Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Policies & Practices
>
Clarification on using Overdrive for sourcing library editions
date
newest »
newest »
My understanding is you can use a library website as long as it's not an Overdrive library site.
Melanie wrote: "My understanding is you can use a library website as long as it's not an Overdrive library site."Again, look at the examples I gave and you will see the reason for my post. In the first link, message #393 the library page linked was https://wplc.overdrive.com which is a specific library page yes, but just a library account on overdrive.com. They are not standalone sites. All U.S. library digital catalogs (which hold ebook & audiobook editions) that use overdrive are hosted on overdrive.com. Those covers that got added were all hosted on od-cdn.com. Same for the second link, it was a specific library but the cover image was hosted on overdrive.
I guess I'm not sure what the issue is from a legal perspective. GR certainly qualifies as an OPAC and cover images and meta data are most definitely fair use for OPAC's and have been for many years. We're not talking about licensing import scripts like Ingram here, we're talking about individual users being able to catalog their library reads/listens using data and images from publicly available sources subject to Fair Use under U.S. copyright law.
GR is a business. Fair use does not generally permit commercial re-use unless it's "transformative" (i.e., something new is being created with the work in question), and simply copying it from there to here is not by any means transformative.Whether GR qualifies as an OPAC or not (it pretty much does, I agree), it's still a business, whereas mostly OPAC's are libraries which are considered non-commercial, and the fair use rules for non-commercial use are a lot broader.
Fair use certainly allows you to take the covers and use them for your own catalog, say a local calibre database, but it doesn't mean GR-the-business can use them on the site.
Which isn't to say using images hosted on Overdrive on behalf of specific libraries is allowed or not allowed, I'm just pointing out that fair use is probably not the criteria to make the judgement on.
All that said, a lot of librarians don't even manage to follow the guidelines let alone make an attempt to understand copyright law. So one librarian saying "I don't see why not" probably isn't enough to base a decision on either.
Also, the librarian manual actually says "National libraries", not local ones, so there's that.
(Edited to clarify, typing on my tablet is made of fail.)
Overdrive is not an acceptable source for book data. I asked this specific question here:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
See Rivka's answer in Post #6 in that thread.
Krazykiwi wrote: "Fair use does not apply to commercial use, and GR is a business. Your rationale certainly allows you to take the covers and use them for your own catalog, say a local calibre database, but it doesn..."GR may be a business and commercial in it's entirety but that doesn't negate the fact the the implementation of users adding library book metadata to the site like any other OPAC is not commercial in nature. Commercial sites aren't barred from utilizing Fair Use so long as the specific use is not commercial in nature. Heck, GR is pretty much designed perfectly for Fair Use given the end user cataloging, reviewing and commentary with link infrastructure driving traffic back to those libraries based on the ISBN of those editions. Any user cataloging their ebook or audiobook library borrows in no way constitutes commercial use, regardless of who is hosting their catalog. ;-)
What I was really scratching my head over was the statement that "We cannot use Overdrive as a data or cover source", a data source? Seriously, why on earth not? Setting the lower rez cover image under Fair Use issue aside, the bibliographic data is completely usable. Data like ISBN, pub date, publisher and page count are facts and as such are not granted copyright protection. Facts do not meet the creativity requirement of the statute. If it's a matter of not trusting the data, well since it comes directly from the publishers and official distributors it's a heck of a lot more trustworthy than user generated data. Sometimes it's the only accurate bibliographic source and if you discount it from the start you're operating with a serious handicap for a book cataloging site.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Overdrive is not an acceptable source for book data. I asked this specific question here:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
See Rivka's answer in Post #6 in that thread."
I saw that and I believe the TOS was very much misinterpreted by Melanti? Melanie, one of them. Section (4) doesn't really apply since case law is perfectly clear on data (facts) not being protected by copyright. Yes I and anyone could in fact collect and use data such as ISBN, publication date, publisher name, page count etc. Facts are free and can be obtained anywhere and used anywhere. As for covers, again a low rez smaller representation of the book cover for use in cataloging, reviewing and commenting is also protected under Fair Use, as it meets all 4 of the Fair Use test factors.
Tal wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Overdrive is not an acceptable source for book data. I asked this specific question here:https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
See Rivka's answer in ..."
