Law Commons^™

Google As Copyright Iconoclast, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

Google’s role as a copyright defendant has provided fodder for many an essay in this series, particularly with regard to the Google Books litigation. (Incidentally, that litigation celebrates its tenth anniversary next month – and it’s still going strong.) A more recent Google case, however, is probably just as important, and it provides another interesting lesson in the Internet behemoth’s copyright litigation strategy.

The case is Oracle v. Google. In early 2010, Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, the developer of Java, the popular cross-platform programming language. Soon thereafter, Oracle sued Google for copyright infringement, alleging that Google’s Android operating system copied …

Fair Use And The Faces Of Transformation, Part Ii, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

In my last IP Viewpoints entry, I discussed the origin of “transformation” as a major factor in copyright’s fair use doctrine. In particular, I focused on “expressive” transformation, in which the user changes the actual content of the copyrighted work. Taking old works and turning them into something new is the way that culture usually evolves, so it is no surprise that copyright law would sometimes allow users to engage in such conduct without needing to pay for the privilege.

Yet there is also a second kind of transformation, one that does not involve the alteration of the underlying material. …

The Google Art Project: An Analysis From A Legal And Social Perspective On Copyright Implications, Katrina Wu

Katrina Wu

The Google Art Project is an ambitious attempt by Google to curate worldwide artwork online in the highest resolution possible. Google accomplishes this by partnering with museums where museums provide access to art collections and Google provides the technology to capture high quality images. Under this existing model, Google places the burden of copyright clearances on museums and removes images from online if requested by copyright owners. An endeavor like the Google Art Project is not unprecedented however, when Google attempted to put the world’s books online under the Google Books Project, scanning millions of titles and offering snippets for …

Google Books: Game, Set, But Not Match, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

It’s back: Google Books, our favorite topic in this Intellectual Property Viewpoints series. Google Books is the project through which Google has brought its search capability to the text of more than 20 millions books (with the number still growing). To do so, Google must scan the book and convert the scan to readable text. And there’s the problem: Scanning is copying, and copying raises the question of whether the massive project is a massive violation of the copyrights in all those books. Thus the Authors Guild v. Google class action brought by authors and publishers against Google in a …

Google Books: Finally, An Actual Fair Use Ruling!, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

One of our favorite topics in this Intellectual Property Issues series – perhaps the favorite – is Google Books, the massive project through which Google hopes to bring its search capability to the text of all books in the English language. To make a book’s text searchable, however, Google must scan the book. And scanning is copying. And copying usually means copyright infringement. Certainly the many authors and publishers who have sued Google take this view.

There are two ways to avoid infringement when copying a copyrighted book: get a license or prove that the copying constitutes fair use. Many …

The Google Book Settlement And The Fair Use Counterfactual, Matthew Sag

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

D Is For Digitize: An Introduction, James Grimmelmann

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

H Is For Harmonization: The Google Book Search Settlement And Orphan Works Legislation In The European Union, Katharina De La Durantaye

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rebirth Of Copyright As An Opt-In System?, James Gibson

Law Faculty Publications

For most of the history of Anglo-American copyright law, copyright was an opt-in system: Authors had to jump through certain regulatory hoops if they wanted to prevent others from copying their works without consent. These threshold formalities included registering their works with a government agency, affixing a notice to published copies, depositing exemplars with a centralized library, and more. A failure to comply with the requirements usually meant a diminution in the authors’ copyright entitlement – and in some cases a wholesale forfeiture, under which the works would pass immediately into the public domain.

After some 200 years, however, U.S. …