Facilitating library access to scholarly texts brings us one step closer to this goal. We're thankful to the libraries and librarians who make it possible. We provide two ways to make it easier for your patrons to access the electronic and print resources in your library when they're using Google Scholar. Library links are article-level links to subscription full text for patrons affiliated with a library.
This program works best for electronic resources, such as journal and conference articles. We also support several smaller vendors and regional products. Please contact the vendor of your link resolver to get included in Google Scholar. The vendor will normally ask you to fill a registration form that contains your subscriber IPs and the text of the link.
They will then augment this information with your electronic holdings, and make this data available to our automatic indexing system. Your links should appear in Google Scholar within a week or two from the time the vendor makes your data available to our search robots. Please also contact your vendor if you need to make changes to your registration, or to remove it entirely. Once the vendor makes a change at their end, our automatic update process should normally pick it up within a week or two.
Library search offers links to book catalogs where the patron can check local availability of a book, or request a library loan. This program works best for print resources, such as textbooks and monographs.
We also work with many other national and regional union catalogs. Participating union catalogs make their bibliographic records available to our automatic indexing system. We index these records and link to the union catalog pages, which, in turn, normally link to the catalog of your library. You don't need to register with us for library search. We link to union catalogs, and the union catalogs link to individual library collections.
Please contact your union catalog if you have questions about library search. The publishers, in contrast, only requested injunctive relief. Neither group of plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order before the November 1 date on which Google announced that it would resume scanning in-copyright books.
Neither group sued the libraries for making the books available to Google, nor for the copies Google is making for them. The Library Project involves two actions that raise copyright questions.
First, Google copies the full text of books into its search database. Second, in response to user queries, Google presents users with a few sentences from the stored text. Because the amount of expression presented to the user is de minimus , this second action probably would not lead to liability. Perhaps for this reason, the lawsuits focus on the first issue, Google's copying of the full text of books into its search database. As noted above, Google announced that it would honor a request from a copyright owner not to scan its book.
The owners, however, insist that the burden should not be on them to request Google not to scan a particular work; rather, the burden should be on Google to request permission to scan the work. According to Pat Schroeder, AAP President, Google's opt-out procedure "shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear. Thus, as a practical matter, the entire dispute between the owners and Google boils down to who should make the first move: should Google have to ask permission before it scans?
Or should the owner have to tell Google that it does not want the work scanned? The owners are correct that copyright typically is an opt-in system, and that Google is copying vast amounts of copyrighted material without authorization. Google responds that this copying is permitted under the fair use doctrine, 17 U. The critical question in the litigation is whether the fair use doctrine excuses Google's copying. The U. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which comprises the states on the West Coast, recently issued a decision that is directly on point.
In Kelly v. Arriba Soft , F. Arriba compiled its database of images by sending out software spiders that copied thousands of pictures from websites, without the express authorization of the website operators. Arriba reduced the full size images into thumbnails, which it stored in its database. In response to a user query, the Arriba search engine displayed responsive thumbnails. If a user clicked on one of the thumbnails, she was linked to the full size image on the original website from which the image had been copied.
Kelly, a photographer, discovered that some of the photographs from his website were in the Arriba search database, and he sued for copyright infringement. The lower court found that Arriba's reproduction of the photographs was a fair use, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. With respect to "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature," 17 U. However, Arriba's use of Kelly's images.
Arriba was neither using Kelly's images to directly promote its web site nor trying to profit by selling Kelly's images. Instead, Kelly's images were among thousands of images in Arriba's search engine database. Moreover, the court concluded that Arriba's use was "transformative" — that its use did not merely supersede the object of the originals, but instead added a further purpose or different character.
While Kelly's "images are artistic works intended to inform and engage the viewer in an aesthetic experience," Arriba's search engine "functions as a tool to help index and improve access to images on the internet. With respect to the second fair use factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, the Ninth Circuit observed that "[w]orks that are creative in nature are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than are more fact-based works.
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the second factor weighed only slightly in favor of Kelly. The court also reviewed "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The Ninth Circuit ruled that. It was necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image to allow users to recognize the image and decide whether to pursue more information about the image or the originating web site. If Arriba copied only part of the image, it would be more difficult to identify it, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of the visual search engine.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit decided that "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work," 17 U. The court found that the Arriba "search engine would guide users to Kelly's web site rather than away from it. Everything the Ninth Circuit stated with respect to Arriba can be applied with equal force to the Library Project.
Although Google operates the program for commercial purposes, it is not attempting to profit from the sale of a copy of any of the books scanned into its database, and thus its use is not highly exploitative. Like Arriba, the Library Project involves only published works. And while some of these works will be creative, the vast majority will be non-fiction. As in Kelly , Google's copying of entire books into its database is reasonable for the purpose of the effective operation of the search engine; searches of partial text necessarily would lead to incomplete results.
Moreover, unlike Arriba, Google will not provide users with a copy of the entire work, but only with a few sentences surrounding the search term. And if a particular term appears many times in the book, the search engine will allow the user to view only three instances - thereby preventing the user from accessing too much of the book.
Finally, as with the Arriba search engine, it is hard to imagine how the Library Project could actually harm the market for books, given the limited amount of text a user will be able to view.
To be sure, if a user could view and print out many pages of a book, it is conceivable that the user would rely upon the search engine rather than purchase the book. Similarly, under those circumstances, libraries might direct users to the search engine rather than purchase expensive reference materials. But when the user can access only a few sentences before and after the search term, any displacement of sales is unlikely.
