구글이 자사의 전자책 프로젝트와 관련해 미국 작가들이 제기한 저작권 침해 소송에서 승소했다.
데니스 친 뉴욕 맨해튼 연방법원 판사는 14일(현지시간) 구글의 전자책 사업인 '라이브러리 프로젝트'(이하 구글북스)가 작가들의 저작권을 침해한다는 원고 측 주 장을 기각했다.
친 판사는 판결문에서 구글북스는 저작권법상 '공정한 이용'(fair use)에 해당하고 "이는 독서를 위한 도구가 아닌 만큼 (종이)책을 뛰어넘거나 대체하지 않는다"며 기각 판결을 내렸다.
미 작가단체인 '저작권자 길드'가 이끄는 원고단은 공공•대학 도서관이 보유한 수천만 권의 책을 전자 복사해 온라인에서 전문이나 일부를 배포하려는 구글의 계획 이 저작권을 침해한다며 2005년 소송을 제기, 권당 750달러를 배상하라고 요구했다.
저작권자 길드는 구글의 궁극적인 목적은 구글북스를 통한 자사 검색엔진 활성 화와 이에 따른 광고 수입 증대 등 철저히 상업적 동기에서 기인한다고 주장했다.
그러나 친 판사는 이 같은 원고단의 주장 대부분을 기각했다.
그는 구글이 영리단체임을 인정하면서도 구글북스가 책의 전자사본을 판매하거나 "저작권물에 대한 직접적인 상업화를 꾀하진 않는다"고 판시했다.
그는 또 학계와 일반 독자 등이 새로 나온 책을 접하고 그 일부를 데이터•텍스트 마이닝 등 실질적인 연구에 활용할 수 있게 하는 구글의 시도가 "상당한 공공의 이익을 불러올 것"이라고 평했다.
구글과 정보기술(IT)업계는 이 같은 판결에 크게 반색했다.
구글 대변인은 "오늘의 기쁜 소식이 있기까지 참 오랜 시간이 걸렸다"며 "구글 북스는 저작권법을 준수하고 디지털 시대에 사용자들에게 원하는 책을 찾을 수 있는 색인의 역할을 할 것"이라고 강조했다.
페이스북, 마이크로소프트, 삼성 등이 참여하는 IT업계 모임인 미국 컴퓨터통신 사업협회(CCIA)도 "이번 판결은 온라인 내 '변형적 기술'(transformative technolog y)의 정당성을 입증한다"며 반겼다.
저작권자 길드 측은 판결에 대해 즉각 논평을 내놓지 않았다.
구글은 현재 약 2천만 권의 책을 전자 복사해 온라인에서 무료로 배포하고 있다. 이중 저작권이 있는 책은 내용 일부를 검색할 수 있는 데이터베이스를 따로 운영 중이다.
<관련 영문 기사>
Google prevails in long-running book digitization case
A US judge Thursday threw out a long-running challenge to Google's massive book-scanning project in a decision that could transform copyright law in the digital age.
Federal Judge Denny Chin dismissed the case which dates back to 2005, saying Google's project is "fair use" under copyright law because it provides vital educational and other public benefits.
In a 28-page decision, Chin said the Google program, dubbed the "Library Project," preserves books, gives "new life" to forgotten editions, sustains "print-disabled" users and benefit authors and publishers by finding them new readers.
"In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits," Chin wrote. "Indeed, all society benefits."
The Authors Guild, one of the original plaintiffs in the case, vowed an appeal, saying the decision runs counter to copyright standards.
"This case presents a fundamental challenge to copyright that merits review by a higher court," said Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken.
"Google made unauthorized digital editions of nearly all of the world's valuable copyright-protected literature and profits from displaying those works. In our view, such mass digitization and exploitation far exceeds the bounds of fair use defense."
Google hailed Thursday's ruling.
"This has been a long road and we are absolutely delighted with today's judgement," a Google spokesperson said.
"As we have long said Google Books is in compliance with copyright law and acts like a card catalog for the digital age giving users the ability to find books to buy or borrow."
The case 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 argued that the Library Project creates new information and new insights. The program "has been used to analyze the evolution of the American novel and how word usage reflects changes in American society and values," Google said in a legal brief.
But the Authors Guild, who were joined in the litigation by three authors, had argued Google violated the rights of authors by scanning works without obtaining approval from the authors.
The Authors Guild had argued that Google's objectives were purely commercial in that the main goal in the endeavor is to boost use of its search engine, which generates advertising revenue.
But Chin concluded that Google's use of the copyrighted works is "highly transformative" in that it enables readers, scholars and others to find out about new books and permits book text to be transformed "for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining... thereby opening up new fields of research."
While Chin acknowledged that Google is a for-profit entity, he noted that Google does not sell the scans of the books or the snippets or "engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works."
"The fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes," the judge wrote.
The decision was also praised by the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung and other technology companies.
"This ruling is a vindication for transformative technologies online," said Matt Schruers, CCIA's vice president for law and policy.
Schruers said the ruling, if upheld on appeal, could encourage social media companies and others to compete with Google on a similar project using published content, and would generally encourage more investment from parties interested in "transformative" use of content who might be fearful of stringent copyright enforcement.
"Investors are going to be far likelier to invest in digital media services," Schruers said.
Librarians also hailed the ruling.
The decision "enables the discovery of a wealth of resources by researchers and scholars," said Trevor Dawes, president of the Association of College and Research Libraries.
Google and US publishing firms announced a settlement last year in the case, leaving the Authors Guild to pursue the lawsuit.
A tentative settlement in the case was reached in 2008 under which Google would pay $125 million to resolve copyright claims and to establish an independent "Book Rights Registry." But the court rejected the deal. (AFP)
