I hope you make more full use of fair use in some of your services, like Google Book Search, which at this time doesn't seem to show snippets from copyrighted books (even though that would be fair).On another note, I wonder how you can explain how republishing a full webpage is considered fair use. After all, that's what you do with the Google Cache feature. Webmasters can opt-out of it via meta declarations, but copyright never defaults to "non-copyrighted + full use" when no further details are specified by the content owner: it defaults to "copyrighted + fair use", at least for some years after publication. (Not that I mind the Google Cache; in fact I think laws should be adjusted to allow this kind of use, as we should only look at the actual harm being done to the content owner... which in the case of caching is basically non-existent.)On yet another note, I also hope you introduce "fair use" cases to some of your self-censored content. For instance, at this time you don't show any satellite imagery at all for Google China Maps (ditu.google.cn). If you are convinced you must compromise via self-censorship, then why do you fully hide this information from Chinese users... why not display some fair amount of it? Also, when you ban websites like Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) for Chinese users in China, why do you ban all of the around 48,800 pages on that domain -- including new ones being posted to the domain -- and not "only" the ones deemed "sensitive" by the Chinese government at one particular point? (It's not just restricted to China; in Germany for Google.de you do the same with some domains, like Stormfront.org.)
There are some interesting things going on at the state level about fair use also. Here's one: LgDb California Model State Trademark Law-Scott
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the U.S. GDP was 13.3 trillion in 2006, meaning fair use accounts for 1/3 of total value produced in the U.S.
Be careful not to mislead people with these numbers. They estimate the amount of US economic activity that depends on 'fair use industries' (somehow defined). They do not estimate how US GDP and employment would change if policy towards fair use were changed. People must be very careful not to come to conclusions like 'banning fair use will cause US GDP to shrink by one-sixth'.I discuss this in more detail on my blog here: http://www.26econ.com/?p=46
One sixth, one eighth: so it means "Fair Use Industry"is more capital intensive (or pay less) then the average other industries in the US? Where is the capital from, and what are the consequence of that on other countries?AFS: what the study say is that a large share of the industry will be massively disrupted if Fair Use is reconsidered, and not just a few geeks in their basement. Would the US Industry tank and look for a recovery? Probably -- but I doubt you can easily resume to a functioning economy without quoted sources in journals, reference-based science, search engines, art critic and product reviews. This "sixth" might be a good share of the head.
I can't read the report. Could someone mail it to me? my email is firstname.lastname@example.org, Thanks.
I've published my comments on the research report here:http://www.ddmcd.com/ccia.htmlIn a nutshell: In my post I discuss some areas that I think are flawed but, overall, I give the group an "A for Effort" for trying to shed light on a complex topic in a report that contains a significant amount of interesting documentation.
Well in researching, how does this apply to phots?On my site I want to make my photo available for webmasters to use to create sites, but do not want them given or listed by third parties. Is that the rights left copyrights? http://freehelpings.com/freephotos is going to grow fast, and I want the proper disclaimers so if need be I can go after violators.And I also have heard that if you let an infringment go for a lengthy period, it is considered consent to use.
Sorry, first one wasn't clickable LOL Free Helpings Free Photos
"Economic value of fair use" seems funny coming from Google.From where I sit that seems to suggest that Google wants far greater value than they are willing to pay. It is my understanding Google supports the Orphan works bill and hopes to see this pass.Artists are discussing removal of their images from Google's blog sites in protest of their support for Orphan works which is being seen as a threat to net neutrality. I may in fact follow suit. Google is a commercial entity and as such they do not have creator's interests at heart. Thanks Ken DubrowskiLetter to senators in opposition to Orphan Workshttp://capwiz.com/illustratorspartnership/home/As a constituent, an illustrator and a copyright holder, I'm writing to ask that you oppose S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008. Despite the title of this bill, its effects will not be limited to those works that are true "orphans". Instead, it will affect any citizen's creative work, from professional works of art to Sunday paintings to vacation photos. The issue at stake is not small. This bill is in fact a radical reversal of copyright law and the logic of ownership of personal property. Instead of providing solutions to appropriately deal with copyrighted work whose creators are hard to identify or locate, the Orphan Works Bill, will instead legalize the commercial or non-commercial infringement of any work of art, past, present, and future, regardless of age, country of origin, published or unpublished, whenever a copyright owner cannot be identified or located, and will disproportionately cause harm to visual artists and those who are rights holders of visual works.Current copyright law protects everything you create from the moment you create it. But under this amendment, nothing you create will be protected from potential infringement, even if you undertake active steps to assert and maintain ownership - a daunting task for creators of visual works. The Copyright Office studied the specific subject of "orphan works" - copyrighted works whose owners may be impossible to identify or locate. Yet this bill would drastically affect commercial markets, a subject the Copyright Office never studied. I am alive, working and managing my copyrights. I can be found. My clients find me all the time. If 100 people can find me, and one person can't, why should that one person be allowed a free ride to use my work? Why should I have to go to court to contest an infringer's diligence or prove the value of my own work? The consequences of this radical change to Copyright Law have never been subjected to a market impact survey. As such, there is no way to determine the harmful effects it will have on my markets, contracts and licenses, or on any of the collateral businesses that serve rights holders like me and are dependent on us - or on average citizens who will have to join us in eternal vigilance from the unwanted use of their personal property. Because there has been no study of the potential ramifications of this legislation, my business and thousands of other small businesses across this country are likely to be destroyed if H.R.5889 is passed. This bill was planned behind closed doors, introduced on short notice and fast-tracked for imminent passage. In order for the concerns of creators to be heard, I believe any bill that constitutes such a profound change to the ownership of private property should be subjected to an open, informed, and transparent public debate.Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue.Sincerely,Kenneth Dubrowski
The comments on this blog belong only to the person who posted them. We do, however, reserve the right to remove off-topic or inappropriate comments.