Unopened buy cheap estrace vaginal cream vitamin supplements are more likely to retain their potency because glucophage no prescription moisture, light, and oxygen are less likely to affect them. buy zoloft low cheap price Knowing the signs and symptoms of skin cancer can help generic methotrexate cheap a person detect suspicious skin growths early. While some older buy cheap cephalexin online usa studies found that contact with pets may increase the chances generic estrace no prescription jelly of developing childhood eczema, other studies have found the opposite. buy cheap norvasc without prescription A person may have reduced awareness of their environment and buy spiriva without prescription may experience hallucinations or delusions. The ACS states that people viagra cheap drug undergoing chemotherapy treatment are more prone to developing infections. People buy pamoate with schizophrenia may lack motivation because they have reduced reward cephalexin online stores sensitivity and may not expect activities to provide enjoyment. It buy serevent lowest price is advisable for a person to work with a doctor order prozac from us on a hypertension management plan while using nicotine gum products. certified aldactone Many technologies promote a "down and forward" user position, meaning triamterene the person is hunched forward and looking down at the screen..

Representatives of photographers have filed suit against Google for digitizing their photos without permission, in the course of scanning books to create the Google Books library. For a long time, the photographers (and several other groups, whom I lump together as “the photographers”) have been annoyed that they aren’t getting any of the revenues from the settlement; they told the court that in no uncertain terms. The Authors and Publishers, in the course of working out their proposed settlement with Google, completely ignored them, and they are now following through on their threat to make trouble.

The interesting thing about this suit is that the complaint is not that the photographers are being deprived of revenues. In fact Google blacks out the copyrighted photos in the digitized books.

The photographers are complaining that the very act of scanning the books creates an illegal copy of the photographs, even if it is never displayed to a Google Books user. Kind of  logical, or would be in a looking glass world.

In its suit, p. 20, the photographers make quite modest demands:

Hmm. $150K per image, times how many images in how many books? You do the math.

James Grimmelmann has a quick analysis of the merits. Whither now the settlement?

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 8th, 2010 at 10:12 pm and is filed under Owning bits—copyright. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.