Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.

Citation804 F.3d 202,116 U.S.P.Q.2d 1423
Decision Date16 October 2015
Docket NumberDocket No. 13–4829–cv.
PartiesThe AUTHORS GUILD, Betty Miles, Jim Bouton, Joseph Goulden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff–Appellants, Herbert Mitgang, Daniel Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Paul Dickson, The McGraw–Hill Companies, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., Association of American Publishers, Inc., Canadian Standard Association, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC (Edward H. Rosenthal, Jeremy S. Goldman, Anna Kadyshevich, Andrew D. Jacobs, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC, New York, N.Y., on the brief), for PlaintiffAppellants.

Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (Louis R. Cohen, Daniel P. Kearney, Jr., Weili J. Shaw, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington D.C & Daralyn J. Durie, Joseph C. Gratz, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, on the brief), for DefendantAppellee.

Before: LEVAL, CABRANES, PARKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion

LEVAL, Circuit Judge:

This copyright dispute tests the boundaries of fair use. Plaintiffs, who are authors of published books under copyright, sued Google, Inc. (Google) for copyright infringement in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Chin, J. ). They appeal from the grant of summary judgment in Google's favor. Through its Library Project and its Google Books project, acting without permission of rights holders, Google has made digital copies of tens of millions of books, including Plaintiffs', that were submitted to it for that purpose by major libraries. Google has scanned the digital copies and established a publicly available search function. An Internet user can use this function to search without charge to determine whether the book contains a specified word or term and also see “snippets” of text containing the searched-for terms. In addition, Google has allowed the participating libraries to download and retain digital copies of the books they submit, under agreements which commit the libraries not to use their digital copies in violation of the copyright laws. These activities of Google are alleged to constitute infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages.

Google defended on the ground that its actions constitute “fair use,” which, under 17 U.S.C. § 107, is “not an infringement.” The district court agreed. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282, 294 (S.D.N.Y.2013). Plaintiffs brought this appeal.

Plaintiffs contend the district court's ruling was flawed in several respects. They argue: (1) Google's digital copying of entire books, allowing users through the snippet function to read portions, is not a “transformative use” within the meaning of Campbell v. Acuff–Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578–585, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), and provides a substitute for Plaintiffs' works; (2) notwithstanding that Google provides public access to the search and snippet functions without charge and without advertising, its ultimate commercial profit motivation and its derivation of revenue from its dominance of the world-wide Internet search market to which the books project contributes, preclude a finding of fair use; (3) even if Google's copying and revelations of text do not infringe plaintiffs' books, they infringe Plaintiffs' derivative rights in search functions, depriving Plaintiffs of revenues or other benefits they would gain from licensed search markets; (4) Google's storage of digital copies exposes Plaintiffs to the risk that hackers will make their books freely (or cheaply) available on the Internet, destroying the value of their copyrights; and (5) Google's distribution of digital copies to participant libraries is not a transformative use, and it subjects Plaintiffs to the risk of loss of copyright revenues through access allowed by libraries. We reject these arguments and conclude that the district court correctly sustained Google's fair use defense.

Google's making of a digital copy to provide a search function is a transformative use, which augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs' books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs' copyright interests in the original works or derivatives of them. The same is true, at least under present conditions, of Google's provision of the snippet function. 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. Google's profit motivation does not in these circumstances justify denial of fair use. Google's program does not, at this time and on the record before us, expose Plaintiffs to an unreasonable risk of loss of copyright value through incursions of hackers. Finally, Google's provision of digital copies to participating libraries, authorizing them to make non-infringing uses, is non-infringing, and the mere speculative possibility that the libraries might allow use of their copies in an infringing manner does not make Google a contributory infringer. Plaintiffs have failed to show a material issue of fact in dispute.

We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND
I. Plaintiffs

The author-plaintiffs are Jim Bouton, author of Ball Four; Betty Miles, author of The Trouble with Thirteen; and Joseph Goulden, author of The Superlawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firms. Each of them has a legal or beneficial ownership in the copyright for his or her book.1 Their books have been scanned without their permission by Google, which made them available to Internet users for search and snippet view on Google's website.2

II. Google Books and the Google Library Project

Google's Library Project, which began in 2004, involves bi-lateral agreements between Google and a number of the world's major research libraries.3 Under these agreements, the participating libraries select books from their collections to submit to Google for inclusion in the project. Google makes a digital scan of each book, extracts a machine-readable text, and creates an index of the machine-readable text of each book. Google retains the original scanned image of each book, in part so as to improve the accuracy of the machine-readable texts and indices as image-to-text conversion technologies improve.

Since 2004, Google has scanned, rendered machine-readable, and indexed more than 20 million books, including both copyrighted works and works in the public domain. The vast majority of the books are non-fiction, and most are out of print. All of the digital information created by Google in the process is stored on servers protected by the same security systems Google uses to shield its own confidential information.

The digital corpus created by the scanning of these millions of books enables the Google Books search engine. Members of the public who access the Google Books website can enter search words or terms of their own choice, receiving in response a list of all books in the database in which those terms appear, as well as the number of times the term appears in each book. A brief description of each book, entitled “About the Book,” gives some rudimentary additional information, including a list of the words and terms that appear with most frequency in the book. It sometimes provides links to buy the book online and identifies libraries where the book can be found.4 The search tool permits a researcher to identify those books, out of millions, that do, as well as those that do not, use the terms selected by the researcher. Google notes that this identifying information instantaneously supplied would otherwise not be obtainable in lifetimes of searching.

