Is Google's full-text search service 'Google Books' a copyright violation or not?


In 2004, Google signed with multiple libraries in Japan and abroad, scanned the library collection with the agreement with the library, digitized it, donate the digitized data to the library side, while the table of contents of the scanned book We launched the project "Google Books Library Project" to allow Internet users to browse the contents of the project. The born from this project is the full text search service of books provided by Google "Google Books"is. In the service, the full text is published for works whose copyright protection period has expired, while other titles and contents can be viewed in part of the contents, but the service violated the copyright There is a possibility that it is pointed out.

The Authors Guild Is Still Wrong About Google's Book Scanning

The American Writers Association based in New York based industry sued Google in 2005 shortly after Google Books' service began. In the middle of October 2015 when 10 years passed since then,Federal Circuit Court of AppealsIn the deliberations held at the American Writers Association, the appeal that "The book scanning and indexing action done by Google Books is a copyright violation" unanimouslyDismissalIt was done. The court says, "Google's actions bring public benefit without violating copyright laws."

In response, the American Writers Association considered appealing to the Supreme Court. In addition, Roxana Robinson, who is chairman of the association, informs the world how Google's conduct is wrong,The Wall Street JournalAbove"How Google Stole the Work of Millions of Authors(How does Google steal the work of millions of writers?) "Was posted.

In the article, Mr. Robinson said, "In 2004, Google sent a moving truck to the library and carried over 20 million books, including those in the period of copyright protection There was something that was not so, but all copied, this policy has not gained any permission to the author or publisher of the book and has not made any warranty to the right owner " We are criticizing the actions of Google side hardly.

On the side of the writers association, Google insists that the author "stole" 20 million books to the copyright holder without any notice and that the writer suffered due to the influence, but the two trials As I indicated, there are many ideas that Google Books does not fall under copyright violations.

The court controversy between Google Books and the American Writers Association is one of the longest continuations in America's history. The case was filed in 2005, the American Writers Association has filed an appeal that Google Books is "copying the table of contents of the book" without the permission of the publisher falling under copyright, We insist that you should pay the original compensation.

But Google and its supporters found that book digitization and table of contents is "Google books are beneficial to society as users can search books online (potentially also promoting books) It is a thing. " Furthermore, it is assumed that digitization of books is not "simple copying" but "deformation" into a useful form for digital, which is equivalent to "deformed use" of copyright law I will. In addition, Google's act of making the table of contents digitally searchable when digitizing books is: "By looking at the table of contents, you can not understand the contents of the book" The table of contents is just a short piece of short text " We insist that it is not copyright infringement.

ByCatface 27

In the law of the United States, even if you use the copyrighted material without permission of the publisher "Fair use(Fair use) ", it does not count against copyright infringement. There are four criteria for that "fair use", one is "purpose and character of use", the second is the "property of copyrighted work", the third is "relationship with the whole work The fourth is the "influence of the use on the potential use or value of the copyrighted work".

The American Writers 'Association lost to Google in the first trial that took place in 2013, and in the second trial in 2015, Google' s "fair use" was accepted. Denny Chin, who served as the judge of the first instance, said, "Digitization and table positioning of Google's books are not only beneficial for both authors and bookmakers, they also benefit society as a whole." I said. In addition, it is said that "profit to society as a whole that can be enjoyed by digitizing books" exceeds the point that "Google is a commercial enterprise", it is recognized as fair use rather than copyright violation.


The American Writers Association says that the person who invented the original copyright law says "It can not be helped if companies with a mighty power like Google could not predict the existence of the Internet", and the clause on fair use There is a problem with the existing copyright law itself, as it is unlikely that "for profit-oriented enterprises digitize and reproduce many works without the permission of the publisher" I suggest that.

However, the copyright law was originally established in order to prevent "the author forever obtain income from copyrighted work" and to "promote the development of science and useful arts". To the American Writers Association, it is never the worst that it is possible to promote potential promotion to people by digitizing books and indexing them, and on the contrary, Google Books is useful if considered as a whole society There is no mistake. American business magazineFortune"The American writers association's claims are not only legally misdirected, but it looks much more costly than the Google side," he severely criticizes the writers association side.

The American Writers' Association said, "The approach of" deformative use "differs considerably when deliberation in the appellate court is compared with judgment in other trials. Unless it returns to the basics, copyright protection in the digital age is abnormal The fundamental alteration of the copyright law should not be accepted without judgment of the Supreme Court, "as appealed to the Supreme Court.

in Note, Posted by logu_ii