From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:21:45 -0500 For another discussion of this topic, following a post by Rick Anderson on The Scholarly Kitchen and including a long comment by me, see: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2015/10/21/another-big-win-for-google-books-and-for-researchers/ As for Leval's analysis of derivative works, in saying that derivative works generally have to do with change in form or format (like translations or a movie based on a book), he conveniently ignores the fact that the definition of derivative works in the Copyright Act includes condensations and abridgments, which clearly do NOT involve any such changes. Sandy Thatcher > From: "Seeley, Mark (ELS-WAL)" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:18:13 +0000 > > I've also been thinking about the Authors Guild-Google decision and > posted a longer analysis and summary (comment) on my LinkedIn summary > section, but will summarize below. As you might expect, I'm highly > concerned about the uncertainty introduced by the panel's expansion of > 'transformative' use from its origin as a part of the first factor > 'purpose of the use' to a "suggestive symbol for a complex thought" > that runs through all four factors. > > I think it is also odd for the court to equate a scholar's potential > research purpose in the often-used "United States as plural vs > singular entity" example, with Google's purpose in creating a huge > database of content. In other words I don't think Google started the > Book/Library project in order to do a specific scholarly research > project. No doubt Google started it for a variety of reasons > (including socially useful purposes) -- but certainly one of those > reasons was to generally enrich and improve Google's own search > algorithms by exposure to an ever increasing mountain of data. That's > a huge competitive advantage for Google which is extremely difficult > for any other technology vendor or rights organization to compete > with. > > It also concerns me that the court pays so little attention to the > possibilities of potential markets for authors in these kinds of > secondary users-the literal language of 107 does actually use the word > "potential," and in essence the court has put the burden of proof re > this aspect on the rights-holder. > > Bottom line is that although the decision could be read narrowly > (specific and unusual fact circumstances, possible appeal, perhaps > differences in approach among the circuits), there's no question that > this is a very influential jurist (Leval) and a very influential > court, and therefore very impactful. I think it makes it very > difficult to articulate what "fair use" actually means in practice > (thinking about the reference in the Liblicense model agreement for > example)... > > https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=16596255&trk=hp-identity-name > (then go to the "summary" section)Š > > Mark Seeley > > Mark Seeley, Senior Vice President & General Counsel > Elsevier > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]> > To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:15:01 +0000 > > I have blogged about the ruling at: > > http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2015/10/18/google-books-fair-use-and-the-public-good/ > > but wanted to make an additional observation. As I read, and wrote > about, Judge Leval's effort to distinguish a transformative use from > the creation of a derivative work, I was forcefully remind of > Professor L. Ray Patterson's frequently rejected distinction between > using a work and using the copyright in the work. Perhaps Patterson > was not so off-the-wall as some thought, merely ahead of his time. > > Kevin L. Smith > Director, Copyright & Scholarly Communication Duke University Libraries > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 19:51:23 -0400 > > Reuters: A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that Google's massive > effort to scan millions of books for an online library does not > violate copyright law, rejecting claims from a group of authors that > the project illegally deprives them of revenue. > > The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected > infringement claims from the Authors Guild and several individual > writers, and found that the project provides a public service without > violating intellectual property law. > > We recommend the roundup from Gary Price of INFOdocket. See for > summaries, link to decision, commentary, and much more, at: > > http://www.infodocket.com/2015/10/16/ruling-just-in-google-book-scanning-project-legal-says-u-s-appeals-court/ > > Any consequences, for example, for HathiTrust? Maybe not...