Google Gets Total Victory Over Authors Guild: Book Scanning Is Fair Use

from the about-freaking-time dept

This one has been a long time coming, but this morning, Judge Denny Chin (who actually has a long history of siding with copyright holders) found that Google's book scanning project is fair use. This is a huge victory in a variety of ways. Five years ago, we thought that Google made a huge mistake in dropping its fair use fight here, in trying to work out a "settlement," which would have harmed fair use by suggesting these kinds of things needed to be licensed, while also setting up a near de facto monopoly on digitizing books. Thankfully, that settlement got rejected, and the fair use argument went back into the courts. Actually, Judge Chin first focused on whether or not this should be allowed as a class action, but in a somewhat surprising move, the appeals court basically ignored that issue entirely and told Judge Chin to answer the fair use question first.

He's now done so and it's a fantastic victory for fair use. The ruling relies on last year's ruling in the similar HathiTrust lawsuit, in which the Authors Guild sued a bunch of universities for banding together to scan books in their libraries. There, the court pointed out that this was clear fair use, and Chin finds the same here with Google. He runs through the well-known "four factors" test, noting that Google's work "is highly transformative," comparing it to other cases, that have said Google's image search efforts are similarly fair use. But he goes further, noting how valuable the end result of scanning these books and making them searchable really is.
Similarly, Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas, thereby opening up new fields of research. Words in books are being used in a way they have not been used before. Google Books has created something new in the use of book text -- the frequency of words and trends in their usage provide substantive information.

Google Books does not supersede or supplant books because it is not a tool to be used to read books. Instead, it "adds value to the original" and allows for "the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings."
Chin also rejects the idea that it can't be fair use just because Google is a commercial enterprise, noting that there are lots of commercial enterprises that rely on fair use, and also pointing out that it's not engaging in "direct commercialization of the copyrighted works," but those works lead to indirect commercial benefit. That's not enough to remove fair use, especially when "the fact is that Google Books serves several important educational purposes."

Chin also points out that these book scans do not act as a market replacement for the books, and actually says that the very argument that it does doesn't make sense.
Google does not sell its scans, and the scans do not replace the books. While partner libraries have the ability to download a scan of a book from their collections, they owned the books already -- they provided the original book to Google to scan. Nor is it likely that someone would take the time and energy to input countless searches to try and get enough snippets to comprise an entire book. Not only is that not possible as certain pages and snippets are blacklisted, the individual would have to have a copy of the book in his possession already to be able to piece the different snippets together in coherent fashion.
In fact, he points out:
To the contrary, a reasonable factfinder could only find that Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders.
It all comes together in making a very strong argument that Google's book scanning promotes the progress of the arts and sciences just like copyright is supposed to do.
In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.
This is a huge win for the public, for science, for research and for most authors who will undoubtedly benefit from expanded search and discovery of their works. The Authors Guild, led by luddite Scott Turow, not only look completely out of touch, but they've wasted nearly a decade and a tremendous amount of their members' money on a completely wasted effort to impede the progress of science and knowledge. Isn't it time the Authors Guild had a boss who was forward-looking, rather than trying to pretend he can bring back the world that existed in the 1980s? Even worse, Turow famously is a practicing attorney, as well as a best-selling author. So it's not even like he can claim he was suckered into this by bad lawyers. He should have known better.
Hide this

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: book scanning, copyright, denny chin, fair use, scott turow
Companies: authors guild, google


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:09am

    Glad to hear the legacy author didn't succeed in limiting innovation, through litigation.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Allanstrings, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:11am

    Flawless Victory!

    Hard to imagine a more complete and total win for the Fair Use Doctrine than this ruling.

    Someone should link Turow a Google Books search for 'got told' or 'burn treatment'...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Allanstrings, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:14am

      Re: Flawless Victory!

      rofl... same time i posted this pops up in Insider chat:
      Christopher Best: *Flawless Victory*

      Great minds and all that...

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:12am

    I LOVE GOOGLE!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      out_of_the_blue, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:14am

      Re: return of fake out_of_the_blues -- These kids just LIE.

      The most influential, the most commented-at, the most mocked! And the only commenter honored in SONG!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Blue

      07:13:50[i-170-5]

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        The Who, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re: return of fake out_of_the_blues -- These kids just LIE.

        You're associating music with yourself now?

        Well, I'd have to say I'm much more famous than you are! It's an honor for a band to name itself after my illustrious self after all.

        Indeed, you're very commented at... influental though? Well maybe if you're using the same metrics as Prenda or Jack Thompson. This would explain much, if so many disabilities, disorders and plain stupidity didn't already encompass your behavior.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gwiz (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re: return of fake out_of_the_blues -- These kids just LIE.

        ex nihilo nihil fit

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:12am

    Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

    You will rue the day.

    So long as "The Market" (if not NSA directly) rewards Google for spying, do you expect it to do LESS of it?

    07:12:33[i-145-6]

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      S. T. Stone, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:22am

      Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

      Hey, Blue, what’s the matter? Do you feel more pissed about Fair Use becoming stronger for everyone or the original intent of copyright ending up mentioned in a court of law?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      cpt kangarooski, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:27am

      Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

      Just the opposite, actually. If it's fair use when Google does it, it's fair use when anyone else does it too. It would take a bit of time and money to put together a competing project that did the same thing, but you're free to do so. Google has no copyright, ha-ha, on scanning and searching books.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

      This ruling weakens Google's ability to be a monopoly in this area by making it possible for entities without a huge bankroll for license fees and/or lawyers to participate in this space.

      I would think that you'd be the first one cheering this, Blue.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jameshogg (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 1:11pm

      Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

      If you want to stop Google from being such a monster, and I would hope that you do, call for the abolition of copyright. They will have a real chance of losing both their monopolistic copyright strangleholds and monopolistic piracy strangleholds.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 3:06pm

      Re: Yes, but only proves that Google is a growing monster.

      YOU will rue this day.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:13am

    Scott Turow, demonstrates the problem with labelling copyright as intellectual property, it makes people think that they should be able to control all uses of their property.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Kenneth Michaels, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:40am

      Intellectual Property or Intellectual Monopoly

      Agreed. In fact, nothing should be labeled "intellectual property" or even "intellectual monopoly." There is no such thing. We have copyright, patent rights, trade secrets, and trademarks. The term "intellectual property" was only ever intended as a convenient way to refer to those rights, but the term has been abused by propagandists to mislead people into thinking these rights are more than they are.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        RonKaminsky (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 3:26pm

        I prefer: Creator's Usufruct

        I personally prefer the term "creator's usufruct", in that it emphasizes that what is being milked for income belongs to society, not the creator herself. (Besides which, "usufruct" has such a "woody" sound to it...)

        Of course, this inversion of rhetoric will probably never see wide use, since: (1) most content creators are too self-centered to adopt it, (2) most content gatekeepers are too savvy to allow language usage to undermine their current rhetorical advantage, and (3) usufruct isn't actually a universal legal concept, but rather a civil law concept.

        (Please don't take this post to mean that I support the current form or terms of these usufructs; this is about terminology, only...)

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:29am

    ' Isn't it time the Authors Guild had a boss who was forward-looking, rather than trying to pretend he can bring back the world that existed in the 1980s'

    does this echo Hollywood and the entertainment industries, or what? this is exactly what those industries are doing! it's about time there were big changes made to them and i sure dont mean anything like those proposed under TPP. that is something that needs throwing out with the rest of the garbage, as do those that proposed it!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Heidi, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:33am

    Fanworks

    The possible impact on other kinds of transformative works including fanworks will be massive. With the bulk of the court’s analysis focused on the first part of the Fair Use test - the “purpose and character of the use” - because fanfic and fanworks inherently present a new aesthetic, insight or understanding to the source work.
    I flashed back to a 2006 piece about YouTube today and was reminded that 15 years ago, Congress wanted the Internet - that series of tubes - to be treated like a bookstore. Every day, I am relieved and gladdened that they did not get their way.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    RonKaminsky (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:33am

    Well, bully for Judge Chin, _this_ time

    Well, well... I had been a bit apprehensive after the opinion he filed in the Aereo case, but can now breathe easier...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    velox (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:36am

    What about old books?

