Ruling may undercut Google in book scan fight

Recent court decision on image copyrights might undermine defense for Google in dispute with publishers, authors.
The New York Times
Nude-photo site wins injunction against Google

The story "Ruling may undercut Google in book scan fight" published February 25, 2006 at 4:24 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.

[lissack]

Google Book Search Is NOT Fair Use

There is NO fair use provision in the copyright law with respect to the production of a derivative work. The act of scanning a book to produce a digital copy which is then held by Google on its serveers is the production of a derivative work. Google arrogantly asserts a right that does not exist anywhere in the law. The right to create derivative works is reserved solely to the copyright hodler with NO exceptions. Fair use is with respect to a copy NOT with resepct to the creastion/production of a derivative work.

The court has correctly udnerstood the issue. It is a shame that Google cannot or will not.

More at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://lissack.com" target="_newWindow">http://lissack.com</a>

[IcicleM]

Unfair Use

I didn't think you could claim 'fair use' if the reason you'd thieved the content in the first place was a commercial one?

Such as for instance scanning in a book then displaying bits of it with related Adsense adverts underneath - and not even offering the copyright holder a percentage of the revenue. This is especially unfortunate when the exact ad shown is dependent on the extract displayed.

Then theres the matter of scanning in the Koran and displaying ads on that, which ought to strike anyone with half a brain, as a bad idea.

[lissack]

Google Book Search Is NOT Fair Use

There is NO fair use provision in the copyright law with respect to the production of a derivative work. The act of scanning a book to produce a digital copy which is then held by Google on its serveers is the production of a derivative work. Google arrogantly asserts a right that does not exist anywhere in the law. The right to create derivative works is reserved solely to the copyright hodler with NO exceptions. Fair use is with respect to a copy NOT with respect to the creastion/production of a derivative work.

The court has correctly udnerstood the issue. It is a shame that Google cannot or will not.

More at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://lissack.com" target="_newWindow">http://lissack.com</a>

[zaznet]

Have you used this service?

This service allows you to find books with words and phrases you are interested in. This is a service for the book sellers. Otherwise I'm just going to find something online that I can get for free rather than buying the book.

Same thing goes for the image search. If I am looking for Perfect 10's images and can't find them because they don't show up in the Google Image Search, I'm going to get to another competitors site (who allows Google to index their images) and become their customer.

Companies are quick to sue Google over their rights to copyrighted works, but they fail to realize the potential for profiting on these things for BOTH companies involved. They need to set up licensing with Google to allow for the searching and image reproduction so they can maximize the potential for public users to find the material and then make an informed purchase.

[zaznet]

Missing their opportunity.

Companies continue to miss out on a golden opportunity to profit from the unique services Google is offering. By removing your works from these indexes you make it harder for customers to find you. This is like going to the Yellow pages and asking to NOT list the number or address for your business because you copyrighted it.

Wake up Corporate America, and get with the information age!

[stoicnluv]

Violates clause

Most, if not all, books have this printed:

"No PART of this book must be reproduced in ANY form or ANY means whatsoever without the expressed permission from the author and/or publishers."

Doesn't google violate this clause?
I'm not implying anything, i'm sincerely just
asking for clarification.

[markdoiron]

Google Should Boycott 'Em

Google should place onto a blacklist every single company that sues them over this use of their copyrighted works. Yes, i agree Google is in a "gray" area, but these companies are so ignorant of the power of Google to bring them business that they don't deserve all the free advertising Google is giving them. If it was ABC/NBC/CBS saying, "We're going to promote your book on a TV show at no charge to you", they'd all be jumping at it. And Google exposure can be so much more powerful and long-lasting but these businesses don't get it.

mark d.