amicus brief final for printer 4-13-2014 · pearson education, inc., simon & schuster, inc.,...

13-4829-cvIN THE

United States Court of AppealsFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

THE AUTHORS GUILD, BETTY MILES, JIM BOUTON, JOSEPH GOULDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

HERBERT MITGANG, DANIEL HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, PAUL DICKSON, THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., ASSOCIATION OFAMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC., CANADIAN STANDARD ASSOCIATION, JOHNWILEY & SONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,—against—

GOOGLE, INC.,Defendant-Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BRIEF FOR AUTHORS MALCOLM GLADWELL, J.M. COETZEE,MICHAEL POLLAN, MARGARET ATWOOD, PETER CAREY,

KAREN RUSSELL, URSULA LE GUIN, RON LARSON, THOMAS KENEALLY, TAYLOR BRANCH, TRACY CHEVALIER,

LAWRENCE HILL, MICHAEL FRAYN, DIANE MCWHORTER,ROBERT CHRISTOPHERSON, TRACY KIDDER AND YANN MARTEL

AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

d

GLORIA C. PHARESCHRISTOPHER M. STRONGHOFFMANN MARSHALL STRONG LLP116 West 23rd Street, Suite 500New York, New York 10011(212) 851-8403

Attorneys for Amici Curiae Authors

Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 1 04/14/2014 1201502 39

CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENT

Eachoftheamicicuriaeisanaturalpersonandisnota

nongovernmentalcorporation.


i

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................ii

IDENTITYANDINTERESTOFTHEAMICICURIAE........................................................1STATEMENTOFRELEVANTFACTS......................................................................................7

ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................11

GOOLGE’SCOPYINGOFBOOKSTOCREATEAVASTDATABASEOFBOOKSANDITSDISTRIBUTIONOFCOPIESOFTHOSEBOOKSARENOTAFAIRUSE.............................................11

A. Google’sVastUnauthorizedCopyingand ReproductionofAuthors’CopyrightedWorks DoNotJustifytheHarmtoAuthors………………………………………...14 1. Google’sLibraryProject,Foundedon ContractstoMakeMillionsofUnauthorized Copies,isNotJustified.…………………………………………………14 2. Google’sDistributiontotheLibrariesofDigital CopiesofAlltheBooksitCopiesIsNotaFairUse………….17 3. TheUtilityofaFull‐TextSearchFunction DoesNotJustifyCopyingOver20MillionBooks……………20

4. Google’s“UseisofaCommercialNature.”……………………..22

B. TheDistrictCourtGaveShortShriftto theNatureoftheCopyrightedWorks……………………………………..24

C. GoogleCopiesandMaintainsBooksinItsBook DatabaseThatItDoesNotUseintheLibraryProject.………………25

D. Google’sConductHarmsAuthors.………………………………………….27


ii

E. GoogleCannotJustifyitsUseof CopyrightedWorksintheLibraryProject.………………………………30

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................32

TABLEOFAUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

AmericanGeophysicalUnionv.Texaco,Inc.,37F.3d881(2dCir.1994)......................................................................................................12

AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,954F.Supp.2d,282(S.D.N.Y.2013)............................................................10,23‐24,28

BillGrahamArchivesv.DorlingKindersleyLtd.,448F.3d605(2dCir.2006)...........................................................................................13,23Blanchv.Koons,467F.3d248(2dCir.2006).................................................................23

CastleRockEntm’t,Inc.v.CarolPubl’gGrp.,Inc.,150F.3d132(2dCir.1998)...................................................................................................23

Diverseyv.Schmidly,738F.3d1196(10thCir.2013).................................................18

eBay,Inc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C.,547U.S.388(2006)..............................................13

Hotalingv.ChurchofJesusChristofLatter‐DaySaints,118F.3d199(4thCir.1997).................................................................................................18

Kellyv.ArribaSoftCorp.,336F.3d811(9thCir.2003)..............................................16

Perfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508F.3d1146(9thCir.2007)..............................................................................................................................16

Salingerv.Colting,607F.3d88(2010)..............................................................................13

SonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,464U.S.417(1984)...................................................................................................................12


iii

Statutes

17U.S.C.§106.................................................................................................................................7

17U.S.C.§106(3).........................................................................................................................18

17U.S.C.§107.......................................................................................................................11,16

OtherAuthorities

EdwinG.BurrowsandMikeWallace,Gotham,AHistoryofNewYorkCityto1898(OxfordU.Press1999)......................................21

RichardDannay,FactorlessFairUse?WasMelvilleNimmerRight?,60J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.,127(2003)..................................................................13

RichardDannay,CopyrightInjunctionsandFairUse:EntereBay–Four‐FactorFatigueorFour‐FactorFreedom?,55J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A449(2008)....................................................................13

GallicaExperiment:OfferingCopyrightedDigitalDocuments,(availableathttp://www.bnf.fr/en/collections_and_services/digital_libraries_gallica/a.gallica_experimentation_digital_offer.html).......................................................................................................................28GeorgetownLawLibrary’sGuidetoLegalHistoryDatabases(availableathttps://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/guides/legalHistory.cfm)....................................................................................20Google,Inc.,Form10‐K,submittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionfortheFiscalYearEndingDec.31,2013,(availableathttps://investor.google.com/pdf/20131231_google_10K.pdf)............................................................................7,8,14,22‐23

Google,Inc.InformationregardingtheLibraryProjectavailableathttp://books.google.com/intl/en‐US/googlebooks/publisher_library.html#options4............................................................20

GoogleInc.OppositiontoAuthorGuild’sMotionforSummaryJudgment[Doc.1072]...............................................................................................................17


iv

Google,Inc.ProcedureforExcludingBooksfromScanning,(availableathttps://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/3365282?hl‐en&ref_topic_3396243)...............................................................19

Google,Inc.ProcedureforNotDisplayingScannedBooks,availableathttps://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/2520009........................................................................................................................19

PeterS.Menell,InSearchofCopyright’sLostArk:InterpretingtheRighttoDistributeintheInternetAge,59J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.1(2011)........................................................................18

MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,NimmeronCopyright.............................12,18

ReadersGuidetoPeriodicalLiterature,(H.W.Wilson(availableathttp://www.hwwilsoninprint.com/periodicals.php)............................................20

UniversityofConnecticutLawLibrary’sListofLegalPeriodicalIndexes(U.S.andforeign)(availableathttp://library.law.uconn.edu/research‐resources/legal‐periodical‐indexes)......................................21


IDENTITYANDINTERESTOFTHEAMICICURIAE

TheamiciareAmericanandforeignauthorsandcopyright

ownersofbestsellingworksrangingfromshortstoriestohistoricalnonfiction

tocalculustextbookstofantasyandsciencefictionnovels.1Worksauthored

bytheamicihavewonnearlyeverymajorliteraryprize,includingtheNobel

PrizeinLiterature,multiplePulitzerPrizesandBookerPrizes.

UnderthebalancesetbyCongressundertheCopyrightAct,and

withlimitedexceptions,noonecanexerciseanyoftheSection106rights

withoutpriorpermissionfromtheauthor.Technologicaladvancesare

challengingthisbalance.Thedevelopmentoftheabilitytocreatedigital

copiesandtheproliferationofsearchenginesandfilesharingontheinternet

haveintroducednewconcernsforauthors:theproblemofcontrolling

unauthorizeddigitalcopiesofworksandtheassociatedproblemof

unauthorizeddistributionanddisplayofthosedigitalcopies.Inadditionto

1 Thisbriefwasauthoredentirelybycounselforamicicuriae.Nopartyorparty’scounselcontributedmoneythatwasintendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.TheTextbookandAcademicAuthorsAssociation,anorganizationtowhichsomeamicicuriaebelong,contributedmoneytopartiallyfundthepreparationofthisbrief. Counselforbothpartieshaveconsentedinwritingtothefilingofthisbrief.


2

widespreadcopyrightinfringement,theuncheckedmassdigitizationof

writtenworksinterfereswithanauthor’slegitimateexploitationofworksin

newelectronicformatsandjeopardizesanauthor’sreputationbymaking

widelyavailableearliereditionsofworks,suchastextbooks,thathavebeen

updatedandsuperseded.Theseconcerns—andwhetherthebalancesetby

CongressintheCopyrightActisbeingirreparablydisrupted—areparamount

toanyconsiderationofGoogle’sLibraryProject.Alltheamicicuriaesharean

interestthatauthors’copyrightsbeprotectedfromafor‐profitcompany’s

unjustifiedcommercialuses.

MalcolmGladwell,astaffwriterattheNewYorker,istheauthor

offivebestsellingbooks,includingthenonfictionworksTheTippingPoint,

Blink,andOutliers.Mr.Gladwellhasbeennamedoneofthe100most

influentialpeoplebyTIMEmagazine.

J.M.Coetzeeistherecipientofthe2003NobelPrizeinLiterature.

AnativeofSouthAfricaandnowanAustraliannational,Mr.Coetzeeisa

playwrightandnovelist,includingLife&TimesofMichaelKandDisgrace,both

ofwhichwontheBookerPrize.Mr.Coetzeehasheldanumberofpositionsat

universitiesintheUnitedStates,SouthAfrica,andAustralia.

MichaelPollanistheauthoroffiveNewYorkTimesbestsellers,

includingTheOmnivore’sDilemma,whichwasnamedoneofthetenbest


3

booksof2006byboththeNewYorkTimesandtheWashingtonPost,wonthe

CaliforniaBookAward,theNorthernCaliforniaBookAward,andtheJames

BeardAward.Mr.PollanisajournalismprofessorattheUniversityof

California.

MargaretAtwood,afounderoftheWriters’UnionofCanada,is

theauthorofessays,poetry,short‐storiesandnovels.HernovelTheBlind

AssassinwontheBookerPrizein2000,andMs.Atwoodhasreceived

countlessotherawardsandhonors.Her2008MasseyLectureseries,

Payback:DebtandtheShadowSideofWealthwasadaptedintothe

documentaryfilmPayback.

PeterCarey,anAustralian,isoneofonlythreewriterstohave

receivedtheBookerPrizetwice—forOscarandLucindaandTheTrueHistory

oftheKellyGang.Mr.CareyhaswonAustralia’sMilesFranklinAwardthree

times,theCommonwealthWriters’Prizetwice,andthePrixduMeilleurLivre

Étranger.HehastaughtcreativewritingatseveralAmericanuniversities,and

currentlydirectstheMFAprogramincreativewritingatHunterCollege.

KarenRussellwasnamedaPulitzerFinalistforherfirstnovel,

Swamplandia!,whichwasincludedintheNewYorkTimes’s10BestBooksof

2011.Ms.RussellwaschosenasoneofGranta’sBestYoungAmerican

Novelistsin2007,andwasnamedoneofthebest20under40writersbyThe


4

NewYorker.In2013,shereceivedaMacArthurFellowship.Hershortfiction

hasappearedinTheNewYorker,Granta,OxfordAmerican,Zoetropeand

Conjunctions.

UrsulaLeGuin,fictionwriterandpoet,isoneoftheworld’smost

respectedauthorsofimaginativewriting.Shehasreceivedmanyhonorsand

awards,includingtwenty‐oneLocusAwards,fourNebulaAwards,twoHugo

Awards,andthePEN/MalamudAwardforshortfiction.InApril2000,theU.S.

LibraryofCongressrecognizedMs.LeGuinasa“LivingLegend”forher

significantcontributionstoAmerica'sculturalheritage.

Millionsofstudentsfrommiddleschoolthroughgraduateschool

relyonRonLarson’salgebra,trigonometry,andcalculustextbooks.Dr.

Larsonhaspublishedmorethan400books,includingthefirstcompletely

interactiveonlinecalculustextbook.Mr.LarsonisaprofessoratPennsylvania

StateErie,andhistextbookshavewoncountlessawardsforpedagogy,

innovation,anddesign.

ThomasKeneallyisanAustralianwriterofnovelsandnon‐fiction

withaninternationalpublishingrecordandreputation.Heisbestknownfor

writingSchindler'sArk,theBookerPrize‐winningnovelof1982,lateradapted

tobecometheOscar‐winningmovie,Schindler'sList.


5

TaylorBranchisahistorian,whoseworksincludeathree‐volume

narrativehistoryofthecivilrightsera,AmericaintheKingYears.Thetrilogy’s

firstbook,PartingtheWaters:AmericaintheKingYears,1954‐63,wonthe

PulitzerPrize.Mr.Branchhasreceivedlifetimeachievementawardsfromthe

DaytonLiteraryPeacePrizeandtheAnisfield‐WolfBookAwards.

TracyChevalierisanauthorofsevenhistoricalnovels,including

GirlwithaPearlEarring,isaFellowoftheRoyalSocietyofLiterature,andthe

recipientofhonorarydoctoratesfromOberlinCollegeandtheUniversityof

EastAnglia.

LawrenceHill,aCanadiannovelistandmemoirist,istheauthorof

ninebooks,includingTheBookofNegroes(publishedintheUnitedStatesas

SomeoneKnowsMyName),whichwontheRogersWriters’TrustFictionPrize

andtheCommonwealthWritersPrizeforBestBook.Mr.Hill’s2013Massey

Lecturesweredrawnfromhisnon‐fictionbookBlood:theStuffofLife.

MichaelFraynisanEnglishnovelist,translator,memoirist,

nonfictionauthorandTonyAwardwinningplaywright(forCopenhagen,in

2000).Hisnovelshavewoncountlesshonors,includingtheSomerset

MaughamAward,theWhitbreadNovelAward,andtheCommonwealth

WritersPrize.Mr.Frayn’splaysalsoincludeNoisesOffandDemocracy.


6

DianeMcWhorter,anauthorandjournalist,wonthePulitzerPrize

forGeneralNonfiction,theJ.AnthonyLukasBookPrize,andmanyother

awardsforherbookCarryMeHome:Birmingham,Alabama,theClimactic

BattleoftheCivilRightsRevolution.SheisaregularcontributortoTheNew

YorkTimesandUSAToday.

RobertChristophersonistheauthoroftheleadingphysical‐

geographytextbooksintheUSandCanada,whichsincetheir1992publication

havebeenusedbymillionsofgeographystudentsin39countriesinEnglish

andintranslation.Mr.Christophersontaughtgeographyforthirtyyearsat

AmericanRiverCollege.

TracyKidderwonthePulitzerPrizeforGeneralNonfictionand

theNationalBookAwardforhisbookTheSoulofaNewMachine,which

describestheracetodesignthenext‐generationofcomputers.Mr.Kidder

alsohaswrittenshortfiction,essaysandarticlesforpublicationsincluding

TheAtlantic,TheNewYorker,TheNewYorkTimes,andGranta.

YannMartelisaCanadianauthorofnovelsandshortstories.His

novelLifeofPiwonthe2002BookerPrize,wasaninternationalbestseller,

andwasadaptedintoablockbustermovie.In2005Martelwasavisiting

scholarattheUniversityofSaskatchewan.


7

STATEMENTOFRELEVANTFACTS

Theamicicuriae,U.S.andforeign,aretheauthors(“Authors”)of

worksthatareincopyrightandwerefirstpublishedintheUnitedStatesorin

BerneConventioncountries.SomeoftheAuthors’worksarenotcurrentlyin

print,whichdoesnotmeantheyarenotincopyrightorthattheAuthors’

rightsinthoseworksarediminishedinanyway.TheAuthorsareentitledto

alloftherightsgrantedtoanauthorunder17U.S.C.§106(“Section106”).

Googleisafor‐profitcompanythatiscurrentlyvaluedatover

$350,000,000,000.Googledoesnotgenerateitsownbooksofhistory,fiction,

poetry,orotherexpressiveworksofauthorship.(Google10‐Kat32)Google

hasassembleditsmassivewealth“primarilybydeliveringrelevant,cost‐

effectiveonlineadvertising.”(Id.)Its“businessisprimarilyfocusedaround

thefollowingkeyareas:searchanddisplayadvertising,theAndroid

operatingsystemplatform,consumercontentthroughGooglePlay,enterprise,

commerceandhardwareproducts.”(Id.)Googleacknowledgesthatitssearch

function“continuestoevolveandimproveasmoreinformationcomesonline,

2 ”Google10‐K”referstoGoogle’sForm10‐KsubmittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionfortheperiodendingDecember2013,availableathttps://investor.google.com/pdf/131231_google_10K.pdf.


8

andaspeopleincreasinglylooktotheirmobiledevicesforanswers

throughouttheday.”(Id.at4.)

OnewaythatGooglehas“evolve[d]”isbyincreasingthevolume

ofinformationitmakesavailableonline—andtherebyimprovingitssearch

function—bycopyingover20millionbooksthatitobtainedfromseveral

researchlibraries,andbydisplayingdigitalcopiesofthesebooksthrough

GoogleBooks.

TherearetwopartsoftheGoogleBooksProgram:(1)the

PartnersProgram,whereanauthor’sPublisherhaslicensedGoogletoinclude

thefulltextofdesignatedportionsofspecifiedworksinthesearchresults,

whilealsomaintainingafullcopyintheGooglebookdatabase;useofcopies

ofworksprovidedtoGoogleunderthePartnersProgramisgovernedby

contractualrestrictionsbetweenGoogleandrightsholders;3and(2)the

LibraryProject,whereGooglehasnotreceivedpermissionfromany

rightsholderofawork,butstillcopiestheworkandreturnssearchesonthe

internetinaformthatGooglecallsa“snippet,”whichitdefinesas

approximately1/8ofapage.(A1616‐1617at¶¶43‐45.)Googlehasnowhere

statedthatitwillnoteverreviseitscurrentdefinitionofa“snippet”toinclude

3 SomeoftheAuthors’worksareinthePartnersProgram.


9

alargerportionofapage’stext.OnlytheLibraryProjectisatissueinthis

case.

Google’sdesiretobuildanationaldatabaseofbookswasmatched

bythedesireofmanyuniversitylibrariestodigitizethevolumesintheir

collections,atime‐consumingandverycostlyprocess.Toachievethegoalsof

bothGoogleandthelibraries,theyenteredintoagreementsinwhicheach

libraryagreedtomakethebooksinitscollectionsavailabletoGooglefor

copying.SomelibrariesallowedGoogletocopyonlypublicdomainworks.

OtherlibrariesallowedGoogletoscanbooksincopyright.(See,e.g.,A593‐

604.)Aspartoftheconsiderationforthataccess(Googlealsooffered

indemnities),Googleagreedtoprovidetoeachlibrarydigitalcopiesofallthe

booksthatthatlibraryhadprovidedtoGoogle—i.e.,unauthorizeddigital

copiesofmillionsofbooksincopyright.(A1618‐19at¶¶53‐54.)

Librarieshavenorighttoauthorizethecopyingofthephysical

copiesofworksintheircollectionsthatarestillincopyright,unlesstheyalso

ownthecopyrights.Google,similarly,hasnorighttoreproduceand

distributetothelibrariesdigitalcopiesofworksthatitwasnotauthorizedto

copyinthefirstplace.

AfterGooglescansabook,itappliesopticalcharacterrecognition

technology(OCR)toproduceamachine‐readabletext.(A1622at¶62.)The


10

resultisnotthekindofwell‐organizedbookindexincludedincopyright‐

protectednon‐fictionworksidentifyingnames,places,concepts,subjects,etc.

anddirectingthereadertoalocationinthebook.Google’sfull‐textsearch

identifieswordsorphrases,butthereisnoselectivityorabilitytosearchby

topicsorconcepts.

Googlesaysthatitdoesnotdisplayanytextofaworkthat,

becauseofitsbrevity,mightappearcompletelyinthesnippetdisplay‐format.

Thisexcludesworkssuchasencyclopedias,almanacs,dictionaries,thesauri,

triviabooks,booksofquotations,bibliographies,poetrybooks,sheetmusic,

pricingguides,travelguides,jokebooks,recipebooks,catalogs,andindexes.

AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,954F.Supp.2d282,285(S.D.N.Y.2013).But

havingdecidednottoincludetheseworksinthesearchresults,thereisno

evidencethatGoogledeletestheoriginalscansfromitsowndatabase,andno

explanationforwhyitisnecessaryforGoogletoretainunauthorizedcopiesof

thosebooksiftheyarenotusedforreadersandresearchers.

Google“generated91%ofitsrevenuesfrom[its]advertisersin

2013[,]”amountingto$46,025,980,000inadvertisingrevenues(Google10K

at9,27,28.)Googledoesnotcurrentlydisplayadvertisingonthespecific

“AboutaBook”pagesoftheLibraryProject(butitdoesdisplayadvertisingon

searchresultsthatlinktothesepages),butGoogledoesnotrepresentthatit


11

neverwilldisplayadvertisingonthosepages.Googlealsodoesnotprovide

anyinsightabouthowtheAuthors’worksandthecountlessothercopyrighted

materialsintheLibraryProjectwillbeusedinthefuture.

ARGUMENT

GOOGLE’SCOPYINGOFBOOKSTOCREATEAVASTDATABASEOFBOOKSANDITSDISTRIBUTIONOFCOPIESOFTHOSEBOOKS

ARENOTAFAIRUSE

Whenafor‐profitorganizationworthhundredsofbillionsof

dollars,whichdependsonevolvingformsofadvertisingtoreturnaprofitfor

itsinvestors,setsouttocopyeverybookbothinandoutofcopyright,invests

thekindsofmoneynecessarytodoso,andthenrollsoutitsprojectwithout

makingrepresentationsconcerninghowitwillusethesecopiesinthefuture,

amoresearchingexaminationisrequiredthanaroteapplicationofthefour

fair‐usefactorssetoutin17U.S.C.§107.Afairusebydefinitiondoesnot

requireacopyrightowner’spriorapproval.Butwhenthecreationofa

massivedigitallibraryisrequiredforthefairuse,itisincumbentonthisCourt

toconsiderwhetheranyinterpretationoffairusehaseverapproved

unauthorizedcopying(andsubsequentdistribution)onsuchamassivescale

andwhetherapprovingsuchaschemedestroystheappropriatebalance

betweenfairuseandtherightsofacopyrightowner.


12

Twentyyearsago,JudgeNewmannotedhisconcernthat

photocopying“createsapressingneedforthelaw‘tostrikeanappropriate

balancebetweentheauthors’interestinpreservingtheintegrityofcopyright,

andthepublic’srighttoenjoythebenefitsthatphotocopyingtechnology

offers.’”AmericanGeophysicalUnionv.TexacoInc.,37F.3d881,885(2dCir.

1994)(quoting3MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,NimmeronCopyright

§13.05[E][1]at13‐226[“NimmeronCopyright”]andcitingJustice

Blackmun’sdissentinSonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,

Inc.,464U.S.417,467‐68n.16(1984)).EventhenJudgeNewmanwas

skepticalaboutapplyingthemechanicalphotocopyingprocesstothe

traditionalfairuseanalysisdevelopedto“adjustthecompetinginterestof

authors—theauthoroftheoriginalcopyrightedworkandtheauthorofthe

secondaryworkthat‘copies’aportionoftheoriginalworkinthecourseof

producingwhatisclaimedtobeanewwork.”Photocopying,heobserved,“is

notconcernedwithcreativeauthorship.”37F.3dat886.

Noristheprocessofscanningabookandconvertingthescanto

machinereadabletextconcernedwithcreativeauthorship.ButifSony

requiresthisCourttoapplythecommonlaw(nowstatutory)doctrineoffair

usetothefactsofthiscase,amoreaptformulationoftheinquirymightbe

whether“[i]nlightofthepurposesofcopyrightlawandthepublicinterest,is


13

theresufficientjustificationfortheusetooutweighthecopyrightowner’s

interestsinprohibitingtheuseoratleastinbeingcompensatedforthatuse,if

aninjunctionisnotwarranted.”4ThisdoesnotmeantheCourtignoresthe

fourfactors,thepreamblepurposes,transformativeness,andotherimportant

considerations,butitfocusestheinquiryonwhethertheultimategoal

justifiestheinroadsonthecopyrightowner’sinterests.5

Appliedhere,thequestioniswhetherGoogle,afor‐profit

companythatprofitscommerciallyfromtheLibraryProject,hasadvanced

sufficientjustificationfordigitizingandmakingsearchableover20million

booksandprovidingtothecontributinglibrariesdigitalcopiesofthosebooks

thatoutweighsthecopyrightowner’srighttoprohibitthoseusesor,wherean

injunctionwouldbejudgedinappropriate,beingcompensatedfortheuse.

4 RichardDannay,FactorlessFairUse?WasMelvilleNimmerRight?,60J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.127,144,148(2013)(“FactorlessFairUse?”).ThisformulationalsotakesaccountoftheholdingsofeBay,Inc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C.,547U.S.388(2006),andSalingerv.Colting,607F.3d88(2010),and,whenappliedinthefair‐usecontext,couldresultindamages,notaninjunction.RichardDannay,CopyrightInjunctionsandFairUse:EntereBay—Four‐FactorFatigueorFour‐FactorFreedom?,55J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.449,456‐60(2008).5 SeeFactorlessFairUse?,supra,n.4at144,148.


14

A. Google’sVastUnauthorizedCopyingandReproductionofAuthors’CopyrightedWorksDoNotJustifytheHarmtoAuthors.

1. Google’sLibraryProject,FoundedonContractstoMakeMillionsofUnauthorizedCopies,isNotJustified.

Thefirstfair‐usefactoraskstheCourttoexaminethepurposeand

characteroftheuse.ThedistrictcourtwaspersuadedbyGoogle’smessage

thatitisprovidinganapparentlyphilanthropicservicethatpermits

researcherstousetheGoogleLibraryProjecttofindbooksthatjustifiesits

copyingofover20millionbooks,manyofthemincopyright.Buthelping

peoplefindbooksanddataminingarenotGoogle’sreasonfordigitizingmore

than20millionbooks:thatmaybehowthoseresearchersusetheLibrary

Project,butasGooglecandidlyadmits,thatisnotitsprincipalpurpose.

Google’spurposeistosustainitseconomicgrowth,which

dependsuponthecontinuedacquisitionofmore“information,”becauseit

attractsmorepeopletoitssiteincreasingGoogle’svalueandmakingitmore

successfulthanitscompetitors(Google10‐Kat3,4).Aprojectaimedat

copyingallthebooksinasmanylibrariesaspossibleandmakingthosecopies

availabletothepublicforsearch—whethertheauthorsofthesebookslikeit

ornot—isanidealwayofachievingthatgoal.


15

WhileGoogledoesnotcurrentlyofferadvertisingonthespecific

“AboutaBooks”page,itdoesincludeadvertisingonsearchresultsthatlinkto

thispage,andnothingguaranteesthatGooglewillnotchangeitsadvertising

modelinthefutureorthatGooglewillshareadvertisingincomefairlywith

thecopyrightownerswhoseworkshavedriventhatadditionalincometo

Google’sbottomline.Authorsshouldnotbeforcedtobevigilantabout

Google’s“nextmove”andtobringanothercaseifthoseeventsoccur;that

wouldbeagrossdistortionofthestatutoryassumptionthatauserofa

copyrightedworkmustseekpermissioninadvance.

WhatunderminesGoogle’sfairuseclaimisthattheentireproject

isfoundedonagreementsthatcreateunauthorizedcopiesofcopyrighted

works.Inexchangeforaccesstobooksforcopying—whichtheuniversities

werenotauthorizedtogive—Googledistributedtotheuniversitiesdigital

copiesofallthebookscopiedfromtheircollections—whichGooglewasnot

authorizedtodo.Theresultofthistransactionwasthecopyingofover20

millionbookswithoutthepermissionofanycopyrightownerandthe

distributiontothelibrariesofdigitalcopiesthatwerenotcriticaltoGoogle’s

LibraryProject.ThosedigitalcopieswereGoogle’spaymentfortheextensive

accessitwasgiventocopythelibraries’books,akindofrentalfee.That

rentalfeeforthebookswasnotatransformativeuseasthattermhasbeen


16

interpretedunderSection107.Inaddition,thatreproductionanddistribution

deprivedauthorsofpotentialroyaltiesforthecopyingoftheirbooks.6

ItisnotaccurateforGoogletosaythattheLibraryProjectpermits

readersandresearchersto“find”bookstopurchase,becausemanyofthe

worksintheLibraryprojectareveryoldandhavenotbeenavailableforsale

forcenturies.Manyotherbooksarenotforsalebecausetheyareout‐of‐print.

Oldandout‐of‐printbookscanbe“identified,”andsomeofthemmaybe

“found”onaused‐booksite,butasapracticalmatter,theonlyplacetheyare

“found”isinalibrary.Nascentlicensingofout‐of‐printbooksdriedupwhen

Google‘spreemptive,extensive,androyalty‐freecopyingdroveitaway.

6 ThefactsofPerfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508F.3d1146,1168(9thCir.2007),Kellyv.ArribaSoftCorp.,336F.3d811(9thCir.2003),andBillGrahamArchivesv.DorlingKindersleyLtd.,448F.3d605,609‐11(2dCir.2006),onwhichthedistrictcourtrelied,arenotcomparabletothefactsofthiscase.Insteadoftextualworks,allthreecasesinvolvedvisualimages,whichcannotbeidentifiedunlessdisplayedinfull.Todiminishtheharmtothecopyrightownersoftheimages,allrequiredthedisplayofimagesinreducedsize—“thumbnailimages”onlineorreducedsizesonpaper—sufficienttoidentifytheworkbutwithoutretainingfull‐sizeimagesoncethethumbnailswerecreated.Inaddition,Amazon.comandArribaSoftdidnotretaincopiesintheirdatabases.Kelly,336F.3dat815;Perfect10,508F.3dat1156‐57.


17

2. Google’sDistributiontotheLibrariesofDigitalCopiesofAlltheBooksitCopiedIsNotaFairUse.

EvenifGooglewereabletoadvanceajustificationforthemassive

unauthorizedcopyingitclaimsisrequiredforsearching,thatexception

cannotapplytoGoogle’screationofunauthorizeddigitalcopies,whichitthen

distributedtolibrariesasin‐kindpaymentforaccesstothebooks.Google

acknowledgedtheforceofthisargumentwhenitarguedbeforetheDistrict

Courtthatdistributiontoalibraryofdigitalcopiesofthebooksfromthat

librarywasnotadistributionunderSection106.(GoogleOpp.toAG’sMSJ

[Doc.1072]at13‐14.)

GooglecreatedtheGoogleReturnInterface(GRIN)forthe

purposeofdistributingdigitalcopiestolibraries.ThroughGRIN,Google

makesavailablefordownloadingthedigitalcopiesmadefromthebooksthat

itrentedfromalibrary,andthelibrarycanthendownloadthedigitalversion.

Becausethelibrarydownloadsthecopy,Googleclaimsthatithasnot

reproducedordistributedthecopy.Howeverafterthedownload,thelibrary

ownsboththephysicalpaperbookandadigitalcopyofthebook.Itownsone

morecopyofa“book”thanitownedbeforeitsagreementwithGoogle.


18

Google’stheoryisnotsupportedbythecaselaworthelegislativehistory.7

TheCourtshouldrejectthiselevationofformoverreality.

OtherevidencesupportstheconclusionthatGooglewasmore

concernedwithacquiringmore“information”tosustainitsdominantposition

inthesearchbusinessandavoidinganinfringementclaimthanwithcreating

aphilanthropicserviceforreadersandscholars.Googleapparentlybelieved

thatdisplayingworksincopyrightinfulltextaspartofitssearchfunction

wouldbeinfringing,becauseittookstepstodisplaythoseworksonlyin

“snippets,”toreturnonlythreesnippetspersearchfromeachwork,andto

blackoutcertainsnippetsandpagesofabook.

7 Google’sargumentisnodifferentfromthosemadeandrejectedintwocasesinvolvinglibraries:Diverseyv.Schmidly,738F.3d1196,1202(10thCir.2013)(placingunpublisheddissertationonlibraryshelvesavailabletothepublicwasanunauthorizeddistributiontothepublic);Hotalingv.ChurchofJesusChristofLatter‐DaySaints,118F.3d199,203(4thCir.1997)(holdingthatalibrarydistributesapublishedworkwhenitplacesanunauthorizedcopyoftheworkinitscollection,includesthework’stitleinitscatalogorindexsystem,andmakesthecopyavailabletothepublic);2NimmeronCopyright§8.11[B][4][d]at8‐154.10(2013)(“Noconsummatedactofactualdistributionneedbedemonstrated...toimplicatethecopyrightowner'sdistributionright.");seePeterS.Menell,InSearchofCopyright’sLostArk:InterpretingtheRighttoDistributeintheInternetAge,59J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.1,56‐58(2011)(analyzingthelegislativehistoryofthedistributionright,§106(3),andconcludingthatitwasintendedtoinclude“offerstodistribute”previouslyincludedinthe1909CopyrightAct’srightstopublishandvend(emphasisinoriginal)).


19

Googlealsoexcludedwholecategoriesofworks,suchaspoetry,

travelguides,encyclopedias,triviabooks,indexes,etc.Yet,despiteexcluding

themfromalldisplaystousers,Googledoesnotdeletecopiesoftheseworks

fromitsdatabase.Itprovidesnoexplanationwhyitmaintainsunauthorized

copiesofcopyrightedworkswhosedisplayintheLibraryProjectwouldbe

infringing,anditmakesnopromisesaboutwhatitmaydowiththesecopies

inthefuture.TheironyisthatGoogle’sdecisionresultsintheexclusionof

“indexes,”eventhoughmostprofessionallypreparedindexeswouldoften

providemoreutilitytoreadersandresearchersthanthewordsearches

Googleoffers.

Googleofferscopyrightowners(althoughnotprominentlyorvery

clearly)proceduresforexcludingtheirworksfromscanningaspartofthe

Libraryprogram8orfornotdisplayingatallbooksthathavebeenscanned9by

submittingaformthatincludesalistofallworksthatshouldnotbescanned.

Thisturnsonitsheadtheusualprocedurebywhichapartyseekingto

exerciseSection106rightsseekstheconsentofthecopyrightownerin

advance.Instead,theburdenisplaceduponthecopyrightowner,whomay

8 https://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/3365282?hl‐en&ref_topic_3396243.9 https://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/2520009.


20

notevenbeawareoftheconductuntillongafteritoccurs.Evenifacopyright

ownerfollowstheprocedureforexcludingascannedbook,Googledoesnot

agreetoremoveitfromGoogle’sdatabase.AnearlierversionofGoogle’s

supportpagesstatesthat“We'rehappytoremoveyourbookfromoursearch

resultsatanytime,”10leavingtheclearimplicationthattheworkremainsin

Google’sdatabase.

3. TheUtilityofaFull‐TextSearchFunctionDoesNotJustifyCopyingOver20MillionBooks.

Googlecampaignsfortheutilityofitsfull‐textwordsearches,

whichreturnthousandsofwordorphrases,bycomparingthemtothelibrary

catalogueMARCcardspreparedbylibrarians,whichprovidebibliographic

andlimitedindexinginformation.Butthiscomparisonoverlooksthemany

professionalandmoresophisticatedindicesandguidestobooks,newspapers,

literature,andjournals—nonethatinvolveswidespreadcopyright

infringement—onwhichreadersandresearchershavereliedfordecades

beforethearrivalofGoogle’sLibraryProject(andstilldo).11

10 http://books.google.com/intl/en‐US/googlebooks/publisher_library.html#options4(emphasisadded). 11 See,e.g.,ReadersGuidetoPeriodicalLiterature,(H.W.Wilson(availableathttp://www.hwwilsoninprint.com/periodicals.php));GeorgetownLawLibrary’sGuidetoLegalHistoryDatabases(availableathttps://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/).


21

TheexamplesGoogleofferedthedistrictcourttoshowthealleged

superiorityofitsfull‐textsearchmechanismarecontrived.Itobservesthat

theLibraryofCongresscardcataloguehasnoentryforthesearchterm,“500

PearlStreet”andusingtheword‐searchintheLibraryProjectleadsto

informationaboutaparticularChinesefactoryowneronthesiteinthelate

19thcentury.Butasearchinthatsamecataloguefor“NewYorkCity/history”

wouldturnupareferencetoGotham,AHistoryofNewYorkCityto1898by

EdwinG.BurrowsandMikeWallace,whichwonthe1999PulitzerPrizefor

History.Thebookhasanextensiveindex,includingalongentryfor“Pearl

Street,”andreferencestotheexpansionoftheChinesecommunityintothe

PearlStreetarea.

MuchoftheclaimedutilityoftheLibraryProjectconcernsthe

abilitytosearchanddiscoverancientorotherwiselong‐forgottentexts.If

makingsuchbooksavailabletothepublicwasGoogle’struegoal,itcouldhave

workedwithlibrariestoscanonlybooksinthepublicdomain,whichincludes

anythingpublishedbefore1923.Thisapproach—whichGooglerejected—

guides/legalHistory.cfm),includingindexestoseveralforeignanddomesticnewspapers;andtheUniversityofConnecticutLawLibrary’sListofLegalPeriodicalIndexes(U.S.andforeign),includingtheIndextoLegalPeriodicals1908‐1981(availableathttp://library.law.uconn.edu/research‐resources/legal‐periodical‐indexes).


22

wouldhavepermittedGoogletocreateavastdatabaseofworkswhile

respectingtherightsofcopyrightowners.Instead,Googlecopiedallbooksas

awaytomaximizeitsprofitability,andchosetodisplayworksincopyrightin

“snippets,”therebysacrificingutilityinanill‐fatedattempttoavoid

infringementclaims.

4.Google’s“UseisofaCommercialNature.”

AddressingthequestionofwhetherGoogle’suseisofa

commercialnature,thedistrictcourtacknowledgedthat“Googledoes,of

course,benefitcommerciallyinthesensethatusersaredrawntotheGoogle

websitesbytheabilitytosearch[themorethan20million]GoogleBooks.”

954F.Supp.2dat292‐93.ThisisexactlywhatGoogledescribesasthe

principalsourceofitsincome.Despitethatadmission,thedistrictcourt

adoptedverbatimGoogle’sargumentthatit“doesnotengageinthedirect

commercializationofcopyrightedworks,”apparentlybecauseGoogledoesnot

includeadvertisingonthespecific“AboutaBook”pagesofitswebsite.In

otherwords,becauseGooglehasfoundawaytomarketthisparticularsearch

functionasaphilanthropicbenefitforthepublic,itclaimsthatitisnot

commercializingcopyrightedworks.ThisCourtshouldnotbedistractedby

Google’smarketingmessage.


23

OfcourseGooglebenefitscommerciallyfromtheadditionof

copiesofover20millionbookstoitssearchdatabase.Asitexplainedtothe

SEC(Google10‐Kat3‐4),theadditionofadditional“information”toitssearch

databaseiswhatattractsmoreandmorepeopletoGoogle—andits

advertising.AndevenifGoogledoesnotcurrentlyincludeadvertisingonits

“AboutaBook”pages,thesearchresultsthatlinktotheseresultsarefullof

paidadvertising,

Furthersupportingitsconclusionaboutthecommercialnatureof

Google’suse,thedistrictcourtreliedonthisCourt’sobservationthat“fairuse

hasbeenfoundevenwhereadefendantbenefittedcommerciallyfromthe

unlicenseduseofcopyrightedworks,”(954F.Supp.2dat291),relyingon

Blanchv.Koons,467F.3d244,248,258(2dCir.2006)(defendantusedonly

theimageofawoman’slegfromplaintiff’sphotograph,whichshehadnever

licensed,inanewworkofart);BillGrahamArchives,448F.3dat607,609(ina

480‐pagepictorialbiographyoftheGratefulDeadband,publisherincluded

forhistoricalcontextreducedimagesofsevenpostersadvertisingtheband’s

concerts);andCastleRockEntm’t,Inc.v.CarolPubl’gGrp.,Inc.,150F.3d132,

142,145(2dCir.1998)(findingdefendant’suseoffictionalfactsfromthe

SeinfeldTVshowinatrivia‐bookrepackedplaintiff’sworkforthesame

audienceandpreemptedplaintiff’screationofasimilartriviabook).The


24

commercialcharacterofthedefendants’usesinnoneofthesecasescompares

withGoogle’suseofmultiplecopiesofover20millionbooks,without

authorizationorpayment,toprovideadditional“information”foritsmulti‐

billiondollarsearchenginebusiness.Thedistrictcourt’ssuggestionthat

Google’scommercialinterestisnot“direct”isinsupportable;butevenif

“indirect,”thecommercialbenefittoGoogleissooverwhelmingthatitshould

resultinafindingofcommercialuse.

