In a March op-ed in the New York Times following Google’s legal setback, Darnton optimistically called on the corporation to contribute the 2 million scanned books in the public domain—of 15 million total—to the DPLA.

“Perhaps Google itself could be enlisted to the cause of the digital public library,” he wrote.

The company has made no such move, but in a statement to The Crimson, Google praised the “vast undertaking” of moving the world’s books online.

“Digitization and preservation initiatives, such as the Digital Public Library of America project, are important for making these books accessible online,” the statement says.

DPLA leaders acknowledge that they are following in the footsteps of the Google Books initiative, but they say they have a very different mission in mind.

Unlike Google’s project, DPLA is non-profit organization—envisioned as an online public library.

And the distinction, those familiar with the project say, could mean a world of difference in the legal sphere.

“Google Books wasn’t a digital library. Google Books was a digital bookstore,” says Maria A. Pallante, acting register of copyrights in the Library of Congress.

NAVIGATING COPYRIGHT LAW

DPLA has confined itself, in its early stages, to the collection of works in the public domain, hoping for future legislative reform that will open up access to copyrighted material.

Currently, these books represent only a sliver of world literature: Though most works published before 1923 are in the public domain, for works produced after 1923, U.S. copyright law severely limits the available pool.

But DPLA leaders have their sights set on a far larger class of works. Looking for new legislation that will help the online collection include all copyrighted out-of-print works, DPLA leaders say that this reform will allow them to make millions of more books accessible to the public.

If Congress authorizes the type of collective licensing in question, DPLA could move to obtain the rights to works on an entirely new scale, no longer necessitating collectors to examine individual works.

“Collective licensing, this is the piece that I think people are sad to see go from the Google case. This is something that Congress has to legislate,” Pallante says.

While Google failed to forge a legal path—coming under fire for alleged anti-trust violations—DPLA organizers hope that, as a non-profit public library, the law will change for them in the future.