Moreover, the Library Project may actually benefit the market for the book by identifying it to users and demonstrating its relevance. This is particularly important for the vast majority of books that are not well publicized by their publishers.
Google will encourage users to obtain a hard copy of the book by providing a link to information where the book can be borrowed or purchased. The owners have three responses to Kelly. First, they note that Arriba stored a compressed, low-resolution version of each image, while Google will store the full text of each book.
This seems to be a distinction without a difference, because Arriba had to make a high resolution copy before compressing it. Furthermore, the low resolution image Arriba displayed to users represents far more of the work than the snippets Google will display to its users. In any event, neither the scanned copy nor the snippets supplant the market for the original work.
Second, they suggest that Kelly is distinguishable because it involved the copying of digital images on the Internet, while Google will be digitizing analog works. If an owner decides to place a work on a website, it knows that the website will be "crawled" by a software "spider" sent out by a search engine, and it knows that the spider will copy the work into its search index. Thus, by placing the work on the website, the owner has given a search engine an implied license to copy the work into its search database.
By contrast, the author or publisher of a book has not given an implied license for the book to be scanned. Google has three possible responses to this argument. One, the Kelly decision makes no reference to an implied license; its fair use analysis did not turn on an implied license.
Two, this argument suggests that works uploaded onto the Internet are entitled to less protection than analog works. This runs contrary to the entertainment industry's repeated assertion that copyright law applies to the Internet in precisely the same manner as it applies to the analog environment. Three, Google can argue that its opt-out feature constitutes a similar form of implied license.
A critical element of the implied license argument with respect to material on the Internet is the copyright owner's ability to use an "exclusion header. If a search engine's spider detects an exclusion header, it will not copy the website into the search index. Thus, if a website operator places content on the Internet without an exclusion header, the search engine can assume that the operator has given it an implied license to copy the website.
Similarly, now that Google has announced its opt-out policy, it can argue that any owner that has not opted out has given it an implied license to scan. The copyright owners' third response to Kelly is that it is wrongly decided.
In other words, the Ninth Circuit made a mistake. While the trial court in New York may look to Kelly for guidance, Kelly is not a binding precedent in the Second Circuit. Similarly, when the case is appealed to the Second Circuit, the Second Circuit will be interested in how the Ninth Circuit handled a similar case, but it is free to conduct its own analysis.
The court rejected the argument and assessed millions of dollars of statutory damages against MP3. Google will contend that MP3.
It will claim that its use is far more transformative than MP3. Additionally, Google will claim that its use will not harm any likely market for the books - there is no market for licensing books for inclusion in digital indices of the sort envisioned by Google. In contrast, MP3. The issue of different licensing markets is discussed below in greater detail. Google also will insist that the Ninth Circuit decided Kelly correctly.
It will point to the Ninth Circuit's heavy reliance on the Supreme Court's most recent fair use decision, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, Music, Inc. Thus, Kelly noted that Campbell held that "[t]he more transformative the new work, the less important the other factors, including commercialism, become. Abend , U.
Because the Ninth Circuit so closely followed Campbell , and because the Second Circuit is also obligated to follow Campbell , Google will urge the Second Circuit to conduct a fair use analysis similar to the Ninth Circuit's. Regardless of Kelly and MP3. On the one hand, Google is not "transforming" the text of any individual book into a new work, e. On the other hand, Google is creating something new and valuable - a search index consisting of the full text of millions of books - and this creation differs significantly from the uses offered by the owners.
Weighing these arguments, the Ninth Circuit decided that Arriba's use was transformative. The Second Circuit will conduct its own analysis of this issue. Google's supporters contend that the "intermediate copying" cases also demonstrate the fair use nature of the Library Project. In these cases, courts found that fair use permitted the translation of machine-readable object code into human-readable source code as an essential step in the development of non-infringing interoperable computer programs.
Courant and others involved in the early days of the scanning work acknowledge both the benefits and the shortfalls. That work still lies ahead. In spite of the legal wrangling and the failure of the settlement, Mary Sue Coleman considers the project a net gain. Coleman, the current president of the Association of American Universities, was the president of the University of Michigan in the early s when Google co-founder Larry Page, a Michigan alum, approached his alma mater with the scanning idea.
The process respects copyright while enabling work based on copyrighted materials. Underwood described the thrust of the work in a blog post last year. The male-to-female ratio dropped from around to about a hundred years later. But a cross-check with Publishers Weekly confirmed the downward slide, which turned around circa , for reasons Underwood and his co-investigators are exploring.
That shift corresponds with how researchers operate now. Roger C. Such questions suggest that, on some level, a universal library was always an impossible dream. But Google Books did produce substantial results, even if they are imperfect and incomplete. Please see our Privacy Policy. Law takes your privacy seriously. Sign In. Law The Practice of Law. Law Pulse Business of Law.
Expert Analysis. Google is the darling of the Internet world and Wall Street for its progressive and aggressive efforts to become the world's online destination for information.
Some of those visionary approaches have triggered legal controversy, such as the many lawsuits challenging Google's sale of trademark-protected Internet keywords and alleging trademark infringement.
While still in the midst of that heated trademark battle, Google now finds itself in another legal debate. But this time, the battlefield is copyright law. The target is Google's ambitious Print Library Project, Stay ahead of the curve In the legal profession, information is the key to success. Access to case data within articles numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more. Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more! Yahoo Inc.
0コメント