Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
755 F.3d 87
| 2d Cir. | 2014

Background

  • HathiTrust formed in 2008 to operate the HDL, built by member universities that jointly digitize and store books, now with 80 members and over ten million works.
  • HDL permits three uses: (1) public full-text search that shows only page numbers and counts, (2) print-disability access to full text via adaptive technologies, and (3) preservation by creating replacement copies under certain conditions.
  • The Orphan Works Project (OWP) was conceived to identify orphan works and designate them as orphan works; it was suspended before any works were distributed or displayed.
  • Twenty authors and authors’ associations sued HDL and university presidents for copyright infringement; National Federation of the Blind and print-disabled students intervened to defend accessibility rights.
  • The district court granted summary judgment that the HDL uses were fair uses and held some associational plaintiffs lacked standing; OWP claims were not ripe for review.
  • On appeal, the Second Circuit held some associations lacked standing, others had standing; affirmed fair use for HDL’s uses (full-text search and print-disability access), found OWP claims not ripe, and remanded on the preservation-use issue for standing considerations.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Do any authors’ associations have standing to sue on members’ behalf? Authors Guild et al. argue standing under Copyright Act §501. Libraries contend associations generally lack standing to sue on others’ rights. Some associations have standing; others do not.
Is HDL's full-text search a fair use? Authors contend full-text search harms markets and is not transformative. HDL uses are transformative and add value without substituting the original works. Yes, full-text search is fair use.
Is HDL's print-disabled access a fair use? Providing accessible formats may be transformative or outside fair use. Access for the disabled is a valid fair-use purpose under factor analysis. Yes, print-disabled access is fair use.
Are the Orphan Works Project claims ripe for adjudication? OWP would infringe copyright if revived; claims are ripe regardless of procedures. Future procedural specifics render questions contingent and not ripe. Not ripe for adjudication.
Is there standing to challenge the preservation-use claim, and should it be remanded? Plaintiffs may be harmed if HDL replaces original copies under certain conditions. Standing unclear without showing non-speculative risk to copyrights. Remanded for district court to determine standing on preservation-use.

Key Cases Cited

  • ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1991) (copyright owners cannot sue third parties on members’ behalf)
  • Itar‑Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (standing to sue requires ownership of exclusive rights)
  • Campbell v. Acuff‑Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (S. Ct. 1994) (fair use factors and transformative use promote progress)
  • Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (S. Ct. 1975) (purpose of copyright is to promote progress of arts and science)
  • Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (S. Ct. 1985) (substantial market harm required for fair-use defense to fail)
  • Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) (time-compressed, context-altering use can be transformative)
  • Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d Cir. 2013) (transformative use depends on added meaning and purpose)
  • Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (thumbnail images in search results can be transformative)
  • Arriba Soft Corp. v. Kadok, 336 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2003) (search engine thumbnails as transformative fair use)
  • A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) (non-substituting transformative use for plagiarism detection)
  • NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst., 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) (market harm analysis focuses on substitution of original)
  • Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (S. Ct. 1984) (time-shifting and fair use criteria)
  • Itar‑Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (standing and exclusive rights framework)
Read the full case