5 ms·

Is it fair use when Google uses an entire scanned work in a machine learning project that leads to commercial gain? That to me is a far trickier question...

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
If I understand correctly from the article their current use is not resulting in financial gain. >> Unlike other forms of Google search, Google does not display advertising to book searchers, nor does it receive payment if a searcher uses Google's link to buy a copy. Google's book scanning project started in 2004. If that changes later on that may be cause enough to for them to be challenged on fair-use again.
msravi 11y ago
If I read an entire book and I use the knowledge acquired from reading the book for commercial gain, is it fair use?
foota 11y ago
I think the use would be considered transformative enough so as to outweigh the commercial use. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_character_of_the_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac...
ddispaltro 11y ago
Yeah I think that is a tough one, but I do think what they are trying to do is not a bad thing, especially since they are specifically skipping advertising. Bottom line, if books were more searchable I think it makes the world a better and more accessible place.
xamuel 11y ago
"Is it fair use when (company) uses an entire scanned work in a machine learning project that leads to greater overall technology and a better world?"
greglindahl 11y ago
You might want to familiarize yourself with the 4 factor test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors Many "fair use" usages lead to commercial gain.
- Gargoyle 11y ago
  Sure, but that's not the only factor in my thought experiment. For example, "The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair." Using a work in its entirety surely must factor in.
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    You might want to read this next: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 TL;DR: "usage" by computer algorithm is quite different from showing a copyrighted work to a human.
    - Gargoyle 11y ago
      Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll comment on what I find to be relevant in it in case it is of use to others. There is a part re Sega v Accolade that brings up the interesting sub-topic of "intermediate copying", which is legal, but then says it's legal because it's “the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program.” But wholesale scanning of entire works is not the only way to gain access to the ideas of books. It's also possible to purchase copies from the publishers. Perhaps a bit more relevant- "Accolade was not using Sega’s games for their protected expressive content, but simply to extract some unprotected, functional, nonexpressive information contained within them" I think that would be debatable in certain machine learning projects. Perhaps much of it would fall under that category, but a large part of the point would in fact be to extract the expressive information contained in them. What I'm trying to get at is related- Google (and other machine learning giants) is making an effort to extract the expressive content of these works. That's different from what we've seen in the past. To me, at least, it feel like it's worth asking if it's right that the people who produced that expressive content should not be compensated for it.
runholm 11y ago
If you read a book and publish a review for commercial purposes, you have as a human scanned the whole book for commercial gain. I fail to see the difference.
Flimm 11y ago
Google already keeps copies of copyrighted web pages for its Internet search engine. This is the same thing, but for books, isn't it?
xbmcuser 10y ago
You might have learned how to code from books you borrowed so now the author and publisher should be paid part of your earnings?

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

If I understand correctly from the article their current use is not resulting in financial gain. >> Unlike other forms of Google search, Google does not display advertising to book searchers, nor does it receive payment if a searcher uses Google's link to buy a copy. Google's book scanning project started in 2004. If that changes later on that may be cause enough to for them to be challenged on fair-use again.

msravi 11y ago

If I read an entire book and I use the knowledge acquired from reading the book for commercial gain, is it fair use?

foota 11y ago

I think the use would be considered transformative enough so as to outweigh the commercial use. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_character_of_the_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac...

ddispaltro 11y ago

Yeah I think that is a tough one, but I do think what they are trying to do is not a bad thing, especially since they are specifically skipping advertising. Bottom line, if books were more searchable I think it makes the world a better and more accessible place.

xamuel 11y ago

"Is it fair use when (company) uses an entire scanned work in a machine learning project that leads to greater overall technology and a better world?"

greglindahl 11y ago

You might want to familiarize yourself with the 4 factor test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors Many "fair use" usages lead to commercial gain.

Gargoyle 11y ago
Sure, but that's not the only factor in my thought experiment. For example, "The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair." Using a work in its entirety surely must factor in.
- greglindahl 11y ago
  You might want to read this next: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2606731 TL;DR: "usage" by computer algorithm is quite different from showing a copyrighted work to a human.
  - Gargoyle 11y ago
    Thanks for the link to the paper, I'll comment on what I find to be relevant in it in case it is of use to others. There is a part re Sega v Accolade that brings up the interesting sub-topic of "intermediate copying", which is legal, but then says it's legal because it's “the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program.” But wholesale scanning of entire works is not the only way to gain access to the ideas of books. It's also possible to purchase copies from the publishers. Perhaps a bit more relevant- "Accolade was not using Sega’s games for their protected expressive content, but simply to extract some unprotected, functional, nonexpressive information contained within them" I think that would be debatable in certain machine learning projects. Perhaps much of it would fall under that category, but a large part of the point would in fact be to extract the expressive information contained in them. What I'm trying to get at is related- Google (and other machine learning giants) is making an effort to extract the expressive content of these works. That's different from what we've seen in the past. To me, at least, it feel like it's worth asking if it's right that the people who produced that expressive content should not be compensated for it.

runholm 11y ago

If you read a book and publish a review for commercial purposes, you have as a human scanned the whole book for commercial gain. I fail to see the difference.

Flimm 11y ago

Google already keeps copies of copyrighted web pages for its Internet search engine. This is the same thing, but for books, isn't it?

xbmcuser 10y ago

You might have learned how to code from books you borrowed so now the author and publisher should be paid part of your earnings?