This afternoon I used Google Books to help answer a readers’ advisory question. Keywords from the patrons’ question turned up in a 1971 issue of Horn Book, the children’s literature review.

Google’s misshapen snippet showed part of a summary of the book, but nothing more. I took the elevator to the sub-basement, got lost, asked for help, and eventually pulled the bound volume I needed. Inside was an advertisement from McGraw-Hill that listed the title and author of my patron’s book.

So armed, I searched out more reviews and sent the information to the patron. She experienced “total elation”. So did I.

But trying to fall asleep, I marveled how the patron wouldn’t have been able to find the answer on her own - even with what Google had to offer, she would have at least needed to stop in a library and very likely, requested the volume from storage.

Presumably, this will change in time. Google’s snippets will get better, or they will work a deal with Horn Book’s publisher to sell access to the electronic copies, as they have with Hearst Magazines and titles such as Popular Mechanics.

This had me wondering though, who owns the copyright to advertisements in periodicals? It might be hard to argue that McGraw-Hill would lose money if Google and Horn Book agreed to charge people to view the ad. On the other hand, if the electronic copies are suddenly for sale, why shouldn’t the advertiser get a cut?

Perhaps more to the point, publishers may have only narrow rights to broker deals with Google at all. In 2001 the US Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. Tasini that publishers couldn’t resell electronic copies of freelancers’ work to database and microfilm vendors such as LexisNexis and University Microfilms. The works belong to the freelancers.

Today it is typical for a freelance contract to hand over the rights to the publisher, but for pre-Tasini works, how can Google make deals to display periodicals without paying the original writers? That is, except for their strategy of “we have them and we’re going to use them”, which seems to be working for them pretty well so far. I promise to read up on the proposed Google Books settlement to learn more.

The last weird twist (okay, second-to-last) to this story is that in 1997, before the case got to the US Supreme Court, Federal District Judge Sonia Sotamayor ruled for the publishers. If she is confirmed on the Supreme Court this year, would the court eventually rule the other way on a challenge to the case?

The last twist? Only that the lead plaintiff in the case, Jonathan Tasini, ran for Hillary Clinton’s senate seat in 2006. Maybe not news to you, but news to me, I live under a rock you see. He lost.

So what is the future of libraries’ role vis a vis delivering knowledge to the world? Stay tuned for Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings July 13th.