lagilman: coffee or die (do I look impressed to you?)
[personal profile] lagilman
Yeah, I'm not real thrilled about this, for various reasons including the "my work, my decision what gets done with it, not some random corporation."

If you wanted to draw the analogy with "my body my decision," you might not be too far off.



----------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] mb_galleycat at Google Wins 8-Year Book Scanning Battle

googlebooksGoogle has won its controversial book scanning fight with the Author’s Guild. US Circuit Judge Denny Chin ruled in favor of Google on Thursday claiming that Google’s massive book scanning project, in which the online giant scanned millions of books and made them available through search without obtaining the permission of the copyright holders, to be legal.


According to Chin’s ruling, Google’s project makes life easier for research, makes it easier for libraries to obtain digital copies of books, brings old books to light and gives people who would not have access to books access. Here is an excerpt from the ruling



The sole issue now before the Court is whether Google’suse of the copyrighted works is “fair use” under the copyrightlaws. For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that it is.




We’ve embedded the entire document after the jump. continued…


New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.

Date: 2013-11-15 03:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com
This isn't the kind of discussion it's good to have online, but I disagree about the consequences of this ruling. I think Judge Chin made the right call.

We'll see what happens when the Circuit gets a hold of it, of course.

Date: 2013-11-15 03:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com
Well, that's just it, isn't it? The creator has never had total control over the work, and at least from my view this doesn't substantially change that balance.

Date: 2013-11-15 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com
Before 1978 "fair use" was entirely a judicial concept. The statute in the '76 Act simply codified that the judges have discretion and gave them a little bit of guidance, but continued to leave it up to the judge.

Date: 2013-11-15 03:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scifantasy.livejournal.com
The "orphaned works" point was part of the proposed settlement, though, not this. The Guild was on board with that, and the judge ended up striking it down because of the public interest.

Here, the keys to the decision were the public good. Excerpts:

"Google's use of the copyrighted works is highly transformative. Google Books digitizes books and transforms expressive text into a comprehensive word index that helps readers, scholars, researchers, and others find books. Google Books has become an important tool for libraries and librarians and cite-checkers as it helps to identify and find books. The use of book text to facilitate search through the display of snippets is transformative."

"Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in books are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google Books has created something new in the use of book text -- the frequency of words and trends in their usage provide substantive information."

"a reasonable factfinder could only find that Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders. An important factor in the success of an individual title is whether it is discovered -- whether potential readers learn of its existence. Google Books provides a way for authors' works to become noticed, much like traditional in-store book displays."

(And so much for me saying I don't want to try to argue this online...but then, this matters to me too, after all.)

Date: 2013-11-16 03:45 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scarlettina.livejournal.com
I suspect that you already know that I stand with you on this issue. What I wonder is, can the Author's Guild appeal this case to the Supreme Court? Or is this decision the final word on the matter? (I genuinely don't know what the law dictates or allows with regard to a U.S. circuit court decision; it's a question asked out of ignorance, nothing else.)

ETA: And if they can, do you think they will?
Edited Date: 2013-11-16 03:45 pm (UTC)

Date: 2013-11-16 05:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elsceetaria.livejournal.com
I have used Google Books for research before. It's usually to find a specific quote or something that I need a page number for, but there were other times when I needed to read an article in a book I had the wrong edition of. I always could have given more time gotten the books from the library.

I have also done freelance research where I was finding sources for others. In these situations, I probably would have just used the books from Google books if they had been helpful (this never came up though), and in those situations, I would have been using the copyright holders materials for profit without permission.

It isn't fair to the copyright holders in those situations, and the part of me that might one day publish sees that. I'm not a lawyer, but given my understanding and experiences I can see both sides of the argument. It will be interesting to see how this case continues.

Date: 2013-11-18 09:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] damiana-swan.livejournal.com
I'm really pretty infuriated by this decision.

Lo these many years ago, my partner & I published a benefit anthology called Ravens in the Library. The only permissions we asked for from the authors and artists involved were print permissions, and they were strictly limited--as soon as SJ Tucker's medical bills were paid off, the book would go out of print.

Which is exactly what we did.

And then it was revealed that the Google Book project involved scanning All The Things, not just books that were out of copyright. We looked it up, and yup, sure enough--they had listed our book as being part of their collection, although it was as of yet unscanned.

Needless to say, they had not made even the slightest attempt to contact us for permission. In fact, they made it clear that as far as they were concerned, ALL works were orphans, and they HAD permission unless someone made the effort to tell them No, and then that No would not be comprehensive--each printing, each edition, had to have its own individual No, and the process to tell them No was time-intensive. One author I know literally spent several days on it.

And then they announced their plans to sell electronic copies of the books they scanned, which, as far as I can tell, everyone seems to have forgotten about, including Judge Chin.

Not. Happy. At. All.
Edited Date: 2013-11-18 09:31 pm (UTC)

Profile

lagilman: coffee or die (Default)
Laura Anne Gilman

September 2018

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 04:59 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios