"This buy cheapest cheap on line identification of epilepsy associated genetic changes will allow us to buy discount mirapex online improve diagnosis and classification of different epilepsy subtypes. "We don't ventolin sale really understand clearly what are the causes of epilepsy and buy (metacam) cheapest alternatives india how it comes about," Dr. Jean-Philippe Langevin, a neurosurgeon and cialis no rx director of Restorative Neurosurgery and Deep Brain Stimulation Program for colchicine prescription Pacific Neuroscience Institute at Providence Saint John's Health Center in buying lowest uk cost get cheapest California, told MNT. — Dr. Jean-Philippe Langevin, neurosurgeon Dr. Clifford atrovent lowest uk cost get cheapest Segil, a neurologist at Providence Saint John's Health Center in zoloft without prescription California, told MNT that experts still don't fully understand what buy buy online australia exactly makes a seizure start or stop. Experts say the dangers cheapest buy get new research is another step toward precision medicine, an approach generic xalatan in which treatments are tailored to the individual based on their.

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.