Field v. Google Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada
412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An internet search engine's automated caching of publicly available web pages for search-related purposes is a transformative fair use and does not constitute direct copyright infringement, especially when the copyright holder fails to use widely available industry-standard protocols to opt-out of such caching.

Facts:

Blake Field, an author and attorney, created 51 written works over a three-day period in January 2004.
Field registered copyrights for each of these works and then published them on his personal website, making them freely accessible to the public.
Field was aware that Google's search engine automatically creates 'Cached' copies of web pages unless instructed otherwise.
He knew about industry-standard tools, such as the 'no-archive' meta-tag, which web publishers can use to prevent search engines from creating cached copies of their pages.
Field deliberately chose not to use the 'no-archive' meta-tag or any other opt-out mechanism.
Field configured his website's 'robots.txt' file to explicitly allow all search engine robots to visit and index all pages on the site.
As Field intended, Google's automated programs crawled his site, indexed the pages, and made them available in search results with accompanying 'Cached' links.

Procedural Posture:

Blake Field sued Google Inc. in the U.S. District Court, asserting a single claim for copyright infringement based on one of his works.
Field filed an Amended Complaint, adding 50 more of his copyrighted works to the infringement claim.
Field filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to find Google liable for infringement and to dismiss Google's affirmative defenses.
Google filed a cross-motion for summary judgment based on non-infringement, implied license, estoppel, and fair use.
During a hearing on the cross-motions, Google made an oral cross-motion for partial summary judgment in its favor based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor.

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 a search engine's automated process of creating and providing access to 'Cached' links of web pages containing copyrighted material constitute direct copyright infringement when the author made the works publicly available online and did not use standard opt-out tools?

Opinions:

Majority - Jones, District Judge.

No, a search engine's automated process of creating and providing access to 'Cached' links under these circumstances does not constitute direct copyright infringement. First, Google's conduct is not direct infringement because it lacks the necessary volitional act; the system responds automatically to a user's request, and it is the user, not Google, who initiates the creation and download of a copy from the cache. Second, even if it were infringement, it is excused by multiple defenses. Field's action of publishing his works online without using standard opt-out tools, which he knew existed, created an implied license for Google to cache the content. Similarly, Field is estopped from his claim because he knew of Google's practice, intended Google to rely on his silence, and Google did so to its detriment. Finally, Google's caching is a transformative fair use of the work because it serves different purposes than the original, such as providing archival access, allowing page comparisons, and highlighting search terms, without harming the market for the original work.

Analysis:

This decision provided crucial legal protection for the fundamental operation of internet search engines at a formative time for the web. It affirmed that automated caching is a transformative fair use, distinguishing the utility-driven purpose of a search engine from the expressive purpose of the original content. The case establishes that copyright holders who publish works freely online bear some responsibility to use standard technical protocols to signal their preferences, creating the doctrines of implied license and estoppel as powerful defenses for search engines. This precedent was vital for allowing search technology to develop without the constant threat of copyright litigation over its core functions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Field v. Google Inc. (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"