[Web4lib] Copyright Law (fair use) analysis of Google Print program

Wed Sep 14 22:57:08 EDT 2005

Not one to argue the legal fine points myself, I will simply make a
perspective comment, which is one that I have heard Google emphasize
on several occasions. The number of works that are in the public
domain or orphaned represent the significant percentage of books owned
by libraries. The items that are in print or have active copyrights
that have not lapsed in one way or another represent only a fraction
of the holdings of the universities that Google has engaged in the
Print project, not to mention all of the other reasearch library
holdings that are out there in the bellies of future potential
partners. It seems to me that Google has a strong case for orphaned
works, if not for books with active rights, particularly if libraries
can set aside the Google squabbling and recognize that working with
the giant on getting a collective and satisfactory approach to
orphaned works benefits everyone all the way around.

So it seems that the discussion on active copyrighted works, which has
come to dominate almost the entire discussion, is perhaps bloating out
of proportion to the long-term prospects of the project as a whole.

2 cents minus a penny for leaving my credentials in my other wallet,
naturally.....

-Maurice

-- 
************************************
Maurice York
Team Leader, Circulation and Reserves
Woodruff Library
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
mcyork at emory.edu

On 9/9/05, steven perkins <scperkins at gmail.com> wrote:
> First a correction. I mis-characterized the SONY case which stands for the
> proposition that the producer of a potentially infringing technology is not
> guilty of infringement if there is a substantial non-infringing use for the
> technology. The DMCA has certain provisions that seem to have been drafted
> to address that holding.
>  In the main I think we are in agreement. Google print may or may not be an
> infringement of copyright in regard to in-copyright works where it creates a
> physical copy of an item. In this case I'd argue that the making of the
> physical copy is incidental to the indexing process and not a harm to the
> publisher. A publisher can, of course, argue otherwise. I do expect we will
> see a court decision on this point.
>  I also agree that there is a tension between the current copyright regime,
> which mainly speaks to physical copies and control of them, and the new
> world of the INTERNET that is still not well integrated into the philosophy
> of copyright. Control has seemed to trump the public good. Hopefully a
> sythesis can be reached that balances creator's rights with the public's
> interests.
>  Regards,
>  Steven C. Perkins
> 
> 
>  On 9/8/05, Karen Coyle <kcoyle at kcoyle.net> wrote:
> >
> > Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> >
> > > Karen:
> > >
> > > I can see Google making an index of all the words and assembling the
> > > sentence with the search term and the two sentences on either side at
> > > the time it replies to the search request. In that case there is no
> > > "copy" of the complete work ever present for the copyrighted works,
> > > except at the moment of digitization and loading into the database as
> > > parsed and that can easily be flushed out of the memory buffer.
> >
> > Google is creating scanned images of pages, not just indexes of
> > keywords. That's the real crux of the matter here. Those scanned images
> > are being given to the libraries that own the original paper works.
> >
> > >
> > > Personally, I am an "Information wants to be Free" person and I think
> > > the publishers are no longer needed.
> >
> > Hmmm. Do you read many vanity press books? If you think that all
> > publishers do is reproduce finished copy, you are in for a rude awakening.
> >
> > >
> > > If you go back to the SONY vcr decision, the making of one copy for
> > > safekeeping or personal use can be supported. If I were Google, I'd
> > > argue that the copy given to the providing library and the copy
> > > distributed across the Google servers is a "safekeeping" copy. Again,
> > > at no time can a searcher get a full copy of a work.
> >
> > "Personal" use is exactly as it says: personal. An institution is not
> > covered under the Home Recording act (see http://www.hrrc.org). In terms
> > of the copyright law, there is no consideration of whether a searcher
> > can get a "full copy" of the work -- the copyright law covers the making
> > of copies, not their access. And note that "safekeeping" copies for
> > libraries are sufficiently addressed by current copyright law in section
> > 108, and there are strong restrictions on that copying.
> >
> > I am no fan of copyright law, but if the discussion is whether Google's
> > activities violate the law, then I think that there's a good case to be
> > made that the letter of the law is being violated. The question then
> > arises as to whether the law, as it stands today, is relevant for
> > digital materials and for uses such as those envisioned by Google. But
> > to claim that somehow Google's actions fall within the law is a real
> > stretch. I welcome Google's actions, however, because I think that by
> > pushing the envelope they may force a re-assessment of what copying
> > means in the digital environment. Ultimately, their actions may lead to
> > a general agreement that copyright law based on the hard copy
> > environment is not suitable for the digital, networked information world.
> >
> > kc
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Steven C. Perkins
> > >
> > >
> > > At 05:53 PM 9/8/2005, you wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see some immediate problems with Band's thesis. Kelly v. Arriba
> > >> Soft had to do with the copying of web resources already available
> > >> for open access; Google is taking print resources and digitizing
> > >> them. Also, although the copying of the books for the purposes of
> > >> indexing may not be a violation of copyright law, Google is making
> > >> full digital copies of the books for the libraries. Those copies are
> > >> probably not covered under fair use, and for sure they aren't covered
> > >> under section 108 of the copyright law (which allows libraries to
> > >> make copies under some circumstances for the purposes of preservation).
> > >>
> > >> kc
> > >>
> > >> Steven C. Perkins wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hello:
> > >>>
> > >>> The link below goes to a 6 page analysis of the Google Print program
> > >>> by Jonathan Band.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>> He concludes that under the fair use results of the Arriba case [1],
> > >>> it is unlikely that the Google Print program violates US copyright
> > law.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Steven C. Perkins
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)
> > >>>
> > http://www.eff.org/IP/Linking/Kelly_v_Arriba_Soft/20020206_9th_cir_decision.pdf
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Steven C. Perkins, JD, MLL Coordinator of
> > >>> Reference Services
> > >>> M.D. Anderson Library University of Houston
> > >>> SPerkins at UH.Edu 713-743-9775; fax 9778
> > >>> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" --Juvenal
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > -----------------------------------------***-----------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Web4lib mailing list
> > >>> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > >>> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> -----------------------------------
> > >> Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> > >> kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> > >> ph.: 510-540-7596
> > >> fx.: 510-848-3913
> > >> mo.: 510-435-8234
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > -----------------------------------
> > Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
> > kcoyle at kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
> > ph.: 510-540-7596
> > fx.: 510-848-3913
> > mo.: 510-435-8234
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web4lib mailing list
> > Web4lib at webjunction.org
> > http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Steven C. Perkins SCPerkins at gmail.com
> http://stevencperkins.com/
> http://intelligent-internet.info/
> http://jgg-online.blogspot.com/
> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~scperkins/
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
>