〔26〕民事法律行为可以采取书面形式、口头形式或者其他形式。法律规定是特定形式的，应当依照法律规定。——《
民法通则》第
五十六条 〔EB/OL〕. 〔2007-10-11〕 http://www.people.com.cn/item/flfgk/cyflfg/c006.html; “一方当事人向对方当事人提出民事权利的要求，对方未用语言或者文字明确表示意见，但其行为表明已接受的，可以认定为默示。不作为的默示是在法律有规定或者当事人双方有确定的情况下，才可以视为意思表示。”《最高人民法院关于贯彻执行
民法通则若干问题的意见》第
66条 〔EB/OL〕. 〔2007-10-11〕 http://www.court.gov.cn/lawdata/explain/civil/200304010167.htm.
〔27〕赵莉.质疑网络版权中“默示许可”的法律地位 〔J〕.电子知识产权,2003,12.
〔28〕“A copyright owner may grant a nonexclusive license expressly or impliedly through conduct”.同注23, at 1116.
〔29〕“Any language used by the owner of the patent, or any conduct on his part exhibited to another from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license and a defense to an action for a tort.” De Forest Radio Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 241 (U.S. 1927), at 241.
〔30〕 Keane Dealer Servs. v. Harts, 968 F. Supp. 944 (D.N.Y. 1997), at 947.
〔31〕 Quinn v. City of Detroit, 23 F. Supp. 2d 741 (D. Mich. 1998), at 753.
〔32〕While Google is a for-profit corporation, there is no evidence Google profited in any way by the use of any of Field''s works. Rather, Field''s works were among billions of works in Google''s database...Moreover, when a user accesses a page via Google''s "Cached" links, Google displays no advertising to the user, and does not otherwise offer a commercial transaction to the user. 同注23, at 1120.
〔33〕whether the new 〔use〕 merely "supersedes the objects" of the original creation . . . or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative" . . . Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, . . . the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (U.S. 1994),at 579.
〔34〕“finding search engine''s use of copyrighted material transformative in part because it "benefit 〔ted〕 the public by enhancing information-gathering techniques on the internet").”——同注18, at 820.
〔35〕同注23, at 1121, n9.
〔36〕 "Because ''fair use presupposes "good faith" and "fair dealing," courts may weigh the ''propriety of the defendant''s conduct'' in the equitable balance of a fair use determination."——Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 436 (9th Cir. 1986)，at 436-37.
〔37〕Field decided to manufacture a claim for copyright infringement against Google in the hopes of making-money from Google’s standard practice.——同注23, at 1113.
〔38〕Google''s opt-out procedure "shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear." 〔EB/OL〕. The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate. Jonathan Band. 2006-06-10 〔2007-10-22〕. http://www.llrx.com/features/googlelibraryproject.htm
〔39〕 其实google还是有可能通过图书馆计划非直接地获利，前提是如果其能构建一个综合性的大型数据库。Google虽未通过图书馆计划销售广告, 但其在“合作者计划”(Partner Program)中成功地实施了其广告营销策略。一个综合性数据库将有可能使搜索引擎运转更为有效, 因而吸引更多的用户访问图书搜索网站, 潜在地增加“合作者计划”的广告收入。——作者注.
〔40〕 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1985); 1985 U.S. LEXIS 17.
〔41〕 翟建雄. 图书馆馆际互借和文献提供中的版权问题——美国的立法和司法判例介绍 〔J〕. 法律文献信息与研究, 2006, 45(3): 1-11
〔42〕 American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 930 (2d Cir. 1994), at 930.