EveniftheCourtconcludesthatGoogle’sLibraryProjectoffersa

usefulonlinesearchmechanism,Google’senormousincomefromtheaddition

oftensofmillionsofbookstoitssearchdatabaseanditsunauthorized

distributiontothecontributinglibrariesofdigitalcopiesofthebooksas

paymentforthebooks’rentaldonotjustifytheuncompensateduseofso

manycopyrightedbooks.Thefirstfair‐usefactordoesnotfavorGoogle.

B. TheDistrictCourtGaveShortShrifttotheNatureoftheCopyrightedWorks.

ThedistrictcourtacknowledgedthatGooglehascopiedallkinds

ofbooks—fiction,non‐fiction,children’sbooks,cookbooks,etc.Then,because

thecourtconcludedthatthe“vastmajorityofthebooksinGoogleBooks[not

theLibraryProject]arenon‐fiction”(954F.Supp.2dat24),itconcludedthat


25

thesecondfactorfavoredfairuse.Thisanalysisofthevalueofnon‐fiction

worksisdisturbing.

Thatnon‐fictionbooksincludefactsandideasdoesnotmeanthat

anon‐fictionworkdoesnotalsoincludeextensivecreative,moving,

persuasive,andenlighteningexpressionthatiseverybitascopyrightableasis

afictionalwork.Thedistrictcourt’sdismissaloffactworkswouldhavebeen

legitimatehadanalmanacbeenatissue,butitisnotjustifiedwhentheworks

Googlecopiedincludedawidevarietyofexpressivenon‐fictionworks.

Thedistrictcourtalsotooknoaccountatallofthepresenceof

fictionalworksinGoogle’sLibraryProject.Evenacceptingthedistrictcourt’s

findingaboutthehighpercentage(93%)ofnon‐fictionworksintheLibrary

Project,thisstillmeansthattheother7%ofworksGooglecopiedamountto

nearly1.5millionfictionalworks,yetthedistrictcourtmadenomentionof

theminitsanalysisoffactortwo.Beforethisfactorcanbeweighedwiththe

others,itrequiresamoresearchingexamination.

C. GoogleCopiesandMaintainsBooksinitsBookDatabaseThatItDoesNotUseintheLibraryProject.

Thedistrictcourtconcludedthatthethirdfair‐usefactor—the

amountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothecopyrighted

workasawhole—weighedslightlyinfavoroffairusebasedonthefactthat


26

full‐textsearchingdependsoncopyingthefulltextandthatGooglelimitsthe

amountoftextitdisplaysinresponsetoasearch.Thispresumablyreferred

toGoogle’sdisplayofsnippetsforworksthatareincopyright.

Thedistrictcourtdidnotexplainwhythedisplayofsnippetsof

textjustifiedcopyinganentireworkandmaintainingitinGoogle’sdatabase.

ThedistrictcourtalsocompletelyignoredexamplesofGoogle’spolicyof

copyingandmaintaininginitsdatabasecopiesofworksthatitdoesnotuseat

all—thecertaincategoriesofworksGoogleexcludesfromdisplaybecause

theyareshortandcouldberevealedcompletelyinasnippet.Eventhough

theseworksarenotrevealedtoanyresearcherorreader,Googlestillcopies

andmaintainscopiesoftheminitsdatabase.Similarly,ifanauthor

successfullymanagestocompletethepapersnecessarytoexcludeascanned

workfromtheLibraryProject,Googledoesnotexcludetheworkfromits

database;itsimplyexcludesitfromthesearchresults.(Seelinksatnn.8‐10,

supra.)NordidGoogleexcludeanyworksfromthecopiesitmadeand

distributedtothelibrariesaspaymentfortheoriginalloanofthebooks.

Thethirdfair‐usefactorissupposedtoexaminewhetherasecond

userhasusedmoreofthefirstworkthanwasnecessarytoachieveitsalleged

fairuse.Googledoesnotexplain,andthedistrictcourtignored,whyGoogle’s


27

copyingfarexceedsitsneedsforitsallegedfairuse,aswellasGoogle’s

unnecessarydistributionofmillionsofbookstoitslibrarypartners.

D. Google’sConductHarmsAuthors.

Thedistrictcourt’sanalysisofthefourthfactorfocusedonthe

possibilitythattheLibraryProjectwillhelpreaderslocateabook,which

couldthenleadtoapurchaseofthebookandaneconomicbenefittothe

author.Butthisassumptionignoresthemanywaysthatbookscanbelocated

withoutresortingtowidespreadcopyrightinfringement.(Seepp.20‐21&

n.11,supra.)Thisassumptionalsoignoresthefactthatmostofthecopyright‐

protectedbooksintheLibraryProjectareoutofprintandnotavailablefor

sale.Byincluding,withoutcompensation,millionsofbooksinitsdatabase

thatarenotreadilyavailableforpurchase,Googleincreasedtheperformance

ofitssearchresults,butitdidnotbenefitauthors.Italsointerferedwiththe

developinglicensingmarketforout‐of‐printbooksbecauseGoogleforced

thoselicenseesoutofthemarketwhenitbegancopyingwithoutpaying

licensingfees.(A1299‐1301.)

Duetothedominantpositionithasachievedinthemarketplace,

Googlehasleftlittleroomforauthorsandpublisherstodeveloppartnerships

andlicensingopportunitiesoftheirown.TheclearestexampleofGoogle’s

actionsleadingtoaneconomiclossforauthorsisGoogle’sdecisiontoprovide


28

librarieswithcompletedigitalcopiesofthebooksGooglescans.Thedistrict

courtwronglyimpliesthatlibrariesareentitledtomakecopiesofbooksthey

own(954F.Supp.2dat293),andthusignoredtheselostsales.Because

Googleprovidesthesecopiestolibraries(aspaymentfromGoogleforthe

righttocopythebooksinthefirstplace),librarieshavenoincentiveto

purchaseorlicensedigitalcopiesofthebooksfromthecopyrightowners,

suchasthroughprint‐on‐demandprogramsorotherprogramsthatallow

authorstosellorlicenseout‐of‐printbooks.

