Comments on: AP Scans Sarah Palin Book Without Permission; Look Out Google Book Search

By: Ankhorite

Ankhorite — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:03:03 +0000

AP didn’t do anything wrong. They bought a copy, and they can do what they please with it, including scanning it FOR THEIR OWN USE ONLY. They can’t publish the scans, but making them is no crime, nor a copyright violation.

By: Frances Grimble

Frances Grimble — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:07:54 +0000

Uh actually, aside from the fact that Google scanned MILLIONS of copyrighted books, Google is most emphatically going into the business of selling both e-books and print-on-demand books. As anyone who knows anything about the proposed Google/Author’s Guild Settlement should know; both versions 1 and 2 are basically very long contracts for Google to sell ENTIRE BOOKS. Then, there are all those public announcements about Google Editions, the new Google publishing project . . .

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:03:53 +0000

You can smell the irony in the air. Seems the AP is trying to pull a do as we say, not as we do.

By: app103

app103 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:35:12 +0000

Actually, it would be a copyright violation since more than one person has access to it at the same time, without them having purchased enough copies of the book to cover that use. It also violates the reproduction without permission by means of electronic storage & retrieval/database clauses.

By: Danny Sullivan

Danny Sullivan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:47:51 +0000

I didn’t say it was wrong. I’m simply pointing out that Google gets dinged by many in the book world as a copyright infringer for scanning books to make them searchable, which is a far different thing than actually reprinting those books. And here’s the AP scanning a book for precisely the same reasons Google does it, so that people can locate information within them quickly.

Google does it both because there’s a business model behind it and for the public good. So does the AP, a business reason to scan it (check out our awesome story) and the public good in reporting on it.

The difference is that if you or I want to analyze a book, you’ve got portions of a publishing industry that has attacked a tool allowing us to do so.

I think it also highlights the tricky issues with fair use. I suspect that what the AP did, they feel is fair use. But that organization hasn’t seemed particularly open-minded to what others claim to be fair-use.

By: graywolf

graywolf — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:35:35 +0000

While it’s amusing because the AP is fighting others copying it’s work, is this really that wrong.

OK yes technically blah blah not be copied and all that jazz but, if someone copies a magazine article and shares it with people internally only are we really breaking the spirit of the law. If it stays behind the wall I don’t have much problem with it, bragging about it in public is stupid, but is it wrong … I don’t think so.

By: Dave Dugdale

Dave Dugdale — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:27 +0000

Yes, the irony is rich. I hope this blows up to be a big story.