Talk:Google Books

message: All talk pages have been moved to Talk:Google Books/Archive 1. Anarchyte (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 1 created

message: I am curious that there is no discussion of commercial aspects of the operation at this time. Google is a for-profit operation and presumably either derives, or intends to derive in the future, a commercial return on its investment either through subscription services, advertising revenue or other means. Can someone who knows more about this aspect myself maybe introduce a relevant section to the page? Regards - TonyTony 1212 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial aspects/monetization 

message: I have just boldly merged Google Books Library Project into this article. To be fair, the Library Project is the essence of Google Books. The other part of it, Partner Program, is associated with just a single paragraph of content. Which means there is a huge scope commonness between the  two articles. They largely cover the same topic. This is exemplified as until now, half of the criticism (copyright issues) was predominantly covered at Google Books whereas the other half (academic criticism) was covered at Google Books Library Project. It makes sense to have a single consolidated article rather than two articles on the same subject. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I have left out the three large quotations by librarians (copied off https://books.google.com/googlebooks/library/partners.html) as there's no need to include them. Per policy, large quotes should not be included unless there's a good reason to do that. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Google Books Library Project]] 

message: Under Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues the following paragraphs have numerous spelling and other issues.
: In 2015 Authors Guild filed another appeal against Google to be considered by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. Google won the case unanimously based on the argument that they were not showing people the full texts but instead snippets and there are not allowing people to illegally read the book.[105] In a report courts stated that they did not infringe on copy write laws as they were protected under the fair use clause.[106]
: Authors Guild tried again in 2016 to appeal the decision and this time took their case to be considered by the Supreme Court. The case was rejected leaving the Second Circuits decision on the case in tact meaning that Google did not violate copy right laws.[107] This case also set a precedent for other case similar in regards to fair use laws as it further clarified the law and expands it. Such clarification is important in the new digital age as it effects other scanning projects similar to Google.[105]
Cheers. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 21:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraphs needing rewrite 

message: Where did most of the site's content? Why did it informally or secretly removed? Now, most of this article can be washed, as the site is almost empty place.--95.24.27.53 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy is right. Much of Google Book's searchable content disappeared sometime this month.113.29.228.198 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this article help? (it's a bit of a long read to get to the main point) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/the-tragedy-of-google-books/523320/ ... quote: "Despite eventually winning Authors Guild v. Google, and having the courts declare that displaying snippets of copyrighted books was fair use, the company all but shut down its scanning operation." ... Any other info welcome Tony 1212 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2016 

message: Making a tentative list of improvements to be made to the article: 
*Add bits of more content from , 
*Expand lead
*Create a section on Content - regarding the quantity and types of content present
*Create #Website functionality - comprising content from last para of #Details, #Linking, #My Library.
*Upgrade #Scanning of books to a level-2 section
*Remove section header Page numbering 
*Combine #Errors, #Accuracy, #Language issues into a single section #Criticism or some other suitable header
*Legal matters are legal matters - they are not criticism per se, so change level-3 #Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues to a level-2 section #Legal issues.
*Change #Google Books Library Project to #Library partners.
*Remove section header Google Books Partner Program - incorporating its content into #Details.
*Recast #Timeline to #History, casting off the timeline of libraries joining in the project to the #Library partners.
*Expand #Ngram viewer, adding more details and criticism.
*Create a section on Status - the present status of the project , also  talks a bit about dwindling pace in 2012 itself. 
223.227.98.116 (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement plan 

message: I'm sorry, but this hardly seems to be correct. The partnership b/w Google and Nook, per the NYT article used as ref above, is all about sale of print books through Google's shopping service. I am unable to find any info about any partnership b/w Google and B&N regarding ebooks. Also, the Nook support forum used as ref above (not an RS in the first place) is a dead link. Please readd the above info if you can find some concrete, reliable sources for the same. 223.227.34.151 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, this makes it clear that there was no partnership as such, but Google provided more than half a million PD books for the Nook store. But again, we need an RS for the criticism part. 223.227.34.151 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: When I find a public domain book in Google Books, how can I know in which library it was scanned? In my view Google Books should credit this library even if this library did not do the scanning job.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulonnus (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  In which library is this book?  

message: Since October 2019 or less before, Google has disabled anonymous and registered users from saving single pages into Internet Archive or archive.is. 
Any page which is quoted in a WP article may be put anytime out of the Google preview so as not to be yet a WP:verifiable source. 
This as an irresponsbile initiative of Google, in a special way damaging the WP community against Wikipedia which needs a long-time digital preservation of the external sources used for WP articles. It also applies to titles published more than a century ago, which fall in the public domain and therefore without any risk of possible copyright infringement.
This is the reason why Google Books is not yet a good source and has to be removed from the Template:More citations needed. Hope to receive any comment or have someone with which it will be possible to collaborate.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a service must be removed from template:refimprove. Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Micheledisaveriosp 2 2400:AC40:620:6201:795C:9175:BD8F:4BCC (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

text: @Micheledisaveriosp 1 2400:AC40:620:6201:795C:9175:BD8F:4BCC (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @2400:AC40:620:6201:795C:9175:BD8F:4BCC 3 2400:AC40:620:6201:795C:9175:BD8F:4BCC (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital preservation disabled by Google 

message: The redirect GGKEY (identifier) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:GGKEY (identifier)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]