v Google Books

The latest Wired coverage of the ruling is here together with a link to a pdf of the judgement. I hope it may be of some use, I don't want to edit the article as it covers an area I'm not familiar with. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 09:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Authors Guild. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111062640/http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=118704 to http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118704&hl=en#q1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209223903/http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citing.htm to http://www.authorsguild.org/news/sues_google_citing.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Philpot v. Author's Guild

It seems that the Authors Guild has settled a claim for copyright violation on a website managed by it or related to it, brought an annoyed professional photographer. The photo is File:Ted Nugent 2013.jpg which was used without attribution. I say "it seems" because only some documents are available at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4356379/philpot-v-authors-guild-inc/ and the suit went south at some point. Nemo 12:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)