Incontrasttothemodelofallowingafor‐profitcompanyto

digitizemillionsofbooksforitsowngain,manylibrariesandnon‐profits

outsidetheUnitedStateshaveworkedwithauthorsandpublisherstomake

digitalcopiesofbooksavailableonline.Theseefforts—suchastheGallica

projectwhichhasmadeover1,600,000documentsand320,000booksin

FrenchavailableonlinethroughtheNationalLibraryofFrance—havebeen

accomplishedwhilerespectingnationalcopyrightlaws.Seewww.bnf.fr/en/

collections_and_services/digital_libraries_gallica/a.gallica_experimentation_di

gital_offer.html.

Thedistrictcourtalsoignoredthethreattoauthorsposedbythe

potentiallossofthedigitalcopiesofbooksGoogledistributedtolibraries.

954F.Supp.2dat287.WhileGooglemaybeconfidentofitsownabilityto


29

securecopiesofbooksonitsservers,noevidencesupportsthatconclusionfor

Google’slibrarypartners.AsecuritybreachofGoogleoritslibrarypartners

couldresultinthedistributionofelectroniccopiesofmillionsofcopyrighted

books,therebydestroyingthemarketforelectroniccopiesoftheseworks.

Authorsshouldhaveatleasttherighttoparticipateintheoversightof

procedurestoprovidesecurityandpreventtheftandpiracyoftheirworks.

Thedistrictcourtdidnotconsiderotheradverseconsequencesof

Google’sLibraryProject.WhenGooglecopiesanddisplaysnumerousprior

editionsofbooksthatarefrequentlyupdated,suchastextbooks,Googlecan

misleaditsusers—andharmthereputationofauthors—bypresenting

informationthatisstaleornolongeraccurate.Inaddition,usingsomany

authors’worksasthesubjectoffree,onlinesearchingmayhavetheeffectof

fosteringthebelief(ifithasnotdonesoalready)thattheseworksareor

shouldbeavailableforfree.Whilethismaybeanunintendedconsequenceof

thegeneralavailabilityofmaterialontheinternet,Google’sveryprominent

BooksProgram,whichitpromotesasapublicgood(despiteGoogle’sfinancial

rewards)givesrisetoanassumptionofanentitlementtofreeaccessto

copyrightedworks.

Thedistrictcourtconsiderednoneoftheseissues,undermining

itsconclusionthatthefourthfair‐usefactorfavorsGoogle.


30

E. GoogleCannotJustifyitsUseofWorksintheLibraryProject.

Todecidethiscase,theCourtmustconsiderallthemanyfactors

thatweighoneithersideoftheequationtodeterminewhetherGooglehas

borneitsburdenofshowingthatitsuseofcopyrightedworksaspartofthe

LibraryProjectisjustified.12Google(andthedistrictcourt)oftenconfusethe

worksthatareatstakebyreferringto“GoogleBooks,”whichincludesworks

inthePartnersProgram.

OnonesideofthatbalanceisGoogle’sclaimthatitsLibrary

Projecthelpsusersidentifyandlocatebooks.ThisCourtmustconsider

whetherthepublicbenefitsuchaprojectmayhaveisjustifiedbytheharmto

copyrightownersifGoogle’sLibraryProjectissanctionedasafairuse.

Ontheothersideoftheequationisthefollowing:(1)Google,one

ofthelargesttechnologycompaniesintheworld,hasmadeunauthorized

copiesofmillionsofbooksforitsowncommercialbenefit.(2)Without

authoritytodoso,Googlehasdistributedunauthorizeddigitalcopiestoeach

12 ThisbalancingdoesnotinvolveanyoftheworksinthePartnersProgram,whicharegovernedbycontract.AtissueherearecopyrightedworksthatGoogledisplaysinsnippets,worksGooglehasdecidedtoexcludebecauseitdeemstheworkstooshorttobedisplayedevenassnippets,andworksexcludedbyauthorswhohavedirectedGoogletoremovetheirworksfromtheLibraryProject.Butthesemillionsof“excluded”worksremaininGoogle’sbookdatabase.


31

libraryofallthebooksitreceivedfromthoselibraries,disavowingbycontract

anyresponsibilityforthelibraries’usesofthoseunauthorizedcopies(A601at

¶10.1).(3)ThemerepresenceofGoogle’sroyalty‐freeprogramhas

destroyedpotentiallicensingopportunitiesforauthors.(4)Thecreationof

millionsofdigitizedcopiesforitselfandthelibrarieshascreatedsecurity

risksconcerningthecontrolofthosedigitalcopies.(5)Google’sdisplayoftext

disembodiedfromitsoriginalcontextdevaluestheoriginalworksandfuels

thenotionthatcreativeworksarecommoditiesavailableforotheruses.And

(6),despitebeingacompanythathascreatedenormouswealthbydeveloping

newwaystodeliveradvertisingtousers,Googlehasmadenorepresentations

abouthowitwillseektoprofitfurtherfromthevastdatabaseofcopyrighted

worksithascreated.

Giventhisunequalbalanceofcompetingfactors,Googlecannot

justifyitsmammothLibraryProject.

ThisCourtshouldnotfallvictimtoGoogle’sattempttoavoidthe

limitsofthelawbypresentingthebroader“BooksProgram”asafaitaccompli

thatistoobigtofail.Noexampleoffairuseallowsthedegreeofcopying

undertakenbyGoogle.TheLibraryProjectisnotthetypeofcreative

authorshipthefairusedoctrinewasdesignedtoprotect,andthedistrict


32

court’sefforttostretchthefairusedoctrinebeyonditslimitsshouldnotbe

sustained.

CONCLUSION

Fortheforegoingreasons,thedistrictcourt’sordergranting

summaryjudgmentinfavorofGoogleshouldbereversed.

NewYork,NewYorkApril14,2014

Respectfullysubmitted,

______s/GloriaC.Phares____________ GloriaC.Phares ChristopherM.StrongHOFFMANNMARSHALLSTRONGLLP116West23rdStreet,Suite500NewYork,NY10011(646)741‐4503AttorneysforAmiciCuriaeAuthors


33

CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE

Thisbriefcomplieswiththetype‐volumelimitationofFed.R.App.

P.32(a)(7)(B)because,excludingthepartsofthebriefexemptedbyFed.R.

App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii),itcontains6959wordsasmeasuredbytheword‐

processingsystemusedtopreparethebrief(MicrosoftWord);and

ThisbriefcomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsofFed.R.App.

P.32(a)(5)andthetypestylerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(6)because

ithasbeenpreparedinaproportionallyspacedtypeface,14‐pointCambria.

_______/s/GloriaC.Phares___________GloriaC.PharesAttorneysforAmiciCuriaeAuthorsDated:April14,2014
