September 20, 2005 3:12 PM PDT
Authors Guild sues Google over library project
- Related Stories
-
Google pauses library project
August 12, 2005 -
Publishers balk at Google book copy plan
May 24, 2005
As part of its Google Print Library Project, the company is working to scan all or parts of the book collections of the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Stanford University, the New York Public Library and Oxford University. It intends to make those texts searchable on Google and to sell advertisements on the Web pages.
"This is a plain and brazen violation of copyright law," Nick Taylor, president of the New York-based Authors Guild, said in a statement about the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status. "It's not up to Google or anyone other than the authors, the rightful owners of these copyrights, to decide whether and how their works will be copied."
In response, Google defended the program in a company blog posting.
"We regret that this group chose to sue us over a program that will make millions of books more discoverable to the world--especially since any copyright holder can exclude their books from the program," wrote Susan Wojcicki, vice president of product management. "Google respects copyright. The use we make of all the books we scan through the Library Project is fully consistent with both the fair use doctrine under U.S. copyright law and the principles underlying copyright law itself, which allow everything from parodies to excerpts in book reviews."
This Authors Guild lawsuit doesn't mark the first objection to the Google program. Other groups, including the Association of American University Presses, have also criticized it.
Last month, Google said it would temporarily halt its book scanning in the project in response to the criticisms. It said at the time that it also was making changes to its Google Print Publisher Program, in which books are scanned at the request of the publisher so people can view excerpts.
The individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which seeks damages and an injunction to stop the digitizing, are former New York Times editorial writer Herbert Mitgang, children's author Betty Miles and Daniel Hoffman, the 1973-1974 Poet Laureate of the United States.
The Authors Guild represents more than 8,000 authors and is the largest society of published writers in the United States.
Google did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment on the lawsuit. (Google representatives have instituted a policy of not talking with CNET News.com reporters until July 2006 in response to privacy issues raised by a previous story.)
See more CNET content tagged:
Google Book Search,
copyright law,
Google Inc.,
lawsuit,
author
Apparently, I've missed something.
Fair or not. They're a marked target, just like all the frivilous lawsuits by people "harmed" by any large companies supposed actions.
Yes, certain exceptions do exist. However, in NO case is it allowed to make total and complete copies without permission. Even if you're doing it for free, it's still infringement.
==========
Irrelevant to this issue, but related: If the original copyrighted work is in digital form, the "fair use" loophole that has been widely used for so many years has been closed by the DMCA.
Apparently, I've missed something.
Fair or not. They're a marked target, just like all the frivilous lawsuits by people "harmed" by any large companies supposed actions.
Yes, certain exceptions do exist. However, in NO case is it allowed to make total and complete copies without permission. Even if you're doing it for free, it's still infringement.
==========
Irrelevant to this issue, but related: If the original copyrighted work is in digital form, the "fair use" loophole that has been widely used for so many years has been closed by the DMCA.
We Know - Shut Up!!
We Know - Shut Up!!
You can do as I did and search Google Print for the phrase "hispanic police officers" and find out what books I might want to buy or borrow from a library that cover this subject well. If I want to borrow a particular book from my local library, I might request that the library purchase that book.
You can do as I did and search Google Print for the phrase "hispanic police officers" and find out what books I might want to buy or borrow from a library that cover this subject well. If I want to borrow a particular book from my local library, I might request that the library purchase that book.
I have not seen a single mention of Gutenberg in any news article I have read on the issue. What is the deal? Am I missing something? When I think of public domain books, I always think of the Gutenberg Project (and have for years). This non-profit organization has put in an unbelievable amount of volunteer time and effort over the years to do exactly what Google is talking about doing now. But it seems that many journalists don?t even know who you are.
From http://www.gutenberg.org/: A huge archive of free etexts of works that are in the public domain in the USA....
Of course, if the U.S. Congress continues to grovel before its corporate masters and extend copyright law, this project may fizzle out.
I have not seen a single mention of Gutenberg in any news article I have read on the issue. What is the deal? Am I missing something? When I think of public domain books, I always think of the Gutenberg Project (and have for years). This non-profit organization has put in an unbelievable amount of volunteer time and effort over the years to do exactly what Google is talking about doing now. But it seems that many journalists don?t even know who you are.
From http://www.gutenberg.org/: A huge archive of free etexts of works that are in the public domain in the USA....
