The Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints case is important because it helps distinguish Google's use of thumbnails with cases that are actually not Fair Use.  In this case, Hotaling, a group of researchers, compiled and copyrighted a number of genealogical research materials.  At some point, the Church of Latter-Day Saints received one legitimate copy of the microfiche and added it to its main library's collection in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Later, they made microfiche copies of the works without the Hotalings' permission and sent the copies to several of its branch libraries.  There were many extenuating circumstances, but even with them the appellate court decided that this was copyright infringement.

             This is especially relevant because Perfect 10 attempted to cite this case as part of their argument.  "Perfect 10 incorrectly relies on Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Napster for the proposition that merely making images "available" violates the copyright owner's distribution right."(Perfect 10 v. Google)  The Hotaling case differs significantly from the Google case.  Hotaling made exact copies and distributed them to places that would otherwise have had to buy the copies.  The infringement in this case was much more direct and obvious than what Perfect 10 accuses Google of doing with their thumbnails.

             Regardless, this case demonstrates an important difference between Google and the average Fair Use case.  Google is not distributing copies; they are creating thumbnails from other sites.  Google is not creating these images entirely, nor are they distributing the images.  Since merely making images "available" has been shown to not be enough for copyright infringement in the Hotaling case, we can carry that over to the Google case.  This completely nullifies one of Perfect 10's arguments, even according to the Court, than this case is very essential to supporting my thesis.  It both supports my thesis by both contrasting Google with the Hotaling case and establishing a precedent which takes away one of the opposing viewpoint's arguments.

In the chapter of the book entitled “Corrupt and Crumbling Institutions,” McCaffrey alternates between lauding John Schlesinger’s version of The Day of the Locust for the segments in which it is faithful to Nathaniel West’s novel and highlighting the elements of the film that fall short of the novel.  Although the film is a moderately faithful adaptation, its greatest shortcoming is that it fails to consistently match West’s tone of “level rage and tilted compassion.” McCaffrey observes the power of West’s work in that he offers philosophical passages that humanize his characters even as he attacks their pitfalls, which facilitates reader identification with the characters.  Except for the final scene in the film, McCaffrey praises those that Schlesinger created as they are true to West’s tone. 

            As West’s novel is considered among the best satires of Hollywood, it is successful largely due to conventions unavailable to the medium of film.  To capture passages of philosophy, the oft-criticized use of voiceover narration would be required.  Although the film matches the events of the novel, its failure completely match its tone leave it a less successful satire.  Many of the pitfalls of the film result out of aspects of the Hollywood system the book attacks.   The relevance of this articles lies in that it not only analyzes the adaptability of West’s book to film, but offers insights into issues facing the film adaptor and addresses satire in general context.