Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Decision Date14 November 2013
Docket NumberNo. 05 Civ. 8136(DC).,05 Civ. 8136(DC).
Citation954 F.Supp.2d 282
PartiesThe AUTHORS GUILD, INC., and Betty Miles, Joseph Goulden, and Jim Bouton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Boni & Zack LLC, by Michael J. Boni, Esq., Joshua D. Snyder, Esq., John E. Sindoni, Esq., Bala Cynwyd, PA, Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz P.C. by Edward H. Rosenthal, Esq., Jeremy S. Goldman, Esq., New York, NY, Milberg LLP by Sanford P. Dumain, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Durie Tangri LLP by Daralyn J. Durie, Esq., Joseph C. Gratz, Esq., David McGowan, Esq., Genevieve P. Rosloff, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Defendant Google, Inc.

Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic by Jennifer M. Urban, Esq., Babak Siavoshy, Esq., Jason Schultz, Esq., University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, Matthew Sag, Esq., Chicago, IL, for Amicus Curiae Digital Humanities and Law Scholars.

Jonathan Band PLLC by Jonathan Band, Esq., Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, and Electronic Frontier Foundation.

OPINION

CHIN, Circuit Judge.

Since 2004, when it announced agreements with several major research libraries to digitally copy books in their collections, defendant Google Inc. (Google) has scanned more than twenty million books. It has delivered digital copies to participating libraries, created an electronic database of books, and made text available for online searching through the use of “snippets.” Many of the books scanned by Google, however, were under copyright, and Google did not obtain permission from the copyright holders for these usages of their copyrighted works. As a consequence, in 2005, plaintiffs brought this class action charging Google with copyright infringement.

Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to Google's defense of fair use under § 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107. For the reasons set forth below, Google's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Accordingly, judgment will be entered in favor of Google dismissing the case.

BACKGROUND
A. The Facts

For purposes of this motion, the facts are not in dispute. ( See 9/23/13 Tr. 10–11, 15, 25–28 (Doc. No. 1086)).1 They are summarized as follows:

1. The Parties

Plaintiff Jim Bouton, the former pitcher for the New York Yankees, is the legal or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book Ball Four. Plaintiff Betty Miles is the legal or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book The Trouble with Thirteen. Plaintiff Joseph Goulden is the legal or beneficial owner of the U.S. copyright in the book The Superlawyers: The Small and Powerful World of the Great Washington Law Firms. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 1–3). 2 All three books have been scanned by Google and are available for search on Google's website, without plaintiffs' permission. (Google Resp. ¶ 4). Plaintiff The Authors Guild, Inc., is the nation's largest organization of published authors and it advocates for and supports the copyright and contractual interests of published writers. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 7–8).

Google owns and operates the largest Internet search engine in the world. (Google Resp. ¶ 9). Each day, millions of people use Google's search engine free of charge; commercial and other entities pay to display ads on Google's websites and on other websites that contain Google ads. (Google Resp. ¶ 10). Google is a for-profit entity, and for the year ended December 31, 2011, it reported over $36.5 billion in advertising revenues. (Google Resp. ¶ 11).

2. The Google Books Project

In 2004, Google announced two digital books programs. The first, initially called “Google Print” and later renamed the “Partner Program,” involved the “hosting” and display of material provided by book publishers or other rights holders. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 13, 14). The second became known as the “Library Project,” and over time it involved the digital scanning of books in the collections of the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and a number of university libraries. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 5 (Doc. No. 1035); Google Resp. ¶¶ 25, 26, 27; Pl. Resp. ¶ 14).

The Partner Program and the Library Project together comprise the Google Books program (Google Books). (Google Resp. ¶ 15). All types of books are encompassed, including novels, biographies, children's books, reference works, textbooks, instruction manuals, treatises, dictionaries, cookbooks, poetry books, and memoirs. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 6; Jaskiewicz Decl. ¶ 4 (Doc. No. 1041)). Some 93% of the books are non-fiction while approximately 7% are fiction. 3 Both in-print and out-of-print books are included, although the great majority are out-of-print. (Jaskiewicz Decl. ¶ 4).

In the Partner Program, works are displayed with permission of the rights holders. (Google Resp. ¶ 16). The Partner Program is aimed at helping publishers sell books and helping books become discovered. (Google Resp. ¶ 18). Initially, Google shared revenues from ads with publishers or other rights holders in certain circumstances. In 2011, however, Google stopped displaying ads in connection with all books. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 17, 21; Dougall Decl. ¶¶ 5–8 (Doc. No. 1076)). Partners provide Google with a printed copy of their books for scanning, or a digital copy if one already exists. (Google Resp. ¶ 19). Partners decide how much of their books—from a few sample pages to the entire book—are browsable. (Google Resp. ¶ 20). As of early 2012, the Partner Program included approximately 2.5 million books, with the consent of some 45,000 rights holders. (Google Resp. ¶ 24).

As for the Library Project, Google has scanned more than twenty million books, in their entirety, using newly-developed scanning technology. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 28, 29). Pursuant to their agreement with Google, participating libraries can download a digital copy of each book scanned from their collections. (Google Resp. ¶ 30). Google has provided digital copies of millions of these books to the libraries, in accordance with these agreements. (Google Resp. ¶ 85). Some libraries agreed to allow Google to scan only public domain works, while others allowed Google to scan in-copyright works as well. (Google Resp. ¶ 36).

Google creates more than one copy of each book it scans from the library collections, and it maintains digital copies of each book on its servers and back-up tapes. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 40, 41). Participating libraries have downloaded digital copies of in-copyright books scanned from their collections. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 53, 54). They may not obtain a digital copy created from another library's book. (Jaskiewicz Decl. ¶¶ 6, 8). The libraries agree to abide by the copyright laws with respect to the copies they make. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 5).

Google did not seek or obtain permission from the copyright holders to digitally copy or display verbatim expressions from in-copyright books. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 53, 54). Google has not compensated copyright holders for its copying of or displaying of verbatim expression from in-copyright books or its making available to libraries for downloading of digital copies of in-copyright books scanned from their collections. (Google Resp. ¶ 55).

3. Google Books

In scanning books for its Library Project, including in-copyright books, Google uses optical character recognition technology to generate machine-readable text, compiling a digital copy of each book. (Google Resp. ¶ 62; Pl. Resp. ¶ 18; Jaskiewicz Decl. ¶ 3). Google analyzes each scan and creates an overall index of all scanned books. The index links each word or phrase appearing in each book with all of the locations in all of the books in which that word or phrase is found. The index allows a search for a particular word or phrase to return a result that includes the most relevant books in which the word or phrase is found. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 6; Pl. Resp. ¶¶ 22–26). Because the full texts of books are digitized, a user can search the full text of all the books in the Google Books corpus. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 7; Google Resp. ¶ 42).

Users of Google's search engine may conduct searches, using queries of their own design. (Pl. Resp. ¶ 10). In response to inquiries, Google returns a list of books in which the search term appears. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 8). A user can click on a particular result to be directed to an “About the Book” page, which will provide the user with information about the book in question. The page includes links to sellers of the books and/or libraries that list the book as part of their collections. No advertisements have ever appeared on any About the Book page that is part of the Library Project. (Clancy Decl. ¶ 9).

For books in “snippet view” (in contrast to “full view” books), Google divides each page into eighths—each of which is a “snippet,” a verbatim excerpt. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 43, 44). Each search generates three snippets, but by performing multiple searches using different search terms, a single user may view far more than three snippets, as different searches can return different snippets. (Google Resp. ¶ 45). For example, by making a series of consecutive, slightly different searches of the book Ball Four, a single user can view many different snippets from the book. (Google Resp. ¶¶ 46, 47).

Google takes security measures to prevent users from viewing a complete copy of a snippet-view book. For example, a user cannot cause the system to return different sets of snippets for the same search query; the position of each snippet is fixed within the page and does not “slide” around the search term; only the first responsive snippet available on any given page will be returned in response to a query; one of the snippets on each page is “black-listed,” meaning it will not be shown; and at least one out of ten entire pages in each book is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Cambridge Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press, Inc. v. Patton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 17 Octubre 2014
    ...song can be a ‘fair use’ merely because the infringer had no intent to infringe.”). Judge Chin, however, in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282, 292 (S.D.N.Y.2013) explained the broad contours of the third fair use factor well when he wrote: “[On the one hand] Google scan......
  • FLO & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 Noviembre 2014
    ...books so that users can search the books and find out where certain phrases appear. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282, 291 (S.D.N.Y.2013). That too is a different use from the original book, which is meant to be read, not searched by keyword. Id. What one wants to do wit......
  • Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 17 Octubre 2014
    ...song can be a ‘fair use’ merely because the infringer had no intent to infringe.”). Judge Chin, however, in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282, 292 (S.D.N.Y.2013) explained the broad contours of the third fair use factor well when he wrote: “[On the one hand] Google scan......
  • Cambridge Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press, Inc. v. Patton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • 17 Octubre 2014
    ...be a ‘fair use’ merely because the infringer had no intent to infringe.”). Judge Chin, however, in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 954 F.Supp.2d 282, 292 (S.D.N.Y.2013) explained the broad contours of the third fair use factor well when he wrote: “[On the one hand] Google scans the ful......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
3 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • 6 Diciembre 2015
    ...(2d. Cir. 2013), 283 Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 666 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), 281, 282, 283 Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), 283, 284 Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, 339 U.S. 827 (1950), 119, 120, 144, 273, 406 Automatic R......
  • Antitrust Issues in Transactions Involving Intellectual Property
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • 6 Diciembre 2015
    ...119. Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 721 F.3d 132, 133-134 (2d. Cir. 2013). 120. Id. at 134. 121. Id. 122. Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The district court weighed the four factors for fair use: purpose and character of use, nature of copyrighted work......
  • Illuminating the Profession: Women in Copyright
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-4, March 2018
    • 1 Marzo 2018
    ...(C.D. Cal. July 14, 2015). 7. Sony BMG Music Entm’t v. Tenenbaum, 719 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2013). 8. Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). 9. Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013). 10. Graham v. Prince, No. 15-cv-10160 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017). 11. Se......

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