Google Books Can Keep Scanning Copyrighted Titles

Google get to continue digitizing books, making sections of them available online for free ("Supreme Court Declines to Hear Google Books Case," PC Magazine, April 18, 2016). Lower court opinion stands that even though Google did not ask for authors' permission, it is not acting against copyright laws by scanning and uploading newer books, since it only provides a look at them instead of full access as it does for older titles in the public domain. Google called its service a "card catalog for the digital age," an valid application of fair use. The Authors Guild argued for creators' rights in this litigation.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you use Google Books to find answers to research questions? Do you think your free use of copyrighted and public domain titles in Google Books is fair to the writers and publishers of that information? Why or why not?
2. Do you use Google Books to decide whether you want to purchase a book? Do you think Google Books promotes the interests of authors by making portions of their books available online for free? Why or why not?

Rowling Victory in Copyright Case

Author J.K. Rowling prevailed in her case against a Harry Potter fan who wanted to publish a lexicon that added no original content to large portions of Ms. Rowling's work according to a BBC News story published September 8, 2008 ("Rowling Wins Book Copyright Claim"). Steven Vander Ark compiled his reference book primarily with Rowling's text from the Potter series. Rowling said this ruling champions the right of authors to control their creative material. Rowling herself planned to write a Potter encyclopedia with profits going to charity. Fair use allows for limited reuse of a creator's work providing that there is "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research" added to the original content, based on the U.S Copyright Office's explanation of the practice. After the judge's decision, Rowling made a statement that seemingly supports the right of others to develop works "which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter." However, she agreed that the lexicon did not include such unique material and that it should be considered "wholesale theft."

Discussion Questions:

1. If someone can rework pieces of her writing into another type of work, why shouldn't they be allowed to make a fraction of what Rowling earns?
2. Does "fair use" encourage a free flow of ideas based on another creator's work? Why or why not? NOTE: Review fair use details at the U.S. Copyright Office link above.
   

Prince's Music in YouTube Video Ruled as Fair Use

The San Francisco Chronicle's August 21, 2008 issue reports that "small and innocuous" use of music clips doesn't warrant a demand by copyright owners to remove a video from the Internet (Woman Can Sue over YouTube Clip De-Posting). U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, CA made this ruling, seen as a major victory for what is considered fair use (see explanation of fair use at the U.S. Copyright Office) of copyrighted material. Federal law from 1998 allows copyright holders to order a "takedown" of unauthorized Internet material without substantiating infringement or filing suit. However, this latest ruling comes after a woman posted a 29-second video of her son dancing to Prince's song, "Let's Go Crazy" and Universal Music Corp. required that YouTube delete it and others using Prince's works.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, does the use of a particular piece of music in YouTube videos hurt or help the artist that created that music?
2. If a YouTube video gives credit to the original performer like Prince, should it be okay to use his music? Why or why not?
3. If a YouTube video is made "just for fun" and not for commercial purposes, is it okay to use copyrighted music in the video? Why or why not?