Appeals Court Hints VERY Strongly That Google Books Is Fair Use, Even Though It Wasn't Asked About That
from the look-at-that dept
Back in May, we noted that the appeal in the Authors Guild case against Google over Google Books had taken something of an odd turn. The specific question on appeal had been entirely focused on whether or not it was appropriate to have this be a class action lawsuit for all authors. Google had, quite reasonably, argued that fair use can be pretty fact specific, and a very different analysis may apply for different kinds of books, and thus it would be a bad idea to lump all authors together in a class action lawsuit. However, the district court had ruled in favor of a class action, and supposedly it was that question that was being discussed on appeal. Instead, we noted that during the oral arguments, the three judge panel seemed to have no interest in that actual question, and instead talked about how Google's book scanning project seemed likely to be covered by fair use.So, I guess it should come as little surprise that today's ruling on the matter barely even mentions the class action issue, other than to say that Google's argument "may carry some force." Instead it sends the case back to the district court, saying that it should do the fair use analysis first, suggesting that this might make the whole question of whether or not a class should be certified entirely moot. In other words, the Second Circuit is basically screaming to the district court: "what Google is doing is fair use, full stop, so we're wasting time arguing about whether or not this is a class action: just end the thing by saying it's fair use." The ruling is short and sweet and is a huge victory for Google. Here's the key part:
Putting aside the merits of Google’s claim that plaintiffs are not representative of the certified class—an argument which, in our view, may carry some force—we believe that the resolution of Google’s fair use defense in the first instance will necessarily inform and perhaps moot our analysis of many class certification issues, including those regarding the commonality of plaintiffs’ injuries, the typicality of their claims, and the predominance of common questions of law or fact, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), (3), (b)(3). See, e.g., FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc., 276 F.R.D. 543, 551 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (denying plaintiffs’ request for class certification “because of the fact-specific inquiries the court would have to evaluate to address [defendants’] affirmative defenses [including fair use of trademarks]”); Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., 254 F.R.D. 521, 531 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (“The existence of affirmative defenses [such as fair use of trademarks] which require individual resolution can be considered as part of the court’s analysis to determine whether individual issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3).”); see also Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 n.12 (1978) (“Evaluation of many of the questions entering into determination of class action questions is intimately involved with the merits of the claims. The typicality of the representative’s claims or defenses . . . and the presence of common questions of law or fact are obvious examples.” (quotation marks omitted)); Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 744 (5th Cir. 1996) (“[A] court must understand the claims, defenses, relevant facts, and applicable substantive law in order to make a meaningful determination of the certification issues.”); cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2561 (2011) (holding that “a class cannot be certified on the premise that [a defendant] will not be entitled to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims”). Moreover, we are persuaded that holding the issue of class certification in abeyance until Google’s fair use defense has been resolved will not prejudice the interests of either party during the projected proceedings before the District Court following remand. Accordingly, we vacate the District Court’s order of June 11, 2012 certifying plaintiffs’ proposed class, and we remand the cause to the District Court, for consideration of the fair use issues.I'm actually somewhat surprised at this. While I've argued from the very beginning that Google's book scanning project was clearly fair use (and was annoyed when it looked like Google was dropping that argument in its original settlement effort), it does seem a bit strange for the judges to jump straight to the fair use analysis across the board. I would guess that the Author's Guild, somewhat ironically, might now want to hit back with Google's own argument in trying to block the class, by saying that different authors have different arguments, and seeking a fair use judgment across the board wouldn't make any sense. Still, in terms of getting this many-years process finally over and done with, it seems like skipping ahead to the fair use analysis is probably the best way to finally settle the matter.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: class action, copyright, fair use, google books, scanning
Companies: authors guild, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
Besides that, of course I don't want mega-corporation Google "monetizing" what it hasn't put any money or effort into creating. -- Hasn't even bought ONE of the books as libraries must! -- Google is a corporation, not a person. The effects of finding this "fair use" are society wide, and Google is in monopoly position to gain money from it. -- And Google keeps all its money off-shore, out of taxation, as much as possible NOT participating in the society that allows it. Google is a BAD corporate citizen, doesn't deserve to dip into the public realm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
There's no reason why it can't. In the Betamax case, fair use included copying all of a work. And in the Diamond Rio case, fair use included copying all of a work as well. Amount and substantiality is merely one factor in a fair use analysis and not determinative all by itself.
Besides that, of course I don't want mega-corporation Google "monetizing" what it hasn't put any money or effort into creating. -- Hasn't even bought ONE of the books as libraries must!
So? Monetizing fair uses is also perfectly legal (see the Pretty Woman case) and in any case, they're using the copies that the libraries paid for or were given, so it's not as though anyone is pirating here.
As for Google's corporate nature, tax avoision, etc. that's not relevant to copyright law. By all means, let us crack down on Google's bad behavior, but you, you baby, want to throw the baby out with the bath water. What's the cause of your irrational beef with Google anyway? Did they kill your parents or something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No, I still hold that "fair use" doesn't include ALL of books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use isn't based solely on the quantity of the work used. An entire work can be used and *still* could be ruled fair use.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110318/23595613558/big-big-loss-righthaven-reposting-full -article-found-to-be-fair-use.shtml
The rest of your comment is your usual anti-Google crap. It's getting kinda boring really. Maybe you need find a new and improved nefarious villain to blame the world's problems on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Supposed to be a response to out_of_the_blue, Jul 1st, 2013 @ 12:01pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It takes a good lawyer to argue such fundamentally opposed positions simultaneously. Good job! Gotta love lawyers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it does make sense to hold off on certifying the class until the defendant knows whether they can use a general defense or will have to use specific ones (because if they have to use specific ones, the class should not be certified.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not really true. The use of a work is what is important when considering fair use. It matters little which work was the raw material for that use.
Let's say Google's use of a book is fair use. If that use is the same no matter what the book - and in this case, it is - then it is most likely fair use for all books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infringement on the other hand can occur in many forms after fair use was ruled out.
What is so difficult to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use, and its limits
But, you see, Google NEEDED to be sued, and to get a clear ruling, so that it could placate investors and banks, and reassure everyone that it was on the right side of the line.
So Google added layers until someone sued. First, they gave all the scans back to the libraries, so that they could lend them simultaneously to as many patrons as they liked. (Which has Google distributing a copy, and which is CREATING lots and lots of unpaid for copies.)
Then, when that didn't make deep pockets take them to court, they started selling copies of these books WITHOUT PERMISSION. This money would, allegedly, go to the rightsholders, if they figured out how to register for it, and that their books were included. THAT is a clear and obvious violation, and was, I believe, intended to force publishers and authors to go to court. It worked.
I think we'll see that Google's REAL interest (scan for search) will be declared fair use, and many of the other things it's doing will be declared not fair use, and then Google will promise to stop, and the suit will vanish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]