Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
804 F.3d 202
2d Cir.2015Background
- Authors (Bouton, Miles, Goulden) sued Google after libraries submitted their books to Google Books/Library Project, which scanned entire works, stored digital copies, indexed full text, and provided public search plus limited "snippet" displays.
- Google retains scanned images, supplies participating libraries downloadable copies under agreements limiting misuse, and offers a search engine (including ngrams) that shows counts and up to three small snippets per query; some content is blacklisted and rights-holders can opt out of snippet view.
- District court granted summary judgment for Google, holding the copying and snippet/search functions were fair use; plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs argued Google’s copying is not transformative, is commercially motivated, usurps derivative markets (search/preview licensing), creates hacking risk, and that distributing copies to libraries is infringing or creates contributory liability.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: Google’s copying is transformative (search/snippet), snippets are limited and non-substitutive, commercial motive did not defeat fair use, derivative-rights and hacking/third‑party risk claims failed on the record, and library distributions (under contractual limits) were noninfringing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Google’s full‑book scans for search are fair use / transformative | Google’s wholesale copying is not transformative and functions as a substitute for books | Copying enables a new, different function (full‑text search/text‑mining) that adds public knowledge | Google’s copying to enable search is highly transformative and favors fair use |
| Whether snippet view infringes / substitutes for books | Snippets reveal copyrighted expression and can substitute for purchases | Snippets are tiny, limited, fragmented, and designed to help identify relevance, not substitute | Snippet view as structured does not provide a meaningful market substitute and favors fair use |
| Relevance of Google’s commercial motive | Google’s profit motive and market dominance weigh against fair use | Commerciality is only one factor; strong transformative purpose reduces its significance | Commercial motive does not defeat fair use here given transformative purpose and lack of substitution |
| Claim to derivative right in search/preview markets | Authors have exclusive derivative rights to license search/preview services; Google usurped those markets | Copyright does not give exclusivity over supplying factual information about a work or the limited search data Google provides | No derivative‑right infringement; authors don’t have exclusive rights to provide the informational/search functions Google offers |
| Risk of hacking / distribution to libraries causing liability | Storing full scans and giving libraries copies exposes works to piracy and market harm; Google liable | Google uses strong security, libraries contractually restrict reuse; speculative risk insufficient | Court found security reasonable on record; speculative hacking risk insufficient to deny fair use; library transfers noninfringing and not contributory on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Acuff‑Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (explains transformative use and framework for fair use analysis)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985) (market harm is the most important fair use factor)
- Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (discusses commercial use presumption; dictum questioned by later cases)
- Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014) (full‑text search of digitized library corpus is transformative fair use)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (thumbnail images as transformative, non‑substitutive search aids)
- Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003) (search‑engine thumbnail case supporting transformative use)
- Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) (entire work copying can be fair when necessary for transformative purpose)