United States: Authors Guild Expands On Importance Of Transformative Purpose Use To Fair Use Analysis

In an opinion by Judge Leval, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld Google's digitization program of full text copying of books. Expanding on its decision last year in Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014), the court held that Google's program was highly transformative and unlikely to substitute for any of the original works and, thus, was a fair use under the Copyright Act.


In HathiTrust, the Second Circuit held that it was fair use for research universities to digitize full copies of millions of works to enable users to determine the number of times a particular word appears or to provide full replacement copies of the work to persons with disabilities. In doing so, the court held that HathiTrust's text-searchable database is a "quintessentially transformative" use in that "it does something more than repackage or republish the original copyrighted work" by "add[ing] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message." Users do not see any of the work's actual text or images, and authors do not "write with the purpose of enabling text searches of their books." The court further explained, in rejecting the district court's analysis, that "a use does not become transformative by making an 'invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts.'" "Added value or utility is not the test: a transformative work is one that serves a new and different function from the original work and is not a substitute for it."

Unlike the program at issue in HathiTrust, the Google Library Project involved more than just counting words. In agreements with several of the world's largest research libraries, Google created digital scans of over 20 million books that the libraries chose from their collections, extracted machine-readable text, and indexed the extracted text. The "vast majority" of the books Google digitized were non-fiction and "most" are out-of-print works. Google keeps the digitized books on its own servers and makes each book's information available to the submitting library, which agrees to use the digital copies only for non-infringing uses.

The Google Project enables public users to "enter search words or terms of their own choice, receiving in response a list of all books in the database in which those terms appear, as well as the number of times the term appears in each book." In addition, a "brief description" of each book is provided, together with "some rudimentary additional information, including a list of the words and terms that appear with most frequency in the book," and "sometimes" the response provides links to buy the book outline and identifies libraries where the book can be found. As the court noted, "this identifying information instantaneously supplied would otherwise not be obtainable in lifetimes of searching."

The Google Project also displays a maximum of three snippets in each book containing the searched-for term. Each snippet "is a horizontal segment comprising ordinarily an eighth of a page," which for many book formats includes three lines of text. Searching for a term multiple times "will reveal the same three snippets" and "does not allow a searcher to increase the number of snippets revealed." Although searchers "can view more than three snippets of a book by entering additional searches for different terms," Google "makes permanently unavailable for snippet view one snippet on each page and one complete page out of every ten預 process Google calls 'blacklisting.'"

In addition, Google's search engine "makes possible new forms of research, known as 'text mining' and 'data mining.'" These provide the "frequency of word and phrase usage over centuries" and permit "users to discern fluctuations of interest in a particular subject over time and space by showing increases and decreases in the frequency of reference and usage in different periods and different linguistic regions." They also allow researchers "to comb over the tens of millions of books Google has scanned in order to examine 'word frequencies, syntactic patterns, and thematic markers' and to derive information on how nomenclature, linguistic usage, and literary style have changed over time."

The Court's Fair Use Analysis

With respect to the first of the four nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining whether a particular use of a copyrighted work is fair use (17 U.S.C. ァ 107)葉he "purpose and character" of the defendant's use葉he court emphasized that the more transformative a use or purpose is, the smaller the chance that the use "will serve as a substitute for the original or its plausible derivatives." Applying HathiTrust's definition of transformativeness葉hat a transformative use "communicates something new and different from the original or expands its utility"葉he court held that Google's copying, digitization, and snippet display of scanned books serve a transformative purpose and strongly favor fair use because the project "augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs' books." (Emphasis by the court.) Critically, the court also held that the snippets displayed by Google were designed to show only enough context for searchers to evaluate whether to acquire the work. Lastly, as it had in prior cases, the court held that the fact that Google was a for-profit entity did not weigh heavily on the first factor because of the highly transformative nature of Google's use.

Turning to the second factor葉he "nature of the copyrighted work"葉he court stated that the expression in both factual and non-fiction works is entitled to protection and that, as in HathiTrust, the second factor should not be viewed in isolation and favored fair use. This is so, "not because Plaintiffs' works are factual, but because the secondary use transformatively provides valuable information about the original, rather than replicating protected expression in a manner that provides a meaningful substitute for the original."

Applying HathiTrust's definition of transformativeness, the court held that Google's copying, digitization, and snippet display of scanned books serve a transformative purpose and strongly favor fair use because the project "augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs' books."

