Re: AAP/Google in Chronicle of Higher Education

[adam hodgkin <adam.hodgkin@gmail.com>]

To the contrary. Publishers will feel on the strongest ground in relation
to the breach of copyright in Google making the scanning. I am not sure
that publishers are right in law, and Google think its not the case, but
most publishers believe that copyright law allows them to prevent
mechanical electronic copying without permission (Sally Morris's point was
that Google's method absolutely involves wholesale copying -- it could not
be more wholesale and complete even if the redistribution is not wholesale
and complete).

I suspect that there are some good arguments that could be mounted for
Google's apparently permissive view of
automated-copying-with-no-commercial-damage for in copyright texts (think
about the looser rules which govern TV programmes and Music recordings).
So it could become a very tough court issue.

Hard to say who would win, but there has to be a good chance that the
publishers would win. There is a certain irony in the situation because
Google's deal with the publishers apparently reinforces the publishers
position. Google has faithfully reproduced the publishers claims on the
copyright pages which says such things as:

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying recording or otherwise without the the prior
permission of Oxford University Press

*http://tinyurl.com/9u6y6
(the copyright page for Islam and Democracy by Esposito and Voll

* Most of the Google Print books which come from publishers have very
similar pages. There are thousands of such examples in the Google Print
repository.

If it comes to a court case and Google is shown not to have respected the
stated prohibition which it has faithfully reproduced in these pages (in
the books that come from libraries as well as in those that come from
publishers) their lawyers will need very fancy footwork.

Another little 'post modern/post Gutenberg' irony. Because Google print
does not allow one to copy or cut and paste I have had to retype the
copyright statement from Esposito and Voll. Apologies to all concerned if
there is a misprint in my transcription of it! Alas Google Print does not
(yet) enable efficient web citation or reliable quotation.

Adam

On 6/21/05, Hamaker, Chuck <cahamake@email.uncc.edu> wrote:

> What possible difference would it make for Google to "stop scanning"..its
> not the scanning but display and access.
>
> Existence of scanned text doesn't mean much, scanning + OCR is done daily
> by millions.
>
> Do publishers think they can stop the world from scanning anymore than
> they could stop Xeroxing? Why would they want to? The more useful
> publisher content becomes the more important it is.
>
> Scanning isn't the issue-- it is display and access and distribution that
> are the core rights at issue.
>
> Chuck Hamaker
> UNC Charlotte
> Atkins Library
> Charlotte, NC