[ap22213]

I'm not sure that I agree with this ruling.

Although Google says that they're using it for one specific purpose, I can imagine that they'll use it for other things like improving their search and ad technologies. If that's the case, then wouldn't Google's work be considered derivative of the original content?

Why should the authors involved not be able to re-sell those digitalized versions to other companies (especially other search engines)? There are probably lots of companies that would like that data set and be willing to pay for the use of it (including me).

[skybrian]

It's also possible that someone who reads a book might learn something from it and go on to make a lot of money based on what they learned, without compensating the author. Should this be different for machine learning?

[conover]

Textbook authors hate them!

[jim-greer]

> If that's the case, then wouldn't Google's work be considered derivative of the original content?

The ruling pretty much addressed this already:

"Plaintiffs’ contention that Google has usurped their opportunity to access paid and unpaid licensing markets for substantially the same functions that Google provides fails, in part because the licensing markets in fact involve very different functions than those that Google provides, and in part because an author’s derivative rights do not include an exclusive right to supply information (of the sort provided by Google) about her works."

If that's the opinion concerning providing search in the books, I think it's highly likely that the same logic would apply to improving search and even ads.