The Google Book Project: An Update

I've decided to use this week's blog entry to give everyone an update on Google's massive book scanning project. After searching for and reading news stories about copyright infringement for ten weeks it seems to me like this story is the most talked about and it is definitely the only copyright story which has intelligent people who feel very strongly on two sides of the debate. As I reported in an earlier post Google has decided to attempt to make most of the world's books available to the public online at any time. When Google announced this plan to make so many out of print books available online they were sued for copyright infringement by various entities representing authors. Google had decided to make a profit from the distribution of some of these books without making any payments to the authors. Many of the out of print books in question have been out of circulation for many years and it is unclear who holds the copyrights to these works. These books are called orphan books.

After the lawsuit was initiated Google negotiated with the author's guild, a group that represents American authors, and others in order to come to an agreement that would allow Google to publish the books in exchange for assurances that royalties would be paid to known copyright holders. Many groups were unhappy about this proposed settlement and the Justice Department stepped in and told Google that the deal was illegal and needed to be revised. Please see the previous post "Google is stealing orphans" for the full backstory.

This last week Google and the Author's Guild submitted a revised agreement to a federal judge for approval. Google stepped back on some issues and decided to fight on some others. First of all Google has decided that its agreement with the Author's Guild should only apply to books from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, and Australia. This is significant because some of the fiercest backlash to the proposed deal had come from foreign governments like France, Germany, and especially China. Earlier one of my fellow students commented on my blog and asked me if China ever gets any of its intellectual property stolen, but the Chinese have apparently avoided becoming a victim in this case. This is ironic when you consider the fact that China is the world's biggest infringer.

Google has also agreed to change its plans for the funds obtained from the sale of "orphan works". Instead of holding the funds itself for five years as originally suggested, Google has agreed to turn the funds over to a third party fiduciary who would hold the funds for ten years and then donate them to charity. 25% of the orphan money would go towards trying to find these missing authors or their heirs. So at least in the new agreement Google has promised to try and find to the orphans' real parents after stepdaddy Google has sold the kids down the river. Google also explicitly promises in the new agreement to allow its competitors such as Barnes and Noble and Amazon a right to access the online database and to make sales from it as well.

This is a story where our government actually seems to have functioned pretty well. The Department of Justice stepped in in this case and stopped Google from obtaining an illegal monopoly over the world's printed knowledge, and still found a way to allow many of these fantastic books to be accessed by the public.

Here are some links to great web pages about this story. I have a link to Google's official statement about the new agreement and a link which leads you to the actual agreement submitted to federal court.

http://searchengineland.com/revised-google-book-settlement-filed-29814

http://www.openbookalliance.org/2009/11/is-the-google-settlement-worth-the-wait/

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/11/google_books_sc.html

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/11/modifications-to-google-books.html

Is Doing Your Homework Copyright Infringement?

Hey guys, need a new excuse for your professors? Have you run out of "dog ate my homework" stories. Here's a new one for you. "I couldn't complete the assignment, because I didn't want to be guilty of copyright infringement."

There is a lot of chatter on the net this week about this case (S.D.N.Y. 2009) recently decided in U.S. district court. In this case a textbook publisher successfully sued a person who was selling answers to questions from the textbook via the internet. The publisher did not own the rights to the answers, but instead it held a copyright on the textbook which contained the questions. However the court ruled that the answer sheet was a "derivative work". A derivative work is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101:

"A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."

Basically a derivative work is one that is largely based on some other copyrighted material. It does not stand on its own, and is dependent on someone else's work for its substance. In this case the court ruled that the defendant's document which was composed of answers to the questions in the textbook was a derivative work. He could not have answered the questions without the textbook and the answer sheet did not make sense without the textbook.

So my fellow students, what does this mean to us? When we answer questions out of our textbooks are we breaking the law? If this were true than based upon all the homework we are assigned I'd say some of these paralegal instructors are accomplices. One of the bloggers who commented on this case said we should all ask for liability waivers before we agree to submit answers to questions from a copyrighted source. I think this is a little extreme because most of us are not mass producing our homework assignments and distibuting them to other students. I believe the defendant in this case was found guilty of infringement because he was selling his answers and making a profit from them. This is what drew the eye of the textbook publisher and federal prosecutors. Still it makes you think about the fact that we students frequently produce derivative works that we would have to be careful about publishing or profiting from.

Here are some links to blogs about this case,

http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/10/court-finds-that-answers-to-textbook-questions-are-an-infringing-derivative-work/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091030/1549296745.shtml

We Are the Knights Who Say, "See You in Court Guv'nor"

The political race for Governor of New Jersey is neck and neck. It has been an extremely close battle between former Senator and incumbent Governor John Corzine and his challenger Chris Christie. Each candidate had some advantages entering the race. Mr. Corzine is the incumbent and a democrat in a state where there are 700,000 more registered democrats than republicans. He has former President Clinton and President Obama campaigning for him. Mr. Christie was appointed as U.S. Attorney by President George W. Bush and has developed a persona as a straight shooter and a leader who eliminates corruption.

However both candidates have some factors working against them. Mr Corzine's first term was characterized by some of the worst economic conditions in the history of the State of New Jersey. The economic collapse cannot be solely blamed on the governor, but the fact that he is a former chairman at Goldman Sachs isn't helping him distance himself from New Jersey's banking crisis. Mr. Christie has been forced to answer questions regarding his relationship with some of his family members who are convicted mobsters. So the people of New Jersey must choose between A former Senator/Goldman Sachs chairman or a U.S. Attorney/Gangster. It's no surprise that the race is very close. Citizens of New Jersey can't decide which crook is worse.

But now there is a new factor. There is some fresh dirt just dug up, and it's our favorite kind, politicians committing copyright infringement. Apparently Mr. Christie used some copyrighted material in one of his campaign ads. I love when I read these stories about politicians who steal copyrighted material and use it in campaign ads. Since I've been doing this blog I've realized, this happens all the time. Every week there is a new story about a politician using copyrighted music, photos, and even writing without proper permission to do so. This is even more disturbing coming from Mr. Christie, a former U.S. Attorney who has been practicing law for 22 years.

So what was the copyrighted material in this case? Is it a song in a campaign commercial, a photo in a campaign poster, or a plagiarized quote in a campaign speech? Nope, it's a Monty Python comedy sketch. Mr. Christie uses Monty Python in an attempt to humiliate Corzine in an attack ad. It's actually kind of funny and surreal at the same time. Monty Python in a political ad for Governor in a pretty large and influential state.

Of course no one asked the guys from Monty Python if it was O.K. to use the skit and they are not happy. They have threatened to sue Mr. Christie and seem pretty serious about it. Maybe this will be the last straw in a very close election and Mr. Christie will be sent packing, but he's not dead yet. Don't put him in the cart.

Here are some links to the story, the first story has a link to the ad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/chris-christie-rips-off-m_b_341598.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/new_jersey/20091101_ap_gopschristiesaysgovernorraceisaboutturnout.html