You are on page 1of 3

The following comment was submitted to the article Two Fair Use Rulings, One Clear Message by Professor

Grimmelman. The message may be: Thanks Judge Chin, but we want more. john e miller December 12, 2013 at 2:00 am Your comment is awaiting moderation. So scanning entire contents of copyrighted materials for the purpose of inclusion in a search engine is Fair Use. As per Judge Chin above: Google the scans do not replace the books One might then think the libraries and other amici would be content with the outcome and have no desire to have the copying and distribution of entire contents of copyrighted books be considered as fair use. Not so. Next week at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) work will continue on an international instrument to do just that currently entitled: Working Document Containing Comments on and Textual Suggestions Towards an Appropriate International Legal Instrument (in whatever form) on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives Stay tuned. BTW This was my comment as published in the NY Times:

From the above quote from Counselor Band of the LCA:

... as the whole work is not displayed, and as long as the rightsholder isnt harmed, then this copying that goes on behind the curtain just doesnt matter. However, what is going on at WIPO SCCR26 next month in Geneva is that an IFLA/LCA sponsored proposal on a Treaty on Copyright Exceptions & Limitations for Libraries is that the whole thing WOULD be eligible for display between libraries and to those individuals claiming personal or research purposes with no remuneration to or permission required of the rights holder. Note: WIPO Document SCCR/26/3 at 31. US Statement: "Obviously when a copy of an entire work is being made, there is the question of adverse market effects to the publishers and authors."

The following is a draft of my comment to Peter Brantleys column on Publishers Weekly entitled ALA 2014 Preview: Google Books: Eight Years Later... However, one cannot comment on PW without turning over ones entire email account to Facebook which I prefer not to do. Thus: From the above: "It is hard to understand what the Authors Guild hopes to achieve by continuing the litigation." The following is from the "Treaty Proposal on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives" as proposed at WIPO by the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA) of which the ALA and all the major US library associations are members: Right to Reproduction and Supply of Copies by Libraries and Archives 1) It shall be permitted for a library or archive to reproduce and to supply a copy of a copyright work, or of material protected by related rights, to a library or archive user, or to another library or archive in

connection with a request by a user at that library or archive, for the purpose of education, research, or private use, provided that such reproduction and supply is in accordance with fair practice. The recent judgments in both Authors Guild against both Google and The HathiTrust considered fair use to include the display of snippets; the above would go beyond that. The comments of the US delegation regarding the above proposal as in WIPO SCCR26/3 at 31) was that: "Obviously when a copy of an entire work is being made, there is the question of adverse market effects to the publishers and authors. If copying an entire work is determined to be otherwise appropriate, it is also important that this type of activity not be done in a systematic way such that it would have the purpose and effect of serving as a substitute for a subscription or purchase of a work." I also do not know the reasons for Authors Guild's appeal but the library community seems to have further goals in mind.