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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 2 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 3 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 4 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 5 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 6 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 7 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 8 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 9 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 10 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 11 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 12 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 13 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 14 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 15 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 16 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 17 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 18 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 19 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 20 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 21 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 22 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 23 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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)).
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 24 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 25 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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/).
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 26 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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).
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 27 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 28 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 29 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 30 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 31 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 32 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 33 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 34 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 35 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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.
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 36 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 37 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 38 04/14/2014 1201502 39
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
Case: 13-4829 Document: 73 Page: 39 04/14/2014 1201502 39