Of course, if the U.S. Congress continues to grovel before its corporate masters and extend copyright law, this project may fizzle out.
is not important today those 8000 will not be important.
is like those AH that kill napster, i don have music from them nd i dont recomend to listem to them
is not important today those 8000 will not be important.
is like those AH that kill napster, i don have music from them nd i dont recomend to listem to them
That is correct, but the way they are allowed to do it is to sue if copyright has been infringed. Copying a copyrighted work is an infringement ONLY IF the copyright holder does not agree to the use of the work. As long as the copyright holder does not object to the copying, Google can copy. Now what this authors guild is trying to do is to prevent Google from indexing not just the works whose authors want them not to index, but also all works whose author has not objected to copying. They are just trying to avoid competition by those multitude of authors who do not object to their works being indexed. They have no right under copyright law to prevent Google from copying. Their only right is to sue Google based on individual infringements after the fact. But of course they realize that they don't stand a chance in that case, because what Google serves are only snippets, and their use of the material for searching falls perfectly under "research" in fair use.
You own the copyright? You have the right to make copies. Don't own it, don't have the right. Simple.
Copyright law creates property interests in creative works similar to any other property interests. So what you're saying is akin to saying I can take your car and drive it around town and its all good and legal until you speak up, or I can come into your house when you're not there and watch your tv and its not trespassing unitl you say "get out." That's not the way copyright law, or property law in general, works.
I'm a Goog shareholder, but as a lawyer I see no way defense here. The "fair use" doctrine is a non-starter since Google plans to profit off this copying by selling advertising.
That is correct, but the way they are allowed to do it is to sue if copyright has been infringed. Copying a copyrighted work is an infringement ONLY IF the copyright holder does not agree to the use of the work. As long as the copyright holder does not object to the copying, Google can copy. Now what this authors guild is trying to do is to prevent Google from indexing not just the works whose authors want them not to index, but also all works whose author has not objected to copying. They are just trying to avoid competition by those multitude of authors who do not object to their works being indexed. They have no right under copyright law to prevent Google from copying. Their only right is to sue Google based on individual infringements after the fact. But of course they realize that they don't stand a chance in that case, because what Google serves are only snippets, and their use of the material for searching falls perfectly under "research" in fair use.
You own the copyright? You have the right to make copies. Don't own it, don't have the right. Simple.
Copyright law creates property interests in creative works similar to any other property interests. So what you're saying is akin to saying I can take your car and drive it around town and its all good and legal until you speak up, or I can come into your house when you're not there and watch your tv and its not trespassing unitl you say "get out." That's not the way copyright law, or property law in general, works.
I'm a Goog shareholder, but as a lawyer I see no way defense here. The "fair use" doctrine is a non-starter since Google plans to profit off this copying by selling advertising.
Hell, if the authors had thought of it first, they probably would have paid Google to do this.
As a business matter, you have a point. This may help sales for many authors. The problem is, Google should have first made that case to the authors and negotiated licenses before copying the material. Maybe they could have convinced them to let them do it for free. Or Google would project their advertising revenue, and the authors would say give us a small percentage. But Google chose not to do it the legal way presumably because they were in too big a rush.
You just can't infringe on another person's property rights without permission and say, "don't worry, you'll be better off for it." Not if you don't want to get sued anyway.
Hell, if the authors had thought of it first, they probably would have paid Google to do this.
As a business matter, you have a point. This may help sales for many authors. The problem is, Google should have first made that case to the authors and negotiated licenses before copying the material. Maybe they could have convinced them to let them do it for free. Or Google would project their advertising revenue, and the authors would say give us a small percentage. But Google chose not to do it the legal way presumably because they were in too big a rush.
You just can't infringe on another person's property rights without permission and say, "don't worry, you'll be better off for it." Not if you don't want to get sued anyway.
We don't have the right to say "I'm not going to pay for it because I don't want to and I don't have to."
We don't have the right to say "I'm not going to pay for it because I don't want to and I don't have to."
and indexing copyrighted printed material? http://vizu.com/
vote_poll/Current+Events/Business/Domestic+US/Companies/
Legal/google/copyright/copyrighted/.jsp?n=2698&cId=45
Interesting results.
- Does the world think Google is violating copyright laws?
-
by theevilgecko
October 24, 2005 1:02 PM PDT
- See if most people think Google violating the law by scanning
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 40 Comments >>and indexing copyrighted printed material? http://vizu.com/
vote_poll/Current+Events/Business/Domestic+US/Companies/
Legal/google/copyright/copyrighted/.jsp?n=2698&cId=45
Interesting results.