Excerpted from our Copyright Program Librarian Nancy Sims' October 10 blog post:
The Author's Guild sued Hathi Trust, a collaborative organization of several major research libraries, claiming that the access Hathi was providing to scanned materials (both scanned via the Google Books project and via other projects) was in violation of their members' copyrights.
Today the District Court issued its opinion (full text) in the case, finding that:
- The fact that libraries have specific enumerated rights to make certain kinds of copies does not mean that they can't call on fair use to make other kinds of copies. (Section 108 does not limit libraries' section 107 rights.)
- Providing access for users with disabilities is a valued purpose under fair use.
- Providing digital copies to make analog works accessible to users with disabilities is transformative use.
- Making copies of an entire work can be transformative fair use when it is for a transformative purpose, such as making the work searchable.
- Hathi's activities are fair use.
"The enhanced search capabilities that reveal no in-copyright material, the protection of Defendants' fragile books, and, perhaps most importantly, the unprecedented ability of print-disabled individuals to have an equal opportunity to compete with their sighted peers in the ways imagined by the ADA protect the copies made by Defendants as fair use." (p. 21)
My overall initial take: This is really great. Well reasoned, well written, and a great win for libraries, innovation, and accessibility. Judge Baer is, at least with respect to this case, extremely awesome.
The rest of Nancy's post clearly and engagingly explains why the judge's ruling is "A Win for Copyright's Public Interest Purpose."
From Josh Fischman's Sept. 30 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
In incidents involving four scientists--the latest case coming to light two weeks ago--journal editors say authors got to critique their own papers by suggesting reviewers with contact e-mails that actually went to themselves.
The glowing endorsements got the work into Experimental Parasitology, Pharmaceutical Biology, and several other journals. Fake reviews even got a pair of mathematics articles into journals published by Elsevier, the academic publishing giant, which has a system in place intended to thwart such misconduct. The frauds have produced retractions of about 30 papers to date.
Anyone can open a Gmail or similar account under a name that isn't his or her own, as long as that name hasn't been taken by another user. For instance, Haroldvarmus@gmail.com was available last week, but e-mail sent there will not reach Mr. Varmus, the Nobel Prize-winning virologist and director of the National Cancer Institute.
The medicinal-chemistry journal has now changed its policy to require that every paper have two reviewers not suggested by an author.
On the journal side, editors are handling more submissions than ever--Mr. Supuran said he and three other editors work on 500 to 600 papers each year, about 20 percent more than when he started--and due diligence can be a casualty. When swamped, said Lance W. Small, a member of the ethics committee and a professor emeritus of mathematics at the University of California at San Diego, "editors may cut corners."