Library, scanning, and copyrights

[padgett]

The modern version of a service manual is electronic. People have spent hours scanning and posting service, parts, TSBs, and assembly manuals for many popular cars.

 

But the US Copyright Act says "extended these terms...for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier"

 

Which begs the question of scanning documents in the library. Keep in mind that until recently and with GM permission for years one of the Buick forums members had maintained a server with over a GigaByte of member scanned marque service information.  Since the reorganization GM lawyers rescinded that permission and demanded the information be removed from the controlled server .

 

The question of "Fair Use" was never considered and the forum could not afford a legal defense so the material was removed from the server.

 

At some point I would suggest that "fair use" be extended to print and electronic media used for the repair, restoration, and recreation of Antique (as defined by the AACA) automobiles and machinery used to repair such historic vehicles where the literature involved is no longer published (am sure one of the AACA lawyers can formulate better).

 

Just something to think about.

[Terry Bond]

Way back when I was AACA's VP of Publications I felt pretty good about my basic knowledge on copyright stuff - but then we were dealing with printed newsletters.  There have been a load of recent changes necessitated by the internet and I'm way out of date, but believe there are a lot of "exemptions" that libraries have.  The AACA Library is of course one of the best in the country and is an official/real library so can take advantage of any of the protections they are entitled to.  On the other hand as you point out, there are probably a lot of clubs that are not legally established as a "library" and individual members have assumed the role as unofficial historian, maintaining files and distributing information.  Great service but there may be legalities associated with operating in such a manner.  Not sure - but in terms of copyright, fair-use, etc. ignorance is not bliss and is no excuse, so a word of caution is in order.  Perhaps our librarians can chime in and offer some advice to others who are working with their individual clubs maintaining and distributing historic information?  

 

I do know there are individuals out there who are constantly scanning the web searching for copyright images (including cartoons), and other information and then threatening lawsuit unless extortion payment is made.   I know of several clubs who have been contacted over the years and asked to "pay-up" or get sued for using alleged copyright material.  At one time I believe there were several overseas based operations that would send out legal sounding warnings on lawyers letter-head.  I'm sure they still operate and are raking in lots of money.

 

[padgett]

Understand. Might mention that the forum in question was one of the Buick forums on the AACA site and GM had issued permission to post the works years ago, then suddenly a demand was sent from lawyers apparently for the new corporation to remove the documents.

[mike6024]

The Google book scanning project addressed this issue. Remember Google set out, as a goal in the interest of public service, to scan ALL books in all libraries to make them available to everyone. I have quoted (copied and pasted) from some Google scanned books in some postings on this forum, particularly regarding the owner who was asking about his old US built Fiat.

 

U.S. Appeals Court Rules Google Book Scanning Is Fair Use

http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/10/copyright/u-s-appeals-court-rules-google-book-scanning-is-fair-use/#_

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books

[padgett]

Now this is really interesting " Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement. Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer."

 

Wonder what that means ? We could provide specific sections of a manual as long as the whole thing is not ?

 

For example what if the library used something like Freegal . Members there can download five songs a week. What if five sections of a manual per week were available.

"The music you access via the Freegal Music site is for non-commercial purposes only. It comes with a license for personal use only. This means that you cannot duplicate it for others, or play it in public, other than for the intended enjoyment of a normal circle of family or friends. "

and

"The songs are only available on an individual basis. Over time, you can choose to download all the songs in an album.

 

Obviously this could be a valuable member benefit particularly since in general you do not need a whole manual, just the piece you need and it was available anytime/anywhere, two sections from the FSM and two from the P&A would handle almost anything.

 

But before I start consolidating a few tens of gigabytes and cupla hundred linear feet of books and manuals dating back to 1915, the AACA Library is a wholly owned subsidiary of AACA the club ? Just want to be sure who would be the recipient.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by padgett (see edit history)

[mike6024]

Yes fair use is not a blank check, not fair game to scan and do whatever you want with the scans, certainly not scan then sell the scans for profit. But when I looked up scanned Google books online to look through a book i was never limited. I have not been limited to only small excerpts. I was able to just keep paging though the whole thing if I wanted to. I was not restricted to "snippets" based on what I looked at.