No advertising is displayed to a user of the search function. Nor does Google receive payment by reason of the searcher's use of Google's link to purchase the book.

The search engine also makes possible new forms of research, known as “text mining” and “data mining.” Google's “ngrams” research tool draws on the Google Library Project corpus to furnish statistical information to Internet users about the frequency of word and phrase usage over centuries.5 This tool permits users to discern fluctuations of interest in a particular subject over time and space by showing increases and decreases in the frequency of reference and usage in different periods and different linguistic regions. It also allows researchers to comb over the tens of millions of books Google has scanned in order to examine “word frequencies, syntactic patterns, and thematic markers” and to derive information on how nomenclature, linguistic usage, and literary style have changed over time. Authors Guild, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d at 287. The district court gave as an example “track[ing] the frequency of references to the United States as a single entity (‘the United States is') versus references to the United States in the plural (‘the United States are’) and how that usage has changed over time.” Id.6

The Google Books search function also allows the user a limited viewing of text. In addition to telling the number of times the word or term selected by the searcher appears in the book, the search function will display a maximum of three “snippets” containing it. A snippet is a horizontal segment comprising ordinarily an eighth of a page. Each page of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
91 cases
  • Otto v. Hearst Commc'ns, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 10, 2018
    ...... incentive to create informative, intellectually enriching works for public consumption." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , 804 F.3d 202, 212 (2d Cir. 2015). "[W]hile authors are undoubtedly ......
  • Michael Grecco Prods., Inc. v. Valuewalk, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 6, 2018
    ......The photograph 345 F.Supp.3d 494 also appears as a search result on Google image, and displays the copyright information identifying Grecco as the photographer with a link to ...to prepare derivative works .. to display the copyrighted works publicly.."); see also Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust , 755 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir. 2014) ("The Copyright Act furthers this core ......
  • United States v. Bronstein
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 22, 2015
    ......” rather than “principled and objective.” Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States , 631 F.2d 1030, 1037–38 (D.C.Cir.1980). These notice ...Google's Ngram Viewer—which plots the “frequency of usage of selected words ... corpus of published books in different historical periods,” Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 217 (2d Cir.2015) —confirms that ......
  • Stern v. Lavender
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 20, 2018
    ...... 1980, Stern entered into an agreement with William Morrow and Company, Inc. ("Morrow") to publish a subset of the Last Sitting photographs in book ...Formally, because the 1909 Act terms "employers" "authors," a court's inquiry is into whether the creator and the person who hired ... utility.’ " Fox News Network , 883 F.3d at 176 (quoting Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015) (alterations omitted) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • What Goldsmith Means to AI Trainers
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 7, 2023
    ...appear quite vast. See generally A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC,562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009); Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, (2d Cir. 2015); Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust 755 F.3d 87, (2d Cir. 2014). Challenges for Content Owners in AI Training No content owner ......
  • Authors Guild Expands On Importance Of Transformative Purpose Use To Fair Use Analysis
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 1, 2015
    ...possess, including the use of limited searches of and displayed snippets from such databases. The case is Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about y......
  • Judge Leval Illuminates Google Books Fair Use Issues - Second Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment For Defendant In Massive Copying Case
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 24, 2015
    ...providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs' copyright...." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. To many legal observers, the outcome seemed obvious in light of the limited uses to which Google sought to affix the imprimatur of f......
  • Generative AI ' Copyright Overview Part 1
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 16, 2023
    ...copies of protected works and/or produce works that are intended to be market substitutes. Footnote 1. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. 804 F.3d 202, 229 (2d. Cir. 2015) (emphasis The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • POLITICAL FAIR USE.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 62 No. 6, May 2021
    • May 1, 2021
    ...that differs from the original without considering both works, and their respective objectives.'" (quoting Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 220 (2d Cir. 2015))). (286.) Galvin, 130 F. Supp. 3d at 1190. (287.) Id. (288.) Id. at 1192 (alteration in original) (quoting Campbell v. A......
  • WITHHOLDING INJUNCTIONS IN COPYRIGHT CASES: IMPACTS OF EBAY.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 No. 3, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...Use Eating the World?, 61 B.C. L. REV. 905 (2020); Samuelson. supra note 160, at 825-39. (182.) See, e.g.. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that digitizing books to index their contents and make snippets available was transformative); Kelly v. Arriba Soft ......
  • The Evolving Landscape of Disparaging and Scandalous Trademarks: Historical and Public Relations Perspectives
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 11-6, July 2019
    • July 1, 2019
    ...U.S. 417 (1984). 18. Id. at 451. 19. Campbell , 510 U.S. at 585 (citation omitted). 20. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. ( Google Books ), 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). 21. Id. at 206. 22. Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2018). All live ABA-IPL webinars through Augu......
  • Debunking Copyright Myths
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 11-6, July 2019
    • July 1, 2019
    ...U.S. 417 (1984). 18. Id. at 451. 19. Campbell , 510 U.S. at 585 (citation omitted). 20. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. ( Google Books ), 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). 21. Id. at 206. 22. Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2018). All live ABA-IPL webinars through Augu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT