Google 'Requests' That We Not Copy Works That Are Already In The Public Domain
from the yeah-right dept
Computer scientist Steven Bellovin notes a troubling trend: companies that republish public domain works are increasingly trying to use contract law to place restrictions on their use. For example, Google is apparently in the habit of "requesting" that people only use the out-of-copyright works they've scanned for "personal, non-commercial purposes." Even more troubling, works like this one that were produced by the US federal government—and have therefore never been subject to copyright—come with copyright-like notices stating that any use other than "individual research" requires a license. Fundamentally, this is problematic because copyright law is supposed to be a bargain between authors and the general public: we give authors a limited, temporary monopoly over their works, in exchange for those works being created. But in this case, the restrictions are being imposed by parties—Google and Congressional Research Services, Inc., respectively—who had nothing to do with the creation of the works. The latter case is particularly outrageous because taxpayers already paid for the works once, through our tax dollars.
With that said, there are a couple of reasons to think that things aren't as bad as Bellovin suggests. It's hardly unusual for companies to claim rights they don't have in creative works—that doesn't mean those claims will stand up in court. The fact that Google "requests" that users limit how works are used doesn't mean they can stop people who ignore their requests. And especially in the case of government works, there's a strong case to be made that copyright law's explicit exemption of government works from legal restrictions should trump any rights that private companies might claim to limit the dissemination of such works. Moreover, a few courts have recognized the concept of copyright misuse, the attempt to extend a copyright holder's rights beyond those that are specified in the law. So it's not at all clear that these purported contractual restrictions would actually be binding. Companies might say that you need permission to reproduce the works, but they're unlikely to try to enforce those requirements in court. Nevertheless, government officials and librarians should do a better job of policing these kinds of spurious claims. As Bellovin says, government agencies that hire firms to manage collections of public domain works should ensure that the private firms are contractually obligated not to place additional restrictions on downstream uses of those works.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contracts, public domain
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
well
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: well
A nanny state isn't evil... it's just an insidious detriment to one's freedom and liberty.
I keep crossing my fingers and hoping Google will get back to what it used to be...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: well
Well, good luck with that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What is being "copyrighted"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Won't stand up in court."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
First Sale Case
[ link to this | view in thread ]
copy of a copy
In the sense that, whoever takes the original text and makes it into some form (book, web page, etc) then that resulting "creation" is copyright. But you cant sue someone for using the underlying text, as that is PD. You can only go after someone for using YOUR explicit expression of that text.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congressional Research Services, Inc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
According to Wikipedia (source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Research_Service)
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis. CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made directly available to members of the public...
AND:
Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress....
In my opinion, based on this public text, good luck having your argument stand up in Court that CRS has the same protections as a corporation, technicalities aside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's all good...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Google has every right to limit how their service is used
They are not putting limits on how you use the content, but on how you use their bandwidth. If they want their bandwidth limited to personal use they have every right to make that request, and expect it to be honored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Google has every right to limit how their service is used
How do they have the right to expect that request to be honored? Since we are a nation of laws, you need to cite the law for that. Your say-so just doesn't cut it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bill Gates does it
So if you need a picture of the Mona Lisa, for example, for a book or some other purpose, Corbis owns the right to a photo of that artwork. The Louvre won't let you in to take a professional picture of it. The best you might be able to do is take a snapshot through the bulletproof glass and the dim lighting. If you need a professional photo of it, the only way is to pay Corbis a fee to use their picture, despite the fact that the Mona Lisa is in the public domain. Corbis makes money on a work in the public domain, and keeps you from accessing it directly.
Google seems to be leaning in that direction: we scanned it, we own the rights to that scan. It may be in the public domain, and we'll let you look at it, but it's our scan and you can't use it for any other purpose than looking at it.
It also falls within the category of intellectual property rights. Google has a database of public domain material, but it did the work of collecting it, and if you copy it without permission, you're violating Google's intellectual property. If you want your own database, you have to go out and scan the books yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
google
They are making a large investment. Clearly what they are doing is benificial, and costly. Additionally, it loses value to them if someone can grab it from them and do the same thing easily. And what they are doing is new (digitizing the analog).
I don't mean to weigh in on the reasonableness of our laws, but I do think google's massive digitization at a rapid pace is evidence of the klaws working as intended, and not against it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
> a new work in any sense of the term?
> So is there a right to having people
> not use *your* scan of the document?
a straightforward scan of a public-domain page
is itself in the public-domain. use it _freely_...
that's why google "asks" you to use their scans only
for personal, non-commercial purposes. if google
_could_ use the law to _forbid_ you, they _would_...
you should ignore their "request". just ignore it...
the public-domain belongs to _you_, the _public_.
but their request in this case doesn't make them evil.
they'd just like to protect the investment they made
in scanning public-domain books. that's reasonable.
but it doesn't mean you need to _grant_ their request.
however, more recent actions by google _are_ evil...
(i don't use that word lightly; google brought it up.)
specifically, google's "settlement" in the recent suit
against them by authors/publishers has turned evil.
this "settlement" gives google control over "orphans"
-- books whose copyright ownership is unclear --
and it authorizes google to charge as much as $20
for print-on-demand hard-copy of those books...
since current p.o.d. machinery has a consumable cost
of one penny per page, a cost that will likely drop more,
the cost of a 250-page book should be more like $3-$5,
not $20, or even the $10 "median-price" google charts...
making a windfall like this over material they do not "own"
in any sense of the word -- books that were _abandoned_ --
is unconscionable, a rip-off of the public, plain and simple.
-bowerbird
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I’ve said it before...
[ link to this | view in thread ]