Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
755 F.3d 87 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mass digitization of copyrighted works to create a full-text search database is a transformative fair use, and providing digital access to those works for print-disabled patrons is also a fair use. These uses do not infringe on the copyright holder's rights because they serve different purposes than the original works and do not act as market substitutes.
Facts:
- Beginning in 2004, several research universities agreed to allow Google to electronically scan the books in their library collections.
- In 2008, thirteen universities founded HathiTrust to create a shared digital repository of these scanned books, known as the HathiTrust Digital Library (HDL).
- The HDL permits the public to perform full-text searches for terms across all works, but the search results only display page numbers and the frequency of the term, not any portion of the book's text.
- The HDL also allows member libraries to provide patrons with certified print disabilities full digital access to the works using adaptive technologies.
- The HDL allows member libraries to create a replacement copy of a work if their original copy is lost, destroyed, or stolen, and a replacement is not available at a fair price.
- The University of Michigan, a HathiTrust member, separately developed an 'Orphan Works Project' (OWP) to make works with unfindable copyright holders accessible.
- Before the OWP was brought online, the University of Michigan indefinitely suspended the project.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of twenty authors and authors’ associations (the 'Authors') sued HathiTrust and several member universities (the 'Libraries') for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The National Federation of the Blind and three print-disabled students intervened to defend the HathiTrust Digital Library.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Libraries, holding that their uses of the copyrighted works were protected by the doctrine of fair use.
- The district court also dismissed some plaintiff associations for lack of standing and dismissed claims related to the Orphan Works Project as unripe.
- The Authors (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the Libraries (appellees) defending the lower court's ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the HathiTrust Digital Library's mass digitization of copyrighted books to create a full-text search database and provide access to the print-disabled constitute fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Barrington D. Parker
Yes, the HathiTrust Digital Library's creation of a search database and its provision of access to the print-disabled are permissible fair uses. For the full-text search function, the court applied the four-factor fair use test. First, the purpose and character of the use is 'quintessentially transformative' because it creates a new research tool for identifying and locating information, which is a fundamentally different purpose from reading the original work. Second, while the works are creative and protected by copyright, this factor is less significant when the use is highly transformative. Third, copying the entirety of the works was reasonably necessary to enable the full-text search function, and maintaining multiple copies for server redundancy and backup is also a reasonable and necessary practice. Fourth, the use does not harm the potential market for the original works because the search function is not a substitute for the books themselves, and any potential harm from a security breach is too speculative. For providing access to the print-disabled, the court found it is also a fair use. First, while not a transformative use (since the purpose is still reading), it is a favored purpose explicitly supported by legislative history and the goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Second, the creative nature of the works weighs against fair use but is not determinative. Third, copying the entire work, including both text and image files, is reasonably necessary to provide full and meaningful access to disabled patrons who may need to magnify images, charts, or diagrams. Fourth, this use does not harm the market for the works, as there is no significant existing market for books in accessible formats for the print-disabled. The court vacated and remanded the holding on the preservation use due to lack of plaintiff standing and affirmed that the challenge to the suspended Orphan Works Project was not ripe for adjudication.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in digital copyright law, significantly bolstering the fair use defense for large-scale digitization projects. By classifying full-text search as a 'quintessentially transformative' use, the court provided strong legal protection for technologies that use copyrighted content for data analysis rather than for consumption, paving the way for services like Google Books. The ruling also affirms that uses serving important social goals, such as providing access for the disabled, can qualify as fair use even if not transformative, especially where market harm is negligible. This case established a crucial precedent that favors technological innovation and access to information over a copyright holder's absolute control when the new use does not substitute for the original work.
