[SPAM 1.3] Re: How much of our reference collection is in Google Books?

From: Kevin Hawkins <kevin.s.hawkins_at_nyob>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:24:24 -0600
To: CODE4LIB_at_LISTS.CLIR.ORG
Spam detection software, running on the system "avery.infomotions.com",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
eric_morgan_at_infomotions.com for details.

Content preview:  On 3/7/17 4:18 PM, Harper, Cynthia wrote: > Perhaps scanning
   the indexes would > be legally defensible because they constitute less than
   10% of the > work... Do keep in mind that figures like 10% as a maximum threshold
   for a Fair Use come from various consensus documents developed by groups
  of stakeholders related to certain media formats, but they have no actual
  legal standing. There are many factors that play into Fair Use, and proportion
   of the work is just one of them. [...] 

Content analysis details:   (1.3 points, -1.5 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no
                            trust
                            [66.175.211.245 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.6 RP_MATCHES_RCVD        Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain
-0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                            domains are different
 0.0 HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail
                            domains are different
-1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                            [score: 0.0000]
 3.7 FAKE_REPLY_A1          No description available.



attached mail follows:


On 3/7/17 4:18 PM, Harper, Cynthia wrote:
>  Perhaps scanning the indexes would
> be legally defensible because they constitute less than 10% of the
> work...

Do keep in mind that figures like 10% as a maximum threshold for a Fair 
Use come from various consensus documents developed by groups of 
stakeholders related to certain media formats, but they have no actual 
legal standing.  There are many factors that play into Fair Use, and 
proportion of the work is just one of them.

That said, if you had a collection of OCRd indexes and built a search 
engine told you which works contain a mention of a term in the digitized 
index, a court might well consider this a transformative fair use -- 
akin to HathiTrust's digitization of in-copyright works -- and not find 
you guilty of infringement.  But I'm not an attorney, so this should not 
be construed as legal advice.

Kevin
Received on Wed Mar 08 2017 - 14:24:31 EST