Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Nov 2013 16:37 UTC

Google has won a resounding victory in its eight-year copyright battle with the Authors Guild over the search giant's controversial decision to scan more than 20 million library and make the available on the internet.

In a ruling (embedded below) issued Thursday morning in New York, US Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use because it was "highly transformative" and because it didn't harm the market for the original work.

"Google Books provides significant public benefits," writes Chin, describing it as "an essential research tool" and noting that the scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Too much common sense. I'm not sure I can handle this.

Thread beginning with comment 576886
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Copyright and whole worksâ¦
by olafg on Fri 15th Nov 2013 18:52 UTC
Member since:

While one might argue that Google Books are only presenting parts of a novel, they do indeed present whole works in terms of poems and art-books. I think they are violating fair use. The courts would never accept this from a real person.

What they are doing is equivalent to publishing invidual tracks from a music CD because it is only 10% of the CD. It is still a copyright violation.

Something is very wrong with this ruling. Is it OK to publish 10% of a 500 page collection of comic books bound together, but not OK to publish 100% of the same 50 page individual comic book? Makes no sense whatsoever. Google would still be presenting the same work, and the full work at that.

Guess what, an image is a full work in it's own right, even if it is part of a book. Displaying it in order to earn money from advertising without permission pretending that it is a catalogue is dubious.

What this means now is that you loose your rights as an artist if your artworks are bound together in a book. So you better not do it. It also means that DRM hell actually becomes legitimate. If big corporations don't have to heed copyright the natural solution is for publishers to stop publishing and start making works available for renting under strict terms.

Well, the world's court systems have never been sane. The US is no exception, obviously.

(and why doesn't OSNews support utf-8 in the comment title? :^)

Edited 2013-11-15 18:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

olafg Member since:

(Of course if Google always seek permission when displaying images and poems etc then they are ok... I am merely arguing this in terms of principles.)

Edited 2013-11-15 19:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:

So... Wherever the author is unreachable of the copyright has passed onto an unknown entity, we just give up and burn the work of art?
I mean... If you can't read it out loud without author's permission, then you should just give up on what might be a valuable piece of human knowledge/culture.

Reply Parent Score: 2