Fair use in theory and practice: Reflections on its history and the Google case

Journal of Scholarly Publishing

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 215-229

  Thatcher, Sanford G ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646463604     PISSN: 11989742     EISSN: 17101166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/scp.2006.0011     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. This essay was originally prepared for the panel Dark Archives and Celestial Card Catalogues: Google Print and the Future of Fair Use at the National Association of College and University Attorneys' conference on the Wired University: Legal Issues at the Copyright, Computer Law, and Internet Intersection, held in Arlington, VA, on 10 November 2005. A previous version appeared in AAUP Exchange (Fall 2005): 1-7
2. Chester Kerr, Director of Yale University Press, quoted in Gene R. Hawes, To Advance Knowledge: A Handbook of American University Press Publishing (New York: American University Press. Services 1967), 5
3. Leon E. Seltzer, Exemptions and Fair Use in Copyright: The Exclusive Rights Tensions in the 1976 Copyright Act (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1978), 21-2.
4. The testimony I presented to the Senate subcommittee is printed in US Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights, Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 1361 before the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 1973, 138-40
5. Seltzer, ibid., 16-7
6. Kenneth D. Crews, Copyright, Fair Use, and the Challenge for Universities: Promoting the Progress of Higher Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1993), 32
7. Ibid., 33
8. Seltzer, Exemptions and Fair Use, 24.
9. The study to which Seltzer refers is Alan Latman, 'Fair Use of Copyrighted Works,' in US Senate, Copyright Law Revision: Studies Prepared for the Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Committee on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., Study No. 14, March 1958
10. US Court of Claims Judge Philip Nichols, in his dissenting opinion, as quoted in Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: The Law and Lore of Copyright from Gutenberg to the Celestial Jukebox (New York: Hill and Wang 1994), 110
11. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 60 F. 3d 913 (2nd Cir. 1994), 9-10 (writing for the majority)
12. Pierre N. Leval, 'Toward a Fair Use Standard,' Harvard Law Review 103, 5 (March 1990): 1105-36, 1105, 1107
13. Ibid., 1108
14. Ibid., 1109, 1110
15. Ibid., 1116
16. Lloyd L. Weinreb, 'Fair's Fair: A Comment on the Fair Use Doctrine,' Harvard Law Review 103, 5 (March 1990): 1137-61, 1153-4
17. L. Ray Patterson, 'Free Speech, Copyright and Fair Use,' Vanderbilt Law Review 40, 1 (January 1987): 1-66, 65
18. Ibid.
19. Leval, 'Toward a Fair Use Standard,' 1107
20. Ibid., 1106-7
21. Georgia Harper, 'Google This,' available at http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/ intellectualproperty/googlethis.htm
22. L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg, The Nature of Copyright: The Law of Users' Rights (Athens: University of Georgia Press 1991), 194. Ohio State legal historian Michael Les Benedict and I were the pre-publication reviewers of the manuscript of this book for the University of Georgia Press
23. Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2001), 195
24. Ibid., 180
25. Crews, Copyright, 118-9
26. See Leval, 'Toward a Fair Use Standard,' 1116, note 52
27. 'Google Print Case Study: Penn State Press Gets More Traffic, Bigger Margins and New Sales with Google Print' (2006), available at http:// books.google.com/partner/pennstate
28. The copyright status of an index is an interesting question in itself. Is it an entirely new work, an 'original' creation that merely 'quotes' from the primary work, or is it rather a 'derivative' work that requires permission from the copyright owner to prepare? Or maybe it is a form of 'compilation' of data deserving, because of its minimal 'originality,' of only a 'thin' form of copyright protection, if any at all? Is it most like an abtract, and are abstracts 'derivative' works? Probably Patterson would say that it is a 'use of the work' rather than a 'use of the copyright,' and thus outside the scope of copyright