Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Among the most controversial of current information technology projects on the Internet is the Google Book Search project. Google, owner and operator of a leading Internet search engine, has contracted with a variety of libraries to scan the contents of the books held in these libraries, many of which are under current copyright. From the scanned images, Google uses search engine technology to map the relationship of words in the scanned text to the other words in the text. Access to this index is provided via an online interface. However, Google has not sought the permission of copyright holders, and book publishers through their professional association have sued Google for copyright infringement, charging that the scanning process creates unauthorized digital copies of many copyrighted works. While Google has asserted a defense to these claims under the doctrine of fair use, a far more difficult and more far-reaching issue for database technologies is the legal status of the index created by Google, which maps the positions of the words in the books. This metadata is not technically a “copy” of the books in question, but the books can be recreated from such metadata. The ownership and control of such metadata is becoming an increasingly contested question in database construction, and the resolution of this question presents a difficult but critically important problem of copyright doctrine and policy in the United States and around the world.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
17 U.S.C. § 101 (2000).
17 U.S.C. § 102 (2000).
17 U.S.C. § 106 (2000).
17 U.S.C. § 107 (2000).
17 U.S.C. § 201 (2000).
Band, J. (2005). The Google print library project: Fair or foul? Journal of Internet Law, 9, 1–4.
Boyle, J. (2003). The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law & Contemporary Problems, 66, 33–74.
Burk, D. (1999). Muddy rules for cyberspace. Cardozo Law Review, 21, 121–179.
Burk, D. (2000). Patenting speech. Texas Law Review, 79, 99–162.
Burk, D. (2005). Expression, selection, abstraction: Copyright’s golden braid. Syracuse Law Review, 55, 593–618.
Goldman, E. (2006). Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 8, 188–199.
Gordon, W. J. (1982). Fair use as market failure: A structural and economic analysis of the Betamax case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Review, 82, 1600–1657. CrossRef
Heller, M. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, 11, 621–688. CrossRef
Introna, L., & Nissenbaum, H. (2000). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. The Information Society, 16, 1–17. CrossRef
Loren, L. P. (1997). Redefining the market failure approach to fair use in an era of copyright permission systems. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 5, 1–58.
Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing. Co., 158 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1998).
New York Times Co., Inc., v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).
Samuelson, P. (1993). Fair use for computer programs and other copyrightable works in digital form: The implications of Sony, Galoob and Sega. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 1, 49–118.
Stern Electronics Co. v. Kaufmann, 669 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982).
White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 (1907).
Williams Electronics, Inc. v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982).
- The Mereology of Digital Copyright
Dan L. Burk
- Springer Netherlands
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com