Authors Guild appeals ruling in Google Books case

Dec 30, 2013
The Google logo is seen at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, California, September 2, 2011

The Authors Guild is appealing a US judge's decision in a long-running case that cleared legal obstacles for Google's massive book-scanning project, court documents showed Monday.

The group filed a notice of appeal in the case following a November 14 ruling by Federal Judge Denny Chin.

Arguments are to be filed at a later date with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

The guild vowed to appeal the case after Chin ruled that Google's project is "fair use" under copyright law because it provides vital educational and other public benefits.

The case, which dates back to 2005, centers on a Google program started in 2004 to create an electronic database of books that could be searchable by keywords.

Google has scanned more than 20 million books so far in the project. Books in the public domain—without current copyrights—are made available online to the public for free. For copyrighted books, Google offers a searchable database that displays snippets of text.

Google has long argued that its program is in compliance with and acts like a "card catalog for the digital age."

Explore further: Google prevails in long-running book digitization case (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US judge weighs Google book copyright case

Sep 23, 2013

A federal judge Monday pointedly questioned attorneys for the Authors Guild in a long-running case on whether Google's book-scanning project violates copyright law.

Google seeks to close book in author copyright case

Jul 27, 2012

Google asked a US court Friday to put an end to a long-running lawsuit over the Internet giant's massive book-scanning project, saying the effort is "not a substitute" for books themselves.

Federal judge delays Google case pending appeal

Sep 17, 2012

(AP)—A federal appeals judge in New York has agreed to delay a court challenge to Google Inc.'s plans to create the world's largest digital library while the court considers whether authors should receive class status.

Judge refuses to delay NY case for Google appeal

Aug 29, 2012

(AP)—The federal judge presiding over challenges to Google Inc.'s plans to create the world's largest digital library has refused to delay the 7-year-old case while Google appeals his decision to grant authors class certification.

Recommended for you

Pfizer's 2Q profit sinks 79 pct but tops forecasts

just added

(AP)—Pfizer's second-quarter earnings plunged 79 percent from last year, when the world's second-largest drugmaker booked a business spinoff gain of more than $10 billion. The latest results still edged ...

Aetna 2Q profit rises 2.4 percent

2 minutes ago

Aetna's second-quarter profit climbed more than 2 percent, as gains from an acquisition helped the health insurer beat analyst expectations and raise its 2014 earnings forecast again.

Merck 2Q profit more than doubles

2 minutes ago

A big one-time gain and a tax benefit helped drugmaker Merck & Co. more than double its second-quarter profit, raise the lower end of its profit forecast and easily top analysts' expectations.

Amazon launches 3D printing store

21 hours ago

Amazon announced Monday the launch of an online store for 3D printed items to allow consumers to customize and personalize items like earrings, pendants, dolls and other objects.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Protoplasmix
not rated yet Dec 31, 2013
There should be no barriers or obstacles to education. Because (fear) + (ignorance) --> (war) + (poverty)
Returners
1 / 5 (1) Dec 31, 2013
There should be no barriers or obstacles to education. Because (fear) + (ignorance) --> (war) + (poverty)


People own the rights to their own creations. Google's project can potentially rob the original author's of their due income. In this case, they are not only failing to obtain consent to use copyright material, but they are going a step further and using it anyway, when the copyright owner has already told them not to. That should be illegal, if it isn't already.