NEWS Authors Guild’s Google Books challenge dismissed
T e US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the Authors Guild’s case against Google on November 14, allowing the technology company to continue expanding its Google Books online library.
As part of the Google Books project, Google has made ‘snippets’ of 20 million books available to the public.
Many of the books Google digitised were under copyright, and Google did not have permission from the copyright holders to use them. It also had not compensated copyright holders for copying and displaying the books.
T e Authors Guild sued Google in 2005 for copyright infringement seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. Google argued that making ‘snippets’ of the works available online constituted fair use, and district Judge Chin agreed.
He said that Google’s use of the copyrighted works is “highly transformative”, that it adds value to the original, and that it does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool used to read books.
He added that Google Books provides “signifi cant public benefi ts”, and that it advances the progress of the arts and sciences while respecting the rights of the authors and copyright holders.
Authors Guild executive Paul Aiken, in a statement on its website, said that the group plans to appeal against the decision.
“We disagree with and are disappointed by the court’s decision today,” he said.
“T is case presents a fundamental challenge to copyright that merits review by a higher court. Google made unauthorised digital editions of nearly all of
the world’s valuable copyright-
protected literature and profi ts from displaying those works. In our view, such mass digitisation and exploitation far exceeds the bounds of fair use defence.”
Google said in a statement: “T is has been a long road and we are absolutely delighted with today’s judgment.
“As we have long said, Google Books is in compliance with copyright law and acts like a card catalogue for the digital age.”
Paul Fakler, a partner at Arent Fox LLP in New York, said that there was a “troubling trend” in fair use cases where the courts will oſt en focus entirely on the question of transformativeness, which he described as a “mushy” term. However,
www.worldipreview.com
he said, in this case Judge Chin had made a fair judgment, covered all of the factors and balanced them together.
“Judge Chin does a very good job of concisely explaining the principles and purposes behind the fair use defence,” he said.
He said the decision was notable as Judge Chin originally put aside the fair use issue to deal with the class certifi cation issue. Judge Chin granted the Authors Guild class certifi cation, which Google appealed against.
“Technically, all that was on appeal was the question of whether it was proper to allow this case to proceed as a class action,” he said.
“T e Second Circuit panel took it upon themselves to fi rst vacate the class certifi cation and refer the case back to the district court where Judge Chin should decide fair use before the issue of class certifi cation,” he said.
Fakler expects Judge Chin’s decision to stand: “It’s a well-reasoned fair use decision, it cites a lot of precedents that support the outcome, and it doesn’t do anything novel.
“It seems to me that the decision will be pretty safe on appeal but it will nonetheless be interesting to watch,” he said.
Hillel Parness, partner at Robins, K aplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP in New York, noted that in part of the opinion, it appears the legality of Google Books is presupposed: “As one of the keys to Google Books is its off ering of full-text search of books, full- work reproduction is critical to the functioning of Google Books,” the opinion said.
He said that Judge Chin set the table by listing the “many” benefi ts of Google Books before reaching the question of fair use.
“T e suggestion is that if a particular unauthorised use of copyrighted materials becomes ‘essential’ or ‘important’ to society, the fact that it was brought about by brazen, unapologetic copying becomes far less important,” he said.
“It gives rise to the dangerous idea that allowing society to become accustomed to—or even reliant upon—such widespread commercial copyright infringement will damage the ability of the rights holders to obtain relief. In that light, one can legitimately ask whether there is any principled diff erence between the widespread commercial copying that led to peer-to-peer fi le-sharing, and that which led to Google Books.”
Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 4 5
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44