    Does this mean that Google can restore scans of old books that are clearly in the public domain, and which were formerly (but no longer) available on Google Books, or is that a completely separate issue pertaining to contracts Google made with universities when the scanning was done? Can anyone explain what's going on with books that are hundreds of years old?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:45am

    8 years?

    I think the sad part here is that a lawsuit was brought in September 2005, and fair use was finally determined in November 2013.

    Eight years for a case where the facts are pretty much undisputed? Seriously? And now the Author's Guild are probably going to appeal this decision, and if they win the appeal, then the circuit court will have to rule on the class certification which they put off ruling on (unless they win the appeal in some way which demands the lower judge re-rule on fair use while considering one particular factor differently, and of course however he rules it will be appealed again) and then send it back to the lower court, and THEN do all the legal stuff you need to do for class action suits, and since neither Google nor the Author's Guild has a shortage of lawyers, it would probably get to trial around the year 2250. OK, maybe not THAT long, but long enough that a significant percentage of the authors involved would be dead.

    What's the point of being able to sue if it's going to be 8 years before even getting to the summary judgement phase? And likewise, what's the point of a fair use defense if you need to hire over 8 years' worth of lawyers to get that far?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 12:12pm

      Re: 8 years?

      What's the point of being able to sue if it's going to be 8 years before even getting to the summary judgement phase? And likewise, what's the point of a fair use defense if you need to hire over 8 years' worth of lawyers to get that far?

      Look at from the perspective of the public.

      We benefit quite a bit by not having gunslingers for Google and the Author's Guild shooting at each other (with real bullets!) as their feud plays out in the public streets, barrooms and back alleys.

      When both sides have the resources to keep a conflict running for 8+ years, start thinking about what else they could afford to buy for their fight:  Machine guns, hand-grenades?

      Much better for the public to have high-priced lawyers duelling it out where the bailiffs can keep the fisticuffs under control.

      That's a practical benefit.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 5:14pm

        Re: Re: 8 years?

        Your position being that if legal fights didn't take so long everyone would shoot one another? What kind of logic is that?

        link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2013 @ 3:41am

          Re: Re: Re: 8 years?

          What kind of logic is that?

          “The life of the law is not logic, but experience.”

          Sometimes I think that the sole real, practical purpose of the legal system is to redirect the energies of the combatants away from the street —and away from innocent bystanders— and otherwise to grind both sides down, depleting them, until their resources are exhausted, and one side or the other ceases fire, and falls in surrender.

          link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 2:05pm

      Re: 8 years?

      ...it would probably get to trial around the year 2250. OK, maybe not THAT long, but long enough that a significant percentage of the authors involved would be dead.


      Scott Turow is currently 64 years old. Average life expectancy in the US is 78 years, so assume Turow will die around 2027. That means that the copyrights on his work will expire around 2097 (unless they extend the terms again). There are plenty of authors who are younger than Turow, so this case could still easily be relevant in 2120.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:50am

    Callooh! Callay! Oh Frabjous Day!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 11:55am

    (Google beheads AG)

    FLAWLESS VICTORY!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 12:01pm

    Good

    Hopefully now, we can apply this to schools and Universities.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 12:09pm

    Let's hope this is the last I ever hear of Scott Turrow and his Author's Guild.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jameshogg (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 12:48pm

    Why does it take so much to achieve the tiniest bit of common sense?

    Because people don't think "copyright" and "slippery slope" can be mentioned in the same sentence.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gorehound (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 1:01pm

    Good Riddance Author's Guild !

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Eadwacer, 14 Nov 2013 @ 1:11pm

    Seems Fair

    I mean, all that Google's doing is providing metadata.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), 14 Nov 2013 @ 1:45pm

    Scott Turow

    Hey, look everyone! Scott Turow's books are on Google Books!

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2013 @ 5:11pm

    out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.