Yes, it's only using Overdrive for the cover that is against TOS. As you say, facts cannot be copyrighted. It is only the presentation of facts that can be copyrighted.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Yes, it's only using Overdrive for the cover that is against TOS. As you say, facts cannot be copyrighted. It is only the presentation of facts that can be copyrighted. "A reminder that Overdrive doesn't hold copyright of those marketing covers, the publishers and/or authors do which is where they obtain them. Does anybody actually believe publishers and authors are opposed to the free advertising they get when book cataloging sites allow users to upload the covers that represent the editions they read if they happen to be library reads? Lol, if so I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in. The answer to that would be no, and LibraryThing and OpenLibrary came to this conclusion years ago.
You are correct that they don't hold copyright to those covers. However, they do have rights as to the presentation of those covers which is what we are not allowed to take according to *their* TOS. At least that is the position that GR staff has taken. You can choose to argue with that GR decision if you wish. However, I have decided it is in my best interest, that, even when I don't agree with a decision by GR staff, I will either abide by it or argue my position in private via email (both of which I have done).
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "You are correct that they don't hold copyright to those covers. However, they do have rights as to the presentation of those covers which is what we are not allowed to take according to *their* TOS..."And "their" TOS can't actually prevent Fair Use. The whole thing's rather ridiculous as the boilerplate terms are designed to provide cover for contractual enforcement against users taking their content wholesale and repackaging it, (their presentation or layout or style) not the individual data elements within the presentation, since they are not protected.
But as Krazykiwi pointed out, the way around the cover issue if you are paranoid is to take a screenshot of the cover and voila! you have now created a new digital image which you hold the copyright to and are free to upload. :P
I still believe a public forum is the appropriate venue for this discussion, based on the widespread contradictory manner the existing policy is interpreted and executed by GR librarians. So while you're free to pursue questions behind closed doors if you wish I'll continue to ask and debate them in the open.
Tal wrote: "I still believe a public forum is the appropriate venue for this discussion, based on the widespread contradictory manner the existing policy is interpreted and executed by GR librarians. "I think a public forum is the place to discuss that which has not already been decided. This has already been decided. I don't see how it helps to argue with GR in public. If you hope to change their mind, not embarrassing them is a better way, so that they might be more willing to come here and announce a change in policy.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I think a public forum is the place to discuss that which has not already been decided. This has already been decided. I don't see how it helps to argue with GR in public. "I think a public forum is the perfect place to ask questions about site policies, regardless of whether they are "decided" or not. And who's arguing with GR? So far there has been no response from GR and the only thing that's occurred is debate between GR members over factual issues.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "If you hope to change their mind, not embarrassing them is a better way, so that they might be more willing to come here and announce a change in policy. "
If you think asking for clarification of a policy and an explanation of the reasoning behind it is something that embarrasses them, you must hold them in very low regard. They get loads of abuse heaped on them regularly in the Feedback group and hold up just fine, I think they are capable of fielding a simple question without melting into a puddle of embarrassed goo. Truthfully I don't hope to change their mind, I simply hope for clarification of a policy that is widely misinterpreted and to understand the reasoning that shaped the policy in the first place.
Tal wrote: "If you think asking for clarification of a policy and an explanation of the reasoning behind it is something that embarrasses them,."You asked for clarification and were given it. Thereupon you disputed the answer and suggested that the reasoning was poor.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Tal wrote: "If you think asking for clarification of a policy and an explanation of the reasoning behind it is something that embarrasses them,."You asked for clarification and were given it. The..."
Actually I wasn't. To refresh your memory this was my request, "I would like an official clarification on ..." and as yet have had no GR employee response. Being a holiday weekend I certainly didn't expect one. GR employees are the only ones who can speak for the company IMHO, and while volunteer librarians can chime in with their interpretations (which are quite wide-ranging) that's not what I'm asking for nor can they provide insight into the rationale behind the origin of the policy.
Tal wrote: "To refresh your memory this was my request, "I would like an official clarification on ..." and as yet have had no GR employee response. "And I provided you with a link to an official response. And yet you continue to argue the point.
Given that library editions are distributed through library and wholesale channels often with unique ISBN's & covers which are not generally accessible to retail consumers (can't post a link to the publisher page for those editions & they're not sold retail so not on Amazon, Abe etc.) it makes it difficult to add digital library books to your shelves if you can't use your library catalog data.
My confusion over the existing policy is due to the following:
Read messages starting with #393 thru #396
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
where librarian states it's not Overdrive per se but in fact those local library pages are sourced directly from Overdrive.com
Then we have this answer: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
"We cannot use Overdrive as a data or cover source. Cover image added from library website and edition details added from WorldCat." - emphasis mine
So which is it? You can or can't use library websites?