The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.
A Brief Overview
Devereux Chatillon
© Devereux Chatillon 2016.
Google Library Project
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
2
How it Started
What is scanned
2004
•
•Google begins scanning
of books
•Participating libraries
include University of
Michigan, Stanford and
many others
•
•
Brought in SDNY in 2005
By Authors Guild and the
AAP
•
•
All books from the
libraries’ collection
In and out of
copyright
As of 2d Circuit
opinion, more than
20 million
•
All over the world
In many different
languages and
Subject to many different
copyright laws
Settlement &
Decision
Original Lawsuit
•
•
From where
•
•
Parties’ original settlement
was rejected by the District
Court
District Court ultimately
held that copying was fair
use.
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
3
Google says, Authors say
Google says
Authors say
– Although entire book is
copied, only snippets are
displayed
– Entire book is copied and
maintained with no license
or restrictions
– No ads are displayed on
the search results page
when in Google Book
Search
– Google is for profit and ads
are displayed in connection
with results
– What about security?
– Benefit to society
Date
© Devereux Chatillon 2013. All Rights Reserved.
4
And then there’s this copy thingy
•
To compensate the libraries, Google gave them digital
copies to use “in compliance with the copyright law.”
•
The libraries donated “copies” to a nonprofit entity to share
the copies—Hathitrust.
•
Authors Guild v. Hathitrust is one lawsuit resulting from this.
Again held to be fair use.
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
5
Second Circuit’s Decision
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
6
Second Circuit’s Opinion
For Profit—Google’s profit motive held not undercut fair
use as the purpose was transformative.
The purpose of the use was transformative as Google uses
the copies to provide search results for keywords in books.
And no ads are run next to the search results.
The nature of the copied work was not dispositive, but
favored fair use as the use provided information about the
original rather than protected expression
Despite copying all of millions of works, the amount copied
was necessary to the transformative purpose because
while Google copies all of the books, it displays only parts.
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
7
Second Circuit’s Opinion-Cont’d
Effect on the market—the court looked only at loss of
sales from search results in snippets and found it
minimal.
Because Google “safeguards” the copies and allows
only limited access, no impact on market.
Security concerns about Google holding millions of
digital copies “not supported by evidence.” Google has
good security.
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
8
Controversial portions
•
The court’s dismissal of Google’s profits motives (including that
Google could copy and sell the entire corpus).
•
The court’s conflation of the copying of the entire work and the
display of limited portions.
•
The uncompensated and involuntary security risk of having the
entirety of the world’s publishing held by one party.
•
What if Google changes the way it displays search results, runs ads,
protects its servers?
•
What if Google or someone else digitizes all movies or all music or all
of something else?
© Devereux Chatillon 2014. All Rights Reserved.
9