Reaction: the Google Books ruling
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Reaction: the Google Books ruling

Google Books 100

Following the Second Circuit ruling that Google’s book scanning project is fair use, observers are divided on the merits of a Supreme Court appeal from The Authors Guild



Google Books

In a unanimous decision, the Second Circuit on October 16 ruled that Google Books’ scanning and indexing of books is a transformative use that renders a public benefit, leading to a finding of fair use.

This is the latest development in a decade-long saga that, as the Second Circuit noted in its opinion, tests the boundaries of fair use. The Court found that all four statutory factors favored finding fair use, in large part because of the highly transformative nature of Google Books and the low risk that it would act as a market substitute for the original works. The Court also rejected the rest of the plaintiffs’ arguments, including that Google infringed their exclusive right to apply search and snippet views to their own works and that Google contributed to infringement by libraries participating in the program.

The Authors Guild in a statement slammed the decision as a “reductive understanding of fair use” and said it will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Michael Keyes, an intellectual property partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney, said the immediate effect of the ruling is that Google will be able to continue its large-scale book scanning project in its present form without fear of copyright liability.

But he added: “I think the long-term effects could be significant. It could open the door for other similar types of digitization projects involving copyrighted works so that those works could be catalogued and searched.”

Joshua Schiller, partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, doubts an appeal to the Supreme Court would be successful. “It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will take a petition, if one is filed, since this case keeps consistent the law of fair use among the circuits.”

Others, however, believe there are issues to be debated at the Supreme Court regarding this case. David Leichtman, a partner at Robins Kaplan, commented: “[The] decision is also at odds with both the 7th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, and thus now sets up a showdown in the Supreme Court over what it meant in 1994 when it used the word ‘transformative’ in the fair use context.”



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
The German firms have accounted for 26% of all infringement actions, while US corporations appear interested in litigating at the forum, a report has revealed
Vincent Brault tells us how he fits kitesurfing into his lunchtime routine and why IP is no longer seen as ‘nerdy’
Gift this article