 

Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works,...and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses.

[padgett]

Agree not unlimited but if we use the proper model (and might ask the AACA lawyers to talk to the Google lawyers, they may have suggestions) we could certainly provide a service to all AACA members and not just local ones. We are talking a small niche and anyone who wants printed copy can certainly buy one but part is that there are a lot of documents and scans in private hands today that we never available to the general public, things like factory assembly manuals that can make restoration less one of guesswork.

 

Talk about a member benefit.

 

Been looking for a project.

 

 

[JV Puleo]

Re the original question... the current copyright law does not apply to anything that was already in the public domain when the law passed. However, there is a good reason why it's referred to as the "Micky Mouse" law in the trade (which is the business I am in)... it was re-written to protect the movie and pop music industry with little or no thought to print materials. It's riddled with ambiguities and contradictions, as if the framers of the law couldn't read.

 

When google books first arrived on the scene they notified small publishers like us that they were scanning all our books and making them available for free...that they were under copyright and this constituted theft mattered not. What, after all can a publishing house with four employees do to fight google? Ultimately, they were taken to court by a much larger association representing many authors and small publishers and, after years of litigation, had to concede that even google has to respect the law. All the time this is going on, google books regularly reduces to "snippet" views books that are long out of copyright or never were copyrighted in the first place. For instance, ALL US government documents are not copyrighted... but somehow this fairly simply notion has never successfully penetrated their corporate mentality.

 

I use google books a lot in my research work (almost entirely in 19th century government records)  but I deeply resent their trying to steal the royalties I get from the sale of my own books. 

[padgett]

Good to hear from the "other side" and does makes sense to a certain extent but, like patents, sometimes the duration becomes a bit absurd particularly for corporations.  Personally think the limit should be more like 25 years from publication for original works. Patents should be 10 years max. Lifetime plus ? Please.

 

Also why should something that is out of print for XX years be protected at all ? But my opinion does not matter. Need to ask someone whose opinion does (like the EFF or Google) particularly about things like "safe harbor".

 

Do suspect a member controlled and cryptographically protected AACA library willing to preform all of the necessary effort to digitize a print document & who provides the result to the copyright holder for their commercial use should also receive compensation. Quid pro quo. Just a thought.

[60FlatTop]

"significant market substitute" is probably the best phrase. The mission of those companies is to build and sell new cars. Maintaining a database, history, and service documentation is not in the long term interest of the stock holders.

 

I ran into a similar situation around 1990 with refrigerant recycling and reclaimation equipment I had patented. Approaching the manufacturer's, they stated, in public, that they had no interest because they manufactured new. And I was in a different business.

 

Fair use, in either case, was not competitive use.

Bernie

[JV Puleo]

17 hours ago, padgett said:

Also why should something that is out of print for XX years be protected at all ?

 

I agree completely. I work almost exclusively with books that were never printed in large quantity, many of which went out of print long ago and are not readily available. But, under the current law, some are protected far into the future. These aren't cartoons... I've a certain amount of sympathy for the movie industry in that sense, but to use the law to protect yourself and thereby fl‡‡fl‡° everyone else, and do so with the blessing of our "betters" in government, is offensive at least. I believe the old rule for patents was 17 years with the option to renew for another 17. That gave 34 years of protection which ought to be enough. I no longer remember what the copyright time was but those could be renewed as well.

[60FlatTop]

If copyrights carry the same "rights" as patents for the holder it is no big deal. Just do whatever you want. There is a not of misconception about how they protect one. Generally they are not worth the maintenance fees, legal fees, and general BS people believe about them. Check out what Old Ben Franklin swindled a family of for patent #1. It was a fertilizer recipe and they have added at little to each patent since.

 

I think he got the idea from the stamp tax.

Bernie

Edited January 1, 2017 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)