With respect to the third factor"the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" the court held that Google satisfied the test with respect to the "search function" because, as in HathiTrust, it was "reasonably necessary" to "make use of the entirety of the works in order to enable the full-text search function." "If Google copied less than the totality of the originals, its search function could not advise searchers reliably whether their searched term appears in a book (or how many times)." As for Google's provision of "snippet views," what matters "is not so much 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used' in making a copy, but rather the amount and substantiality of what is thereby made accessible to a public for which it may serve as a competing substitute." (Emphasis by the court.) Here, the court held, the "fragmentary and scattered nature of the snippets revealed, even after a determined, assiduous, time-consuming search, results in a revelation that is not 'substantial,' even if it includes an aggregate 16% of the text of the book." The court did caution, however, that "[i]f snippet view could be used to reveal a coherent block amounting to 16% of a book, that would raise a very different question beyond the scope of our inquiry."

Finally, the court stated that the fourth factor"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work""focuses on whether the copy brings to the marketplace a competing substitute for the original, or its derivative, so as to deprive the rights holder of significant revenues because of the likelihood that potential purchasers may opt to acquire the copy in preference to the original." With respect to the search function, the court noted HathiTrust's finding that the fourth factor supported a finding of fair use "because the ability to search the text of the book to determine whether it includes selected words 'does not serve as a substitute for the books that are being searched.'" The court also found that "at least as snippet view is presently constructed," it, too, does not act as a competing substitute for the original works. "Snippet view, at best and after a large commitment of manpower, produces discontinuous, tiny fragments, amounting in the aggregate to no more than 16% of a book. This does not threaten the rights holders with any significant harm to the value of their copyrights or diminish their harvest of copyright revenue." Although the court "recognize[d] that the snippet function can cause some loss of sales," it held that it was insufficient to serve as a meaningful substitute for the copyrighted work:

There are surely instances in which a searcher's need for access to a text will be satisfied by the snippet view, resulting in either the loss of a sale to that searcher, or reduction of demand on libraries for that title, which might have resulted in libraries purchasing additional copies. But the possibility, or even the probability or certainty, of some loss of sales does not suffice to make the copy an effectively competing substitute that would tilt the weighty fourth factor in favor of the rights holder in the original. There must be a meaningful or significant effect "upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. ァ 107(4).

The court further noted that because an author's copyright "does not extend to the facts communicated by his book," but only to the manner of expression, if a database user takes only facts, not expression, then even this sort of lost sale "would not change the taking of an unprotected fact into a copyright infringement."

Next, the court disposed of plaintiffs' remaining arguments regarding harm, holding that there is no "derivative right in the application of search and snippet view functions to their works":

Google safeguards from public view the digitized copies it makes and allows access only to the extent of permitting the public to search for the very limited information accessible through the search function and snippet view. The program does not allow access in any substantial way to a book's expressive content. Nothing in the statutory definition of a derivative work, or of the logic that underlies it, suggests that the author of an original work enjoys an exclusive derivative right to supply information about that work of the sort communicated by Google's search functions.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that "there exist, or would have existed, paid licensing markets in digitized works" because, unlike the Copyright Clearance Center licensing regime for making photocopies of journal articles, the Google Project permits users to obtain only "limited data about the contents of the book, without allowing any substantial reading of its text." Nor were licensing programs for telephone ringtones on point, since "the snippet function does not provide searchers with any meaningful experience of the expressive content of the book," as opposed to ringtones, which "are selected precisely because they play the most famous, beloved passages of the particular piece."

In addition, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that "Google's storage of its digitized copies of Plaintiffs' books exposes them to the risk that hackers might gain access and make the books widely available, thus destroying the value of their copyrights." Recognizing that "this claim has a reasonable theoretical basis," the court held that it was "not supported by the evidence." Google used the same secure servers it uses for its own corporate information, and plaintiffs failed to establish that these servers were not sufficiently secure against inadvertent or malicious release of files.

Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument of contributory infringement as based on "nothing more than a speculative possibility" that a participating library may, in breach of its agreement with Google, use its digital copy in an infringing manner, or may fail to "maintain security over its digital copy with the consequence that the book may become freely available as a result of the incursions of hackers.


The court's opinion in Google adds further clarity to the meaning of "transformative" purpose. Judge Leval's insight that fair use favors collection and use of the information in the copyrighted work, as well as the traditional understanding of fair use as protecting transformation of the work itself (e.g., using quotes in a book review) is a major contribution to the law of fair use. The next battleground may be over the extent to which businesses may use fair use to protect the creation of in-house digitized databases of copyrighted works from their libraries or that they otherwise possess, including the use of limited searches of and displayed snippets from such databases.

The case is Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you致e read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com痴 content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd痴 services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with 渡o disclosure in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user痴 hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend痴 name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user痴 personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user痴 personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the 添our Profile page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.