Since December 2004, Google has been working to create a “comprehensive, searchable, virtual card catalog” by scanning thousands of books, converting the scans to searchable text, and uploading the content into its digital database. Many of these books are out of print, collecting dust and mold on the far shelves of libraries. It’s likely that without Google’s rehabilitating project, these books would eventually disappear. But though this description fits the majority of books that Google is cataloging, some of the books have been published only recently and belong to rightsholders who take issue with Google’s project on the grounds of copyright infringement. The Authors Guild, among others acting on behalf of rightsholders in a class action suit, sued Google for roughly three billion dollars.
In an endeavor to respect copyright law, Google shows only snippets of some texts and shows no text at all in other cases. They only show full content of texts that are in the public domain or if they’ve negotiated this option with the rightsholder, in which case Google usually provides the option of buying the book. Interestingly, the fact that the Google Books Library Project was up and running during the many years that the case was in court may have had an impact on the verdict. Judge Denny Chin, who presided over the case, remarked that even his law clerks use Google Books in their research. I can’t speak for law clerks, but as a college student, I can say that Google Books has been a helpful resource to me these past four years. (However, it’s often the case that the one page most relevant to my research is not available.)
The prosecution argued that, although Google does not benefit monetarily from the project directly (as they do not advertise on the site), the project does boost their image. Google markets itself as the place to go for information, and Google Library helps contribute to that impression. Nick Taylor, president of the Authors Guild, sums up his view when saying, “It is the appropriation of material that they don’t own for a purpose that is, however altruistic and lofty and wonderful, nevertheless a commercial enterprise.”
The defense maintained that Google Library’s virtual card catalog constitutes what Copyright Law of the United States has described as “fair use.” When considering fair use, the United States Copyright Office takes into consideration “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.”
The prosecution did its best to argue that the project is of a “commercial nature,” and the defense did its best to present the project as intended for “educational purposes.” Judge Chin did not recognize the two as mutually exclusive, arguing that though the project may be of some economical value to Google, it is most definitely educationally beneficial for Google’s users.
In November 2013, the verdict came down that the Google Books Library Project, “. . . fit the description of a ‘transformative’ purpose that US courts have determined is allowed under copyright law.” Judge Chin’s decision was dependent on a variety of factors, and perhaps “seeing it in action” was one of them. Chin explained his ruling, claiming the project “preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life.”
Did You Know?
There have been a slew of court cases in recent years where business owners have sued customers for writing unflattering Yelp reviews. A bad review can do a lot in deterring customers from trying out that new falafel place around the corner or the old flower shop down the street. Some business owners who have lost customers due to a bad Yelp review have tried to hold reviewers accountable by asking Yelp to hand over their names so that they can take them to court.
Christopher Dietz, a Washington, DC contractor, is suing Jane Perez for defamation and asking 750 thousand dollars in damages for her Yelp review that criticized his work and insinuated that Dietz stole a piece of jewelry from her home. He argues that her review has cost him up to 300 thousand dollars’ worth of business. Joe Hadeed, owner of Hadeed Carpet, asked Yelp to turn over the names of reviewers whom he suspects are carpet cleaning competitors, masquerading as unhappy customers for the purpose of damaging Hadeed Carpet’s reputation. The Virginia Court of Appeals recently ruled that the users were not protected under the First Amendment if they were not customers, as their reviews had claimed. Both of these cases bring up the questions of libel and freedom of speech, and how the internet may be contributing to blurring the line between them. It will be interesting to see if rulings like those in Hadeed’s favor will set a precedent, sending a clear message: The internet, once seen as a lawless frontier, will now have real-world consequences for public deception.
