Congressional Research Service examines Google Book Search

Thanks to the Open CRS project, the following Congressional Research Service report on Google Book Search has been made available to the public:

While this six page report explictly denies any effort to predict the eventual court outcome, I found its “four factor” fair use analysis interesting:

The Library Project has the potential to be a great boon to scholarship, research, and the public in general. It is, nevertheless, commercial in nature because Google anticipates
that it will enhance its services utilization by the public and concomitantly increase advertising fees. With respect to the first factor, the purpose and character of use, the
searching and indexing goal appears to be a highly transformative use of the copied text.

There is little question that indexing basic information about any book alone, absent copying, would not constitute copyright infringement. While displaying snippets of text is closer to infringing activity, the prospective display, as described by Google, does not appear to usurp or negate the value of the underlying work.

Continued Below

Thanks to the Open CRS project, the following Congressional Research Service report on Google Book Search has been made available to the public:

While this six page report explictly denies any effort to predict the eventual court outcome, I found its “four factor” fair use analysis interesting:

The Library Project has the potential to be a great boon to scholarship, research, and the public in general. It is, nevertheless, commercial in nature because Google anticipates
that it will enhance its services utilization by the public and concomitantly increase advertising fees. With respect to the first factor, the purpose and character of use, the
searching and indexing goal appears to be a highly transformative use of the copied text.

There is little question that indexing basic information about any book alone, absent copying, would not constitute copyright infringement. While displaying snippets of text is closer to infringing activity, the prospective display, as described by Google, does not appear to usurp or negate the value of the underlying work.

Continued Below

The second factor is the nature of the copyrighted work. Digitizing the collections of the named libraries will encompass both factual and creative works, the latter being
entitled to the highest level of copyright protection. How the court views the third factor; amount of the portion used; will be significant. In order to create its megadatabase,
Google will scan the entire copyrighted work, a major consideration weighing against fair use. But it intends to display, i.e., use, at any given time, only brief excerpts
of the searchable text. Hence, is the digital reproduction incidental to an otherwise fair use or is it impermissibly infringing?

Finally, what will be the Library Project’s effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted works? Here, Google makes a strong argument that its indexing and text searching capability has the potential to greatly enhance the market for sales for books that might otherwise be relegated to obscurity. Its sampling of text permits members of the public to determine whether they wish to acquire the book.

The Publishers counter that copyright owners routinely receive license fees for authorized sampling. Google’s project may deprive them of the opportunity to participate in the creation of similar databases over which they have control and input. The Publishers have also expressed concern that the digital edition of the work Google returns to the participating library may facilitate piracy and/or additional unauthorized uses.

Makes for good reading at only six pages and the report will be updated as events warrant. Whether the public will see the updates will depend on whether someone gets their Congressmember to give them a copy and in turn submit that to OpenCRS or the University of North Texas Congressional Research Service Report Archive.