ILNews

Judge finds Google's book project 'transformative'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Copy a book, make most of its contents available to the public, and you can soon expect to learn about the finer points of infringement.

But, when Internet-giant Google copied more than 20 million books without the authors’ consents and posted a majority of the text online, a federal judge found the effort constituted fair use. Readers heralded the decision as a victory.

mckenna McKenna

Within the legal community, attorneys applaud the ruling as clearly expressing a definition of “transformative” that the Supreme Court of the United States established nearly 30 years ago. Specifically, Circuit Judge Denny Chin, sitting by designation on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, recently held that Google, through its Google Books project, changed the purpose of the books.

Chin issued his opinion in The Authors Guild, Inc., and Betty Miles, Joseph Goulden and Jim Bouton v. Google, Inc., 1:05-CV-08136, Nov. 14.

“I think Google Books is a good thing for authors,” said Mark McKenna, associate dean at the University of Notre Dame Law School, adding only a very small number of writers have suffered a negative impact from the project. “Especially with academic authors, it would be hard to find anyone upset about Google Books.”

Since 2004, the company has been scanning and making digital copies of entire books as part of its Library Project. Participating libraries can then obtain a digital copy of books from their collections. Google also keeps a digital copy and creates an index of all the scanned works, enabling users to search for a word or phrase and get a list of the most relevant books containing the search term.

Library patrons can be directed to libraries or booksellers who have copies of the work. Also, Google makes available snippets of the text.

In considering the four factors of fair use as set forth in the Copyright Act of 1976, Chin gave the most weight to the “purpose and character of use” factor. He found that Google’s digitization of the text enables researchers to identify and search through books, an innovation which the judge said has transformed the written word.  Google Books is “highly transformative” because it uses the snippets to direct readers to other books. It turns the text into data, allowing readers to analyze and find patterns across millions of books.

This interpretation of “transformative” breaks with the tradition of the courts in finding fair use. Usually the fair-use ruling is given to works that have turned the original creation into something different such as through parody or satire. In this instance, Google did not alter the books but changed the way the books can be used or changed their purpose.

Christopher Brown, partner at Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP, called the opinion “refreshing” because it takes a holistic view. Here, Brown said, the judge felt Google was not trying to make a profit but rather trying to advance the scientific and useful arts. The focus was more on the benefit to society and less on the commercial impact to authors.

Chin’s finding that Google changed how books are used is a “pleasant development” in the definition of “transformative,” McKenna said. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that using a copy of an original work for a different purpose was transformative in Sony Corporation of American, et al. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., et al., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). But since then, other courts have not been as explicit until now.

While the court found Google’s indexing system to be fair use, Amy Berge, partner at Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP in Louisville, argued the question that goes unanswered is whether Google infringed by reproducing millions and millions of books. The decision is too broad, she said, and leads to the logical conclusion that anyone can copy any work and make it available.

Moreover, she did not agree with the court’s position that Google did not make the entire work available. Google blacks out only 10 percent of each book. Also researchers, she said, do not typically read the whole book but use parts or sections. This means with Google, the readers can forgo a trip to the library or bookstore and get what they need at their computer. This takes away part of the market value of the books.

Berge noted the judge used his discretion in weighing the factors of fair use and cannot be said to have reached the wrong conclusion. However, the decision imposes a lot of uncertainty and upheaval for people who create.

Stretching copyright

When Brown meets with clients, he explains the two prongs of the copyright law. The first gives exclusive rights to authors and inventors over their works so, ideally, they will have an incentive to create more works. The second establishes fair use to give everybody else the incentive to create the next version of the original work or to move the debate along in some fashion.

“There are plenty of people that don’t appreciate the extent to which there are exceptions to copyright,” Brown said.

Too often, the patent attorney said, authors and inventors believe since they created something they are the only ones who should benefit. But the real basis of copyright law is that everyone benefits by allowing the initial creation to spur other creations.

Despite the confusion, Brown said the copyright law is working even as technology advances beyond what was imagined in 1976. The law has handled new technology in the past and continued to work just fine in the Google Books dispute.

Troy J. Cole, partner at Ice Miller LLP, agreed. The copyright law provides guidance to the courts as to what Congress thought was important. And it has been stretched to cover new technology such as when copyright was extended to software.

However, Berge said the Google case underscores the need for changes to the law. Technology can speed forward so quickly that before the courts can catch up, the advances become ingrained into public use. Then the assertion the infringement benefits the larger society becomes the prevailing concern.

As an example, Berge pointed to the patent infringement lawsuit against BlackBerry in the early 2000s. By that time, the mobile phones were in such wide use that even the federal government claimed taking the technology from BlackBerry would cause the public harm.

Changes to the law need to be made and should be made at the legislative level, Berge said. Google copied carte blanche, so the message to others is work as fast as you can then argue your product is helpful to society. Congress needs to weigh in on the issue, she said.

Google’s gain

Berge acknowledged Google did partner with libraries and educational institutions which have a broader scope of access to copyrighted works. The company’s motives may have been pure and truly seeking to benefit the greater good but, Berge noted, Google is getting a return even though it is offering the books for no charge.

“They get a huge benefit,” she said. “I’m going to search Google since they are the ones with all this information.”

Discerning why Google undertook this project is also intriguing to Cole. It is a savvy company so it might have seen a reward or payoff somewhere, he said. Possibly while the researchers are reviewing the book snippets, Google is watching them.

“You are the product,” Cole said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT