Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 104/14/201412015023913-4829-cvdIN THEUnited States Court of AppealsFOR THE SECOND CIRCUITTHE AUTHORS GUILD, BETTY MILES, JIM BOUTON, JOSEPH GOULDEN,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs-Appellants,HERBERT MITGANG, DANIEL HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, PAUL DICKSON , THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES , INC.,PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., ASSOCIATION OFAMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC., CANADIAN STANDARD ASSOCIATION, JOHNWILEY & SONS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,Plaintiffs,—against—GOOGLE, INC.,Defendant-Appellee.ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKBRIEF FOR AUTHORS MALCOLM GLADWELL, J.M. COETZEE,MICHAEL POLLAN, MARGARET ATWOOD, PETER CAREY,KAREN RUSSELL, URSULA LE GUIN, RON LARSON,THOMAS KENEALLY, TAYLOR BRANCH, TRACY CHEVALIER,LAWRENCE HILL, MICHAEL FRAYN, DIANE MCWHORTER,ROBERT CHRISTOPHERSON, TRACY KIDDER AND YANN MARTELAS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS -APPELLANTSGLORIA C. PHARESCHRISTOPHER M. STRONGHOFFMANN MARSHALL STRONG LLP116 West 23rd Street, Suite 500New York, New York 10011( 212) 851-8403Attorneys for Amici Curiae AuthorsCase: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 204/14/20141201502CORPORATEDISCLOSURESTATEMENTEachoftheamicicuriaeisanaturalpersonandisnotanongovernmentalcorporation. 39Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 304/14/2014120150239TABLEOFCONTENTSPageTABLEOFAUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iiIDENTITYANDINTERESTOFTHEAMICICURIAE........................................................1STATEMENTOFRELEVANTFACTS......................................................................................7ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................11GOOLGE’SCOPYINGOFBOOKSTOCREATEAVASTDATABASEOFBOOKSANDITSDISTRIBUTIONOFCOPIESOFTHOSEBOOKSARENOTAFAIRUSE.............................................11A.Google’sVastUnauthorizedCopyingandReproductionofAuthors’CopyrightedWorksDoNotJustifytheHarmtoAuthors………………………………………...141.Google’sLibraryProject,FoundedonContractstoMakeMillionsofUnauthorizedCopies,isNotJustified.…………………………………………………142.Google’sDistributiontotheLibrariesofDigitalCopiesofAlltheBooksitCopiesIsNotaFairUse………….173.TheUtilityofaFull‐TextSearchFunctionDoesNotJustifyCopyingOver20MillionBooks……………204.Google’s“UseisofaCommercialNature.”……………………..22B.TheDistrictCourtGaveShortShrifttotheNatureoftheCopyrightedWorks……………………………………..24C.GoogleCopiesandMaintainsBooksinItsBookDatabaseThatItDoesNotUseintheLibraryProject.………………25D.Google’sConductHarmsAuthors.………………………………………….27iCase: 13-4829E.Document: 73Page: 404/14/2014120150239GoogleCannotJustifyitsUseofCopyrightedWorksintheLibraryProject.………………………………30CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................32TABLEOFAUTHORITIESPageCasesAmericanGeophysicalUnionv.Texaco,Inc.,37F.3d881(2dCir.1994)......................................................................................................12AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,954F.Supp.2d,282(S.D.N.Y.2013)............................................................10,23‐24,28BillGrahamArchivesv.DorlingKindersleyLtd.,448F.3d605(2dCir.2006)...........................................................................................13,23Blanchv.Koons,467F.3d248(2dCir.2006).................................................................23CastleRockEntm’t,Inc.v.CarolPubl’gGrp.,Inc.,150F.3d132(2dCir.1998)...................................................................................................23Diverseyv.Schmidly,738F.3d1196(10thCir.2013).................................................18eBay,Inc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C.,547U.S.388(2006)..............................................13Hotalingv.ChurchofJesusChristofLatter‐DaySaints,118F.3d199(4thCir.1997).................................................................................................18Kellyv.ArribaSoftCorp.,336F.3d811(9thCir.2003)..............................................16Perfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508F.3d1146(9thCir.2007)..............................................................................................................................16Salingerv.Colting,607F.3d88(2010)..............................................................................13SonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,464U.S.417(1984)...................................................................................................................12iiCase: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 504/14/2014120150239Statutes17U.S.C.§106.................................................................................................................................717U.S.C.§106(3).........................................................................................................................1817U.S.C.§107.......................................................................................................................11,16OtherAuthoritiesEdwinG.BurrowsandMikeWallace,Gotham,AHistoryofNewYorkCityto1898(OxfordU.Press1999)......................................21RichardDannay,FactorlessFairUse?WasMelvilleNimmerRight?,60J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.,127(2003)..................................................................13RichardDannay,CopyrightInjunctionsandFairUse:EntereBay–Four‐FactorFatigueorFour‐FactorFreedom?,55J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A449(2008)....................................................................13GallicaExperiment:OfferingCopyrightedDigitalDocuments,(availableathttp://www.bnf.fr/en/collections_and_services/digital_libraries_gallica/a.gallica_experimentation_digital_offer.html).......................................................................................................................28GeorgetownLawLibrary’sGuidetoLegalHistoryDatabases(availableathttps://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/guides/legalHistory.cfm)....................................................................................20Google,Inc.,Form10‐K,submittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionfortheFiscalYearEndingDec.31,2013,(availableathttps://investor.google.com/pdf/20131231_google_10K.pdf)............................................................................7,8,14,22‐23Google,Inc.InformationregardingtheLibraryProjectavailableathttp://books.google.com/intl/en‐US/googlebooks/publisher_library.html#options4............................................................20GoogleInc.OppositiontoAuthorGuild’sMotionforSummaryJudgment[Doc.1072]...............................................................................................................17iiiCase: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 604/14/2014120150239Google,Inc.ProcedureforExcludingBooksfromScanning,(availableathttps://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/3365282?hl‐en&ref_topic_3396243)...............................................................19Google,Inc.ProcedureforNotDisplayingScannedBooks,availableathttps://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/2520009........................................................................................................................19PeterS.Menell,InSearchofCopyright’sLostArk:InterpretingtheRighttoDistributeintheInternetAge,59J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.1(2011)........................................................................18MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,NimmeronCopyright.............................12,18ReadersGuidetoPeriodicalLiterature,(H.W.Wilson(availableathttp://www.hwwilsoninprint.com/periodicals.php)............................................20UniversityofConnecticutLawLibrary’sListofLegalPeriodicalIndexes(U.S.andforeign)(availableathttp://library.law.uconn.edu/research‐resources/legal‐periodical‐indexes)......................................21ivCase: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 704/14/2014120150239IDENTITYANDINTERESTOFTHEAMICICURIAETheamiciareAmericanandforeignauthorsandcopyrightownersofbestsellingworksrangingfromshortstoriestohistoricalnonfictiontocalculustextbookstofantasyandsciencefictionnovels.1Worksauthoredbytheamicihavewonnearlyeverymajorliteraryprize,includingtheNobelPrizeinLiterature,multiplePulitzerPrizesandBookerPrizes.UnderthebalancesetbyCongressundertheCopyrightAct,andwithlimitedexceptions,noonecanexerciseanyoftheSection106rightswithoutpriorpermissionfromtheauthor.Technologicaladvancesarechallengingthisbalance.Thedevelopmentoftheabilitytocreatedigitalcopiesandtheproliferationofsearchenginesandfilesharingontheinternethaveintroducednewconcernsforauthors:theproblemofcontrollingunauthorizeddigitalcopiesofworksandtheassociatedproblemofunauthorizeddistributionanddisplayofthosedigitalcopies.Inadditionto                                                            1Thisbriefwasauthoredentirelybycounselforamicicuriae.Nopartyorparty’scounselcontributedmoneythatwasintendedtofundthepreparationorsubmissionofthisbrief.TheTextbookandAcademicAuthorsAssociation,anorganizationtowhichsomeamicicuriaebelong,contributedmoneytopartiallyfundthepreparationofthisbrief.Counselforbothpartieshaveconsentedinwritingtothefilingofthisbrief. Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 804/14/2014120150239widespreadcopyrightinfringement,theuncheckedmassdigitizationofwrittenworksinterfereswithanauthor’slegitimateexploitationofworksinnewelectronicformatsandjeopardizesanauthor’sreputationbymakingwidelyavailableearliereditionsofworks,suchastextbooks,thathavebeenupdatedandsuperseded.Theseconcerns—andwhetherthebalancesetbyCongressintheCopyrightActisbeingirreparablydisrupted—areparamounttoanyconsiderationofGoogle’sLibraryProject.Alltheamicicuriaeshareaninterestthatauthors’copyrightsbeprotectedfromafor‐profitcompany’sunjustifiedcommercialuses.MalcolmGladwell,astaffwriterattheNewYorker,istheauthoroffivebestsellingbooks,includingthenonfictionworksTheTippingPoint,Blink,andOutliers.Mr.Gladwellhasbeennamedoneofthe100mostinfluentialpeoplebyTIMEmagazine.J.M.Coetzeeistherecipientofthe2003NobelPrizeinLiterature.AnativeofSouthAfricaandnowanAustraliannational,Mr.Coetzeeisaplaywrightandnovelist,includingLife&TimesofMichaelKandDisgrace,bothofwhichwontheBookerPrize.Mr.CoetzeehasheldanumberofpositionsatuniversitiesintheUnitedStates,SouthAfrica,andAustralia.MichaelPollanistheauthoroffiveNewYorkTimesbestsellers,includingTheOmnivore’sDilemma,whichwasnamedoneofthetenbest2Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 904/14/2014120150239booksof2006byboththeNewYorkTimesandtheWashingtonPost,wontheCaliforniaBookAward,theNorthernCaliforniaBookAward,andtheJamesBeardAward.Mr.PollanisajournalismprofessorattheUniversityofCalifornia.MargaretAtwood,afounderoftheWriters’UnionofCanada,istheauthorofessays,poetry,short‐storiesandnovels.HernovelTheBlindAssassinwontheBookerPrizein2000,andMs.Atwoodhasreceivedcountlessotherawardsandhonors.Her2008MasseyLectureseries,Payback:DebtandtheShadowSideofWealthwasadaptedintothedocumentaryfilmPayback.PeterCarey,anAustralian,isoneofonlythreewriterstohavereceivedtheBookerPrizetwice—forOscarandLucindaandTheTrueHistoryoftheKellyGang.Mr.CareyhaswonAustralia’sMilesFranklinAwardthreetimes,theCommonwealthWriters’Prizetwice,andthePrixduMeilleurLivreÉtranger.HehastaughtcreativewritingatseveralAmericanuniversities,andcurrentlydirectstheMFAprogramincreativewritingatHunterCollege.KarenRussellwasnamedaPulitzerFinalistforherfirstnovel,Swamplandia!,whichwasincludedintheNewYorkTimes’s10BestBooksof2011.Ms.RussellwaschosenasoneofGranta’sBestYoungAmericanNovelistsin2007,andwasnamedoneofthebest20under40writersbyThe3Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1004/14/2014120150239NewYorker.In2013,shereceivedaMacArthurFellowship.HershortfictionhasappearedinTheNewYorker,Granta,OxfordAmerican,ZoetropeandConjunctions.UrsulaLeGuin,fictionwriterandpoet,isoneoftheworld’smostrespectedauthorsofimaginativewriting.Shehasreceivedmanyhonorsandawards,includingtwenty‐oneLocusAwards,fourNebulaAwards,twoHugoAwards,andthePEN/MalamudAwardforshortfiction.InApril2000,theU.S.LibraryofCongressrecognizedMs.LeGuinasa“LivingLegend”forhersignificantcontributionstoAmerica'sculturalheritage.MillionsofstudentsfrommiddleschoolthroughgraduateschoolrelyonRonLarson’salgebra,trigonometry,andcalculustextbooks.Dr.Larsonhaspublishedmorethan400books,includingthefirstcompletelyinteractiveonlinecalculustextbook.Mr.LarsonisaprofessoratPennsylvaniaStateErie,andhistextbookshavewoncountlessawardsforpedagogy,innovation,anddesign.ThomasKeneallyisanAustralianwriterofnovelsandnon‐fictionwithaninternationalpublishingrecordandreputation.HeisbestknownforwritingSchindler'sArk,theBookerPrize‐winningnovelof1982,lateradaptedtobecometheOscar‐winningmovie,Schindler'sList.4Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1104/14/2014120150239TaylorBranchisahistorian,whoseworksincludeathree‐volumenarrativehistoryofthecivilrightsera,AmericaintheKingYears.Thetrilogy’sfirstbook,PartingtheWaters:AmericaintheKingYears,1954‐63,wonthePulitzerPrize.Mr.BranchhasreceivedlifetimeachievementawardsfromtheDaytonLiteraryPeacePrizeandtheAnisfield‐WolfBookAwards.TracyChevalierisanauthorofsevenhistoricalnovels,includingGirlwithaPearlEarring,isaFellowoftheRoyalSocietyofLiterature,andtherecipientofhonorarydoctoratesfromOberlinCollegeandtheUniversityofEastAnglia.LawrenceHill,aCanadiannovelistandmemoirist,istheauthorofninebooks,includingTheBookofNegroes(publishedintheUnitedStatesasSomeoneKnowsMyName),whichwontheRogersWriters’TrustFictionPrizeandtheCommonwealthWritersPrizeforBestBook.Mr.Hill’s2013MasseyLecturesweredrawnfromhisnon‐fictionbookBlood:theStuffofLife.MichaelFraynisanEnglishnovelist,translator,memoirist,nonfictionauthorandTonyAwardwinningplaywright(forCopenhagen,in2000).Hisnovelshavewoncountlesshonors,includingtheSomersetMaughamAward,theWhitbreadNovelAward,andtheCommonwealthWritersPrize.Mr.Frayn’splaysalsoincludeNoisesOffandDemocracy.5Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1204/14/2014120150239DianeMcWhorter,anauthorandjournalist,wonthePulitzerPrizeforGeneralNonfiction,theJ.AnthonyLukasBookPrize,andmanyotherawardsforherbookCarryMeHome:Birmingham,Alabama,theClimacticBattleoftheCivilRightsRevolution.SheisaregularcontributortoTheNewYorkTimesandUSAToday.RobertChristophersonistheauthoroftheleadingphysical‐geographytextbooksintheUSandCanada,whichsincetheir1992publicationhavebeenusedbymillionsofgeographystudentsin39countriesinEnglishandintranslation.Mr.ChristophersontaughtgeographyforthirtyyearsatAmericanRiverCollege.TracyKidderwonthePulitzerPrizeforGeneralNonfictionandtheNationalBookAwardforhisbookTheSoulofaNewMachine,whichdescribestheracetodesignthenext‐generationofcomputers.Mr.Kidderalsohaswrittenshortfiction,essaysandarticlesforpublicationsincludingTheAtlantic,TheNewYorker,TheNewYorkTimes,andGranta.YannMartelisaCanadianauthorofnovelsandshortstories.HisnovelLifeofPiwonthe2002BookerPrize,wasaninternationalbestseller,andwasadaptedintoablockbustermovie.In2005MartelwasavisitingscholarattheUniversityofSaskatchewan.6Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1304/14/2014120150239STATEMENTOFRELEVANTFACTSTheamicicuriae,U.S.andforeign,aretheauthors(“Authors”)ofworksthatareincopyrightandwerefirstpublishedintheUnitedStatesorinBerneConventioncountries.SomeoftheAuthors’worksarenotcurrentlyinprint,whichdoesnotmeantheyarenotincopyrightorthattheAuthors’rightsinthoseworksarediminishedinanyway.TheAuthorsareentitledtoalloftherightsgrantedtoanauthorunder17U.S.C.§106(“Section106”).Googleisafor‐profitcompanythatiscurrentlyvaluedatover$350,000,000,000.Googledoesnotgenerateitsownbooksofhistory,fiction,poetry,orotherexpressiveworksofauthorship.(Google10‐Kat32)Googlehasassembleditsmassivewealth“primarilybydeliveringrelevant,cost‐effectiveonlineadvertising.”(Id.)Its“businessisprimarilyfocusedaroundthefollowingkeyareas:searchanddisplayadvertising,theAndroidoperatingsystemplatform,consumercontentthroughGooglePlay,enterprise,commerceandhardwareproducts.”(Id.)Googleacknowledgesthatitssearchfunction“continuestoevolveandimproveasmoreinformationcomesonline,                                                            2”Google10‐K”referstoGoogle’sForm10‐KsubmittedtotheSecuritiesandExchangeCommissionfortheperiodendingDecember2013,availableathttps://investor.google.com/pdf/131231_google_10K.pdf.7Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1404/14/2014120150239andaspeopleincreasinglylooktotheirmobiledevicesforanswersthroughouttheday.”(Id.at4.)OnewaythatGooglehas“evolve[d]”isbyincreasingthevolumeofinformationitmakesavailableonline—andtherebyimprovingitssearchfunction—bycopyingover20millionbooksthatitobtainedfromseveralresearchlibraries,andbydisplayingdigitalcopiesofthesebooksthroughGoogleBooks.TherearetwopartsoftheGoogleBooksProgram:(1)thePartnersProgram,whereanauthor’sPublisherhaslicensedGoogletoincludethefulltextofdesignatedportionsofspecifiedworksinthesearchresults,whilealsomaintainingafullcopyintheGooglebookdatabase;useofcopiesofworksprovidedtoGoogleunderthePartnersProgramisgovernedbycontractualrestrictionsbetweenGoogleandrightsholders;3and(2)theLibraryProject,whereGooglehasnotreceivedpermissionfromanyrightsholderofawork,butstillcopiestheworkandreturnssearchesontheinternetinaformthatGooglecallsa“snippet,”whichitdefinesasapproximately1/8ofapage.(A1616‐1617at¶¶43‐45.)Googlehasnowherestatedthatitwillnoteverreviseitscurrentdefinitionofa“snippet”toinclude                                                            3SomeoftheAuthors’worksareinthePartnersProgram.8Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1504/14/2014120150239alargerportionofapage’stext.OnlytheLibraryProjectisatissueinthiscase.Google’sdesiretobuildanationaldatabaseofbookswasmatchedbythedesireofmanyuniversitylibrariestodigitizethevolumesintheircollections,atime‐consumingandverycostlyprocess.ToachievethegoalsofbothGoogleandthelibraries,theyenteredintoagreementsinwhicheachlibraryagreedtomakethebooksinitscollectionsavailabletoGoogleforcopying.SomelibrariesallowedGoogletocopyonlypublicdomainworks.OtherlibrariesallowedGoogletoscanbooksincopyright.(See,e.g.,A593‐604.)Aspartoftheconsiderationforthataccess(Googlealsoofferedindemnities),GoogleagreedtoprovidetoeachlibrarydigitalcopiesofallthebooksthatthatlibraryhadprovidedtoGoogle—i.e.,unauthorizeddigitalcopiesofmillionsofbooksincopyright.(A1618‐19at¶¶53‐54.)Librarieshavenorighttoauthorizethecopyingofthephysicalcopiesofworksintheircollectionsthatarestillincopyright,unlesstheyalsoownthecopyrights.Google,similarly,hasnorighttoreproduceanddistributetothelibrariesdigitalcopiesofworksthatitwasnotauthorizedtocopyinthefirstplace.AfterGooglescansabook,itappliesopticalcharacterrecognitiontechnology(OCR)toproduceamachine‐readabletext.(A1622at¶62.)The9Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1604/14/2014120150239resultisnotthekindofwell‐organizedbookindexincludedincopyright‐protectednon‐fictionworksidentifyingnames,places,concepts,subjects,etc.anddirectingthereadertoalocationinthebook.Google’sfull‐textsearchidentifieswordsorphrases,butthereisnoselectivityorabilitytosearchbytopicsorconcepts.Googlesaysthatitdoesnotdisplayanytextofaworkthat,becauseofitsbrevity,mightappearcompletelyinthesnippetdisplay‐format.Thisexcludesworkssuchasencyclopedias,almanacs,dictionaries,thesauri,triviabooks,booksofquotations,bibliographies,poetrybooks,sheetmusic,pricingguides,travelguides,jokebooks,recipebooks,catalogs,andindexes.AuthorsGuild,Inc.v.Google,Inc.,954F.Supp.2d282,285(S.D.N.Y.2013).Buthavingdecidednottoincludetheseworksinthesearchresults,thereisnoevidencethatGoogledeletestheoriginalscansfromitsowndatabase,andnoexplanationforwhyitisnecessaryforGoogletoretainunauthorizedcopiesofthosebooksiftheyarenotusedforreadersandresearchers.Google“generated91%ofitsrevenuesfrom[its]advertisersin2013[,]”amountingto$46,025,980,000inadvertisingrevenues(Google10Kat9,27,28.)Googledoesnotcurrentlydisplayadvertisingonthespecific“AboutaBook”pagesoftheLibraryProject(butitdoesdisplayadvertisingonsearchresultsthatlinktothesepages),butGoogledoesnotrepresentthatit10Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1704/14/2014120150239neverwilldisplayadvertisingonthosepages.GooglealsodoesnotprovideanyinsightabouthowtheAuthors’worksandthecountlessothercopyrightedmaterialsintheLibraryProjectwillbeusedinthefuture.ARGUMENTGOOGLE’SCOPYINGOFBOOKSTOCREATEAVASTDATABASEOFBOOKSANDITSDISTRIBUTIONOFCOPIESOFTHOSEBOOKSARENOTAFAIRUSEWhenafor‐profitorganizationworthhundredsofbillionsofdollars,whichdependsonevolvingformsofadvertisingtoreturnaprofitforitsinvestors,setsouttocopyeverybookbothinandoutofcopyright,investsthekindsofmoneynecessarytodoso,andthenrollsoutitsprojectwithoutmakingrepresentationsconcerninghowitwillusethesecopiesinthefuture,amoresearchingexaminationisrequiredthanaroteapplicationofthefourfair‐usefactorssetoutin17U.S.C.§107.Afairusebydefinitiondoesnotrequireacopyrightowner’spriorapproval.Butwhenthecreationofamassivedigitallibraryisrequiredforthefairuse,itisincumbentonthisCourttoconsiderwhetheranyinterpretationoffairusehaseverapprovedunauthorizedcopying(andsubsequentdistribution)onsuchamassivescaleandwhetherapprovingsuchaschemedestroystheappropriatebalancebetweenfairuseandtherightsofacopyrightowner.11Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1804/14/2014120150239Twentyyearsago,JudgeNewmannotedhisconcernthatphotocopying“createsapressingneedforthelaw‘tostrikeanappropriatebalancebetweentheauthors’interestinpreservingtheintegrityofcopyright,andthepublic’srighttoenjoythebenefitsthatphotocopyingtechnologyoffers.’”AmericanGeophysicalUnionv.TexacoInc.,37F.3d881,885(2dCir.1994)(quoting3MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,NimmeronCopyright§13.05[E][1]at13‐226[“NimmeronCopyright”]andcitingJusticeBlackmun’sdissentinSonyCorporationofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.,464U.S.417,467‐68n.16(1984)).EventhenJudgeNewmanwasskepticalaboutapplyingthemechanicalphotocopyingprocesstothetraditionalfairuseanalysisdevelopedto“adjustthecompetinginterestofauthors—theauthoroftheoriginalcopyrightedworkandtheauthorofthesecondaryworkthat‘copies’aportionoftheoriginalworkinthecourseofproducingwhatisclaimedtobeanewwork.”Photocopying,heobserved,“isnotconcernedwithcreativeauthorship.”37F.3dat886.Noristheprocessofscanningabookandconvertingthescantomachinereadabletextconcernedwithcreativeauthorship.ButifSonyrequiresthisCourttoapplythecommonlaw(nowstatutory)doctrineoffairusetothefactsofthiscase,amoreaptformulationoftheinquirymightbewhether“[i]nlightofthepurposesofcopyrightlawandthepublicinterest,is12Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 1904/14/2014120150239theresufficientjustificationfortheusetooutweighthecopyrightowner’sinterestsinprohibitingtheuseoratleastinbeingcompensatedforthatuse,ifaninjunctionisnotwarranted.”4ThisdoesnotmeantheCourtignoresthefourfactors,thepreamblepurposes,transformativeness,andotherimportantconsiderations,butitfocusestheinquiryonwhethertheultimategoaljustifiestheinroadsonthecopyrightowner’sinterests.5Appliedhere,thequestioniswhetherGoogle,afor‐profitcompanythatprofitscommerciallyfromtheLibraryProject,hasadvancedsufficientjustificationfordigitizingandmakingsearchableover20millionbooksandprovidingtothecontributinglibrariesdigitalcopiesofthosebooksthatoutweighsthecopyrightowner’srighttoprohibitthoseusesor,whereaninjunctionwouldbejudgedinappropriate,beingcompensatedfortheuse.                                                             4RichardDannay,FactorlessFairUse?WasMelvilleNimmerRight?,60J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.127,144,148(2013)(“FactorlessFairUse?”).ThisformulationalsotakesaccountoftheholdingsofeBay,Inc.v.MercExchange,L.L.C.,547U.S.388(2006),andSalingerv.Colting,607F.3d88(2010),and,whenappliedinthefair‐usecontext,couldresultindamages,notaninjunction.RichardDannay,CopyrightInjunctionsandFairUse:EntereBay—Four‐FactorFatigueorFour‐FactorFreedom?,55J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.449,456‐60(2008).5SeeFactorlessFairUse?,supra,n.4at144,148.13Case: 13-4829A.Document: 73Page: 2004/14/2014120150239Google’sVastUnauthorizedCopyingandReproductionofAuthors’CopyrightedWorksDoNotJustifytheHarmtoAuthors.1.Google’sLibraryProject,FoundedonContractstoMakeMillionsofUnauthorizedCopies,isNotJustified.Thefirstfair‐usefactoraskstheCourttoexaminethepurposeandcharacteroftheuse.ThedistrictcourtwaspersuadedbyGoogle’smessagethatitisprovidinganapparentlyphilanthropicservicethatpermitsresearcherstousetheGoogleLibraryProjecttofindbooksthatjustifiesitscopyingofover20millionbooks,manyofthemincopyright.ButhelpingpeoplefindbooksanddataminingarenotGoogle’sreasonfordigitizingmorethan20millionbooks:thatmaybehowthoseresearchersusetheLibraryProject,butasGooglecandidlyadmits,thatisnotitsprincipalpurpose.Google’spurposeistosustainitseconomicgrowth,whichdependsuponthecontinuedacquisitionofmore“information,”becauseitattractsmorepeopletoitssiteincreasingGoogle’svalueandmakingitmoresuccessfulthanitscompetitors(Google10‐Kat3,4).Aprojectaimedatcopyingallthebooksinasmanylibrariesaspossibleandmakingthosecopiesavailabletothepublicforsearch—whethertheauthorsofthesebookslikeitornot—isanidealwayofachievingthatgoal.14Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2104/14/2014120150239WhileGoogledoesnotcurrentlyofferadvertisingonthespecific“AboutaBooks”page,itdoesincludeadvertisingonsearchresultsthatlinktothispage,andnothingguaranteesthatGooglewillnotchangeitsadvertisingmodelinthefutureorthatGooglewillshareadvertisingincomefairlywiththecopyrightownerswhoseworkshavedriventhatadditionalincometoGoogle’sbottomline.AuthorsshouldnotbeforcedtobevigilantaboutGoogle’s“nextmove”andtobringanothercaseifthoseeventsoccur;thatwouldbeagrossdistortionofthestatutoryassumptionthatauserofacopyrightedworkmustseekpermissioninadvance.WhatunderminesGoogle’sfairuseclaimisthattheentireprojectisfoundedonagreementsthatcreateunauthorizedcopiesofcopyrightedworks.Inexchangeforaccesstobooksforcopying—whichtheuniversitieswerenotauthorizedtogive—Googledistributedtotheuniversitiesdigitalcopiesofallthebookscopiedfromtheircollections—whichGooglewasnotauthorizedtodo.Theresultofthistransactionwasthecopyingofover20millionbookswithoutthepermissionofanycopyrightownerandthedistributiontothelibrariesofdigitalcopiesthatwerenotcriticaltoGoogle’sLibraryProject.ThosedigitalcopieswereGoogle’spaymentfortheextensiveaccessitwasgiventocopythelibraries’books,akindofrentalfee.Thatrentalfeeforthebookswasnotatransformativeuseasthattermhasbeen15Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2204/14/2014120150239interpretedunderSection107.Inaddition,thatreproductionanddistributiondeprivedauthorsofpotentialroyaltiesforthecopyingoftheirbooks.6ItisnotaccurateforGoogletosaythattheLibraryProjectpermitsreadersandresearchersto“find”bookstopurchase,becausemanyoftheworksintheLibraryprojectareveryoldandhavenotbeenavailableforsaleforcenturies.Manyotherbooksarenotforsalebecausetheyareout‐of‐print.Oldandout‐of‐printbookscanbe“identified,”andsomeofthemmaybe“found”onaused‐booksite,butasapracticalmatter,theonlyplacetheyare“found”isinalibrary.Nascentlicensingofout‐of‐printbooksdriedupwhenGoogle‘spreemptive,extensive,androyalty‐freecopyingdroveitaway.                                                             6ThefactsofPerfect10,Inc.v.Amazon.com,Inc.,508F.3d1146,1168(9thCir.2007),Kellyv.ArribaSoftCorp.,336F.3d811(9thCir.2003),andBillGrahamArchivesv.DorlingKindersleyLtd.,448F.3d605,609‐11(2dCir.2006),onwhichthedistrictcourtrelied,arenotcomparabletothefactsofthiscase.Insteadoftextualworks,allthreecasesinvolvedvisualimages,whichcannotbeidentifiedunlessdisplayedinfull.Todiminishtheharmtothecopyrightownersoftheimages,allrequiredthedisplayofimagesinreducedsize—“thumbnailimages”onlineorreducedsizesonpaper—sufficienttoidentifytheworkbutwithoutretainingfull‐sizeimagesoncethethumbnailswerecreated.Inaddition,Amazon.comandArribaSoftdidnotretaincopiesintheirdatabases.Kelly,336F.3dat815;Perfect10,508F.3dat1156‐57.16Case: 13-48292.Document: 73Page: 2304/14/2014120150239Google’sDistributiontotheLibrariesofDigitalCopiesofAlltheBooksitCopiedIsNotaFairUse.EvenifGooglewereabletoadvanceajustificationforthemassiveunauthorizedcopyingitclaimsisrequiredforsearching,thatexceptioncannotapplytoGoogle’screationofunauthorizeddigitalcopies,whichitthendistributedtolibrariesasin‐kindpaymentforaccesstothebooks.GoogleacknowledgedtheforceofthisargumentwhenitarguedbeforetheDistrictCourtthatdistributiontoalibraryofdigitalcopiesofthebooksfromthatlibrarywasnotadistributionunderSection106.(GoogleOpp.toAG’sMSJ[Doc.1072]at13‐14.)GooglecreatedtheGoogleReturnInterface(GRIN)forthepurposeofdistributingdigitalcopiestolibraries.ThroughGRIN,Googlemakesavailablefordownloadingthedigitalcopiesmadefromthebooksthatitrentedfromalibrary,andthelibrarycanthendownloadthedigitalversion.Becausethelibrarydownloadsthecopy,Googleclaimsthatithasnotreproducedordistributedthecopy.Howeverafterthedownload,thelibraryownsboththephysicalpaperbookandadigitalcopyofthebook.Itownsonemorecopyofa“book”thanitownedbeforeitsagreementwithGoogle.17Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2404/14/2014120150239Google’stheoryisnotsupportedbythecaselaworthelegislativehistory.7TheCourtshouldrejectthiselevationofformoverreality.OtherevidencesupportstheconclusionthatGooglewasmoreconcernedwithacquiringmore“information”tosustainitsdominantpositioninthesearchbusinessandavoidinganinfringementclaimthanwithcreatingaphilanthropicserviceforreadersandscholars.Googleapparentlybelievedthatdisplayingworksincopyrightinfulltextaspartofitssearchfunctionwouldbeinfringing,becauseittookstepstodisplaythoseworksonlyin“snippets,”toreturnonlythreesnippetspersearchfromeachwork,andtoblackoutcertainsnippetsandpagesofabook.                                                            7Google’sargumentisnodifferentfromthosemadeandrejectedintwocasesinvolvinglibraries:Diverseyv.Schmidly,738F.3d1196,1202(10thCir.2013)(placingunpublisheddissertationonlibraryshelvesavailabletothepublicwasanunauthorizeddistributiontothepublic);Hotalingv.ChurchofJesusChristofLatter‐DaySaints,118F.3d199,203(4thCir.1997)(holdingthatalibrarydistributesapublishedworkwhenitplacesanunauthorizedcopyoftheworkinitscollection,includesthework’stitleinitscatalogorindexsystem,andmakesthecopyavailabletothepublic);2NimmeronCopyright§8.11[B][4][d]at8‐154.10(2013)(“Noconsummatedactofactualdistributionneedbedemonstrated...toimplicatethecopyrightowner'sdistributionright.");seePeterS.Menell,InSearchofCopyright’sLostArk:InterpretingtheRighttoDistributeintheInternetAge,59J.CopyrightSoc.oftheU.S.A.1,56‐58(2011)(analyzingthelegislativehistoryofthedistributionright,§106(3),andconcludingthatitwasintendedtoinclude“offerstodistribute”previouslyincludedinthe1909CopyrightAct’srightstopublishandvend(emphasisinoriginal)).18Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2504/14/2014120150239Googlealsoexcludedwholecategoriesofworks,suchaspoetry,travelguides,encyclopedias,triviabooks,indexes,etc.Yet,despiteexcludingthemfromalldisplaystousers,Googledoesnotdeletecopiesoftheseworksfromitsdatabase.ItprovidesnoexplanationwhyitmaintainsunauthorizedcopiesofcopyrightedworkswhosedisplayintheLibraryProjectwouldbeinfringing,anditmakesnopromisesaboutwhatitmaydowiththesecopiesinthefuture.TheironyisthatGoogle’sdecisionresultsintheexclusionof“indexes,”eventhoughmostprofessionallypreparedindexeswouldoftenprovidemoreutilitytoreadersandresearchersthanthewordsearchesGoogleoffers.Googleofferscopyrightowners(althoughnotprominentlyorveryclearly)proceduresforexcludingtheirworksfromscanningaspartoftheLibraryprogram8orfornotdisplayingatallbooksthathavebeenscanned9bysubmittingaformthatincludesalistofallworksthatshouldnotbescanned.ThisturnsonitsheadtheusualprocedurebywhichapartyseekingtoexerciseSection106rightsseekstheconsentofthecopyrightownerinadvance.Instead,theburdenisplaceduponthecopyrightowner,whomay                                                            8https://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/3365282?hl‐en&ref_topic_3396243.9https://support.google.com/books/partner/answer/2520009.19Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2604/14/2014120150239notevenbeawareoftheconductuntillongafteritoccurs.Evenifacopyrightownerfollowstheprocedureforexcludingascannedbook,GoogledoesnotagreetoremoveitfromGoogle’sdatabase.AnearlierversionofGoogle’ssupportpagesstatesthat“We'rehappytoremoveyourbookfromoursearchresultsatanytime,”10leavingtheclearimplicationthattheworkremainsinGoogle’sdatabase.3.TheUtilityofaFull‐TextSearchFunctionDoesNotJustifyCopyingOver20MillionBooks.Googlecampaignsfortheutilityofitsfull‐textwordsearches,whichreturnthousandsofwordorphrases,bycomparingthemtothelibrarycatalogueMARCcardspreparedbylibrarians,whichprovidebibliographicandlimitedindexinginformation.Butthiscomparisonoverlooksthemanyprofessionalandmoresophisticatedindicesandguidestobooks,newspapers,literature,andjournals—nonethatinvolveswidespreadcopyrightinfringement—onwhichreadersandresearchershavereliedfordecadesbeforethearrivalofGoogle’sLibraryProject(andstilldo).11                                                            10http://books.google.com/intl/en‐US/googlebooks/publisher_library.html#options4(emphasisadded). 11See,e.g.,ReadersGuidetoPeriodicalLiterature,(H.W.Wilson(availableathttp://www.hwwilsoninprint.com/periodicals.php));GeorgetownLawLibrary’sGuidetoLegalHistoryDatabases(availableathttps://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/).20Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2704/14/2014120150239TheexamplesGoogleofferedthedistrictcourttoshowtheallegedsuperiorityofitsfull‐textsearchmechanismarecontrived.ItobservesthattheLibraryofCongresscardcataloguehasnoentryforthesearchterm,“500PearlStreet”andusingtheword‐searchintheLibraryProjectleadstoinformationaboutaparticularChinesefactoryowneronthesiteinthelate19thcentury.Butasearchinthatsamecataloguefor“NewYorkCity/history”wouldturnupareferencetoGotham,AHistoryofNewYorkCityto1898byEdwinG.BurrowsandMikeWallace,whichwonthe1999PulitzerPrizeforHistory.Thebookhasanextensiveindex,includingalongentryfor“PearlStreet,”andreferencestotheexpansionoftheChinesecommunityintothePearlStreetarea.MuchoftheclaimedutilityoftheLibraryProjectconcernstheabilitytosearchanddiscoverancientorotherwiselong‐forgottentexts.IfmakingsuchbooksavailabletothepublicwasGoogle’struegoal,itcouldhaveworkedwithlibrariestoscanonlybooksinthepublicdomain,whichincludesanythingpublishedbefore1923.Thisapproach—whichGooglerejected—                                                            guides/legalHistory.cfm),includingindexestoseveralforeignanddomesticnewspapers;andtheUniversityofConnecticutLawLibrary’sListofLegalPeriodicalIndexes(U.S.andforeign),includingtheIndextoLegalPeriodicals1908‐1981(availableathttp://library.law.uconn.edu/research‐resources/legal‐periodical‐indexes). 21Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2804/14/2014120150239wouldhavepermittedGoogletocreateavastdatabaseofworkswhilerespectingtherightsofcopyrightowners.Instead,Googlecopiedallbooksasawaytomaximizeitsprofitability,andchosetodisplayworksincopyrightin“snippets,”therebysacrificingutilityinanill‐fatedattempttoavoidinfringementclaims.4.Google’s“UseisofaCommercialNature.”AddressingthequestionofwhetherGoogle’suseisofacommercialnature,thedistrictcourtacknowledgedthat“Googledoes,ofcourse,benefitcommerciallyinthesensethatusersaredrawntotheGooglewebsitesbytheabilitytosearch[themorethan20million]GoogleBooks.”954F.Supp.2dat292‐93.ThisisexactlywhatGoogledescribesastheprincipalsourceofitsincome.Despitethatadmission,thedistrictcourtadoptedverbatimGoogle’sargumentthatit“doesnotengageinthedirectcommercializationofcopyrightedworks,”apparentlybecauseGoogledoesnotincludeadvertisingonthespecific“AboutaBook”pagesofitswebsite.Inotherwords,becauseGooglehasfoundawaytomarketthisparticularsearchfunctionasaphilanthropicbenefitforthepublic,itclaimsthatitisnotcommercializingcopyrightedworks.ThisCourtshouldnotbedistractedbyGoogle’smarketingmessage.22Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 2904/14/2014120150239OfcourseGooglebenefitscommerciallyfromtheadditionofcopiesofover20millionbookstoitssearchdatabase.AsitexplainedtotheSEC(Google10‐Kat3‐4),theadditionofadditional“information”toitssearchdatabaseiswhatattractsmoreandmorepeopletoGoogle—anditsadvertising.AndevenifGoogledoesnotcurrentlyincludeadvertisingonits“AboutaBook”pages,thesearchresultsthatlinktotheseresultsarefullofpaidadvertising,FurthersupportingitsconclusionaboutthecommercialnatureofGoogle’suse,thedistrictcourtreliedonthisCourt’sobservationthat“fairusehasbeenfoundevenwhereadefendantbenefittedcommerciallyfromtheunlicenseduseofcopyrightedworks,”(954F.Supp.2dat291),relyingonBlanchv.Koons,467F.3d244,248,258(2dCir.2006)(defendantusedonlytheimageofawoman’slegfromplaintiff’sphotograph,whichshehadneverlicensed,inanewworkofart);BillGrahamArchives,448F.3dat607,609(ina480‐pagepictorialbiographyoftheGratefulDeadband,publisherincludedforhistoricalcontextreducedimagesofsevenpostersadvertisingtheband’sconcerts);andCastleRockEntm’t,Inc.v.CarolPubl’gGrp.,Inc.,150F.3d132,142,145(2dCir.1998)(findingdefendant’suseoffictionalfactsfromtheSeinfeldTVshowinatrivia‐bookrepackedplaintiff’sworkforthesameaudienceandpreemptedplaintiff’screationofasimilartriviabook).The23Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3004/14/2014120150239commercialcharacterofthedefendants’usesinnoneofthesecasescompareswithGoogle’suseofmultiplecopiesofover20millionbooks,withoutauthorizationorpayment,toprovideadditional“information”foritsmulti‐billiondollarsearchenginebusiness.Thedistrictcourt’ssuggestionthatGoogle’scommercialinterestisnot“direct”isinsupportable;butevenif“indirect,”thecommercialbenefittoGoogleissooverwhelmingthatitshouldresultinafindingofcommercialuse.EveniftheCourtconcludesthatGoogle’sLibraryProjectoffersausefulonlinesearchmechanism,Google’senormousincomefromtheadditionoftensofmillionsofbookstoitssearchdatabaseanditsunauthorizeddistributiontothecontributinglibrariesofdigitalcopiesofthebooksaspaymentforthebooks’rentaldonotjustifytheuncompensateduseofsomanycopyrightedbooks.Thefirstfair‐usefactordoesnotfavorGoogle.B.TheDistrictCourtGaveShortShrifttotheNatureoftheCopyrightedWorks.ThedistrictcourtacknowledgedthatGooglehascopiedallkindsofbooks—fiction,non‐fiction,children’sbooks,cookbooks,etc.Then,becausethecourtconcludedthatthe“vastmajorityofthebooksinGoogleBooks[nottheLibraryProject]arenon‐fiction”(954F.Supp.2dat24),itconcludedthat24Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3104/14/2014120150239thesecondfactorfavoredfairuse.Thisanalysisofthevalueofnon‐fictionworksisdisturbing.Thatnon‐fictionbooksincludefactsandideasdoesnotmeanthatanon‐fictionworkdoesnotalsoincludeextensivecreative,moving,persuasive,andenlighteningexpressionthatiseverybitascopyrightableasisafictionalwork.Thedistrictcourt’sdismissaloffactworkswouldhavebeenlegitimatehadanalmanacbeenatissue,butitisnotjustifiedwhentheworksGooglecopiedincludedawidevarietyofexpressivenon‐fictionworks.ThedistrictcourtalsotooknoaccountatallofthepresenceoffictionalworksinGoogle’sLibraryProject.Evenacceptingthedistrictcourt’sfindingaboutthehighpercentage(93%)ofnon‐fictionworksintheLibraryProject,thisstillmeansthattheother7%ofworksGooglecopiedamounttonearly1.5millionfictionalworks,yetthedistrictcourtmadenomentionoftheminitsanalysisoffactortwo.Beforethisfactorcanbeweighedwiththeothers,itrequiresamoresearchingexamination.C.GoogleCopiesandMaintainsBooksinitsBookDatabaseThatItDoesNotUseintheLibraryProject.Thedistrictcourtconcludedthatthethirdfair‐usefactor—theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedinrelationtothecopyrightedworkasawhole—weighedslightlyinfavoroffairusebasedonthefactthat25Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3204/14/2014120150239full‐textsearchingdependsoncopyingthefulltextandthatGooglelimitstheamountoftextitdisplaysinresponsetoasearch.ThispresumablyreferredtoGoogle’sdisplayofsnippetsforworksthatareincopyright.ThedistrictcourtdidnotexplainwhythedisplayofsnippetsoftextjustifiedcopyinganentireworkandmaintainingitinGoogle’sdatabase.ThedistrictcourtalsocompletelyignoredexamplesofGoogle’spolicyofcopyingandmaintaininginitsdatabasecopiesofworksthatitdoesnotuseatall—thecertaincategoriesofworksGoogleexcludesfromdisplaybecausetheyareshortandcouldberevealedcompletelyinasnippet.Eventhoughtheseworksarenotrevealedtoanyresearcherorreader,Googlestillcopiesandmaintainscopiesoftheminitsdatabase.Similarly,ifanauthorsuccessfullymanagestocompletethepapersnecessarytoexcludeascannedworkfromtheLibraryProject,Googledoesnotexcludetheworkfromitsdatabase;itsimplyexcludesitfromthesearchresults.(Seelinksatnn.8‐10,supra.)NordidGoogleexcludeanyworksfromthecopiesitmadeanddistributedtothelibrariesaspaymentfortheoriginalloanofthebooks.Thethirdfair‐usefactorissupposedtoexaminewhetheraseconduserhasusedmoreofthefirstworkthanwasnecessarytoachieveitsallegedfairuse.Googledoesnotexplain,andthedistrictcourtignored,whyGoogle’s26Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3304/14/2014120150239copyingfarexceedsitsneedsforitsallegedfairuse,aswellasGoogle’sunnecessarydistributionofmillionsofbookstoitslibrarypartners.D.Google’sConductHarmsAuthors.Thedistrictcourt’sanalysisofthefourthfactorfocusedonthepossibilitythattheLibraryProjectwillhelpreaderslocateabook,whichcouldthenleadtoapurchaseofthebookandaneconomicbenefittotheauthor.Butthisassumptionignoresthemanywaysthatbookscanbelocatedwithoutresortingtowidespreadcopyrightinfringement.(Seepp.20‐21&n.11,supra.)Thisassumptionalsoignoresthefactthatmostofthecopyright‐protectedbooksintheLibraryProjectareoutofprintandnotavailableforsale.Byincluding,withoutcompensation,millionsofbooksinitsdatabasethatarenotreadilyavailableforpurchase,Googleincreasedtheperformanceofitssearchresults,butitdidnotbenefitauthors.Italsointerferedwiththedevelopinglicensingmarketforout‐of‐printbooksbecauseGoogleforcedthoselicenseesoutofthemarketwhenitbegancopyingwithoutpayinglicensingfees.(A1299‐1301.)Duetothedominantpositionithasachievedinthemarketplace,Googlehasleftlittleroomforauthorsandpublisherstodeveloppartnershipsandlicensingopportunitiesoftheirown.TheclearestexampleofGoogle’sactionsleadingtoaneconomiclossforauthorsisGoogle’sdecisiontoprovide27Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3404/14/2014120150239librarieswithcompletedigitalcopiesofthebooksGooglescans.Thedistrictcourtwronglyimpliesthatlibrariesareentitledtomakecopiesofbookstheyown(954F.Supp.2dat293),andthusignoredtheselostsales.BecauseGoogleprovidesthesecopiestolibraries(aspaymentfromGooglefortherighttocopythebooksinthefirstplace),librarieshavenoincentivetopurchaseorlicensedigitalcopiesofthebooksfromthecopyrightowners,suchasthroughprint‐on‐demandprogramsorotherprogramsthatallowauthorstosellorlicenseout‐of‐printbooks.Incontrasttothemodelofallowingafor‐profitcompanytodigitizemillionsofbooksforitsowngain,manylibrariesandnon‐profitsoutsidetheUnitedStateshaveworkedwithauthorsandpublisherstomakedigitalcopiesofbooksavailableonline.Theseefforts—suchastheGallicaprojectwhichhasmadeover1,600,000documentsand320,000booksinFrenchavailableonlinethroughtheNationalLibraryofFrance—havebeenaccomplishedwhilerespectingnationalcopyrightlaws.Seewww.bnf.fr/en/collections_and_services/digital_libraries_gallica/a.gallica_experimentation_digital_offer.html.ThedistrictcourtalsoignoredthethreattoauthorsposedbythepotentiallossofthedigitalcopiesofbooksGoogledistributedtolibraries.954F.Supp.2dat287.WhileGooglemaybeconfidentofitsownabilityto28Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3504/14/2014120150239securecopiesofbooksonitsservers,noevidencesupportsthatconclusionforGoogle’slibrarypartners.AsecuritybreachofGoogleoritslibrarypartnerscouldresultinthedistributionofelectroniccopiesofmillionsofcopyrightedbooks,therebydestroyingthemarketforelectroniccopiesoftheseworks.Authorsshouldhaveatleasttherighttoparticipateintheoversightofprocedurestoprovidesecurityandpreventtheftandpiracyoftheirworks.ThedistrictcourtdidnotconsiderotheradverseconsequencesofGoogle’sLibraryProject.WhenGooglecopiesanddisplaysnumerousprioreditionsofbooksthatarefrequentlyupdated,suchastextbooks,Googlecanmisleaditsusers—andharmthereputationofauthors—bypresentinginformationthatisstaleornolongeraccurate.Inaddition,usingsomanyauthors’worksasthesubjectoffree,onlinesearchingmayhavetheeffectoffosteringthebelief(ifithasnotdonesoalready)thattheseworksareorshouldbeavailableforfree.Whilethismaybeanunintendedconsequenceofthegeneralavailabilityofmaterialontheinternet,Google’sveryprominentBooksProgram,whichitpromotesasapublicgood(despiteGoogle’sfinancialrewards)givesrisetoanassumptionofanentitlementtofreeaccesstocopyrightedworks.Thedistrictcourtconsiderednoneoftheseissues,underminingitsconclusionthatthefourthfair‐usefactorfavorsGoogle.29Case: 13-4829E.Document: 73Page: 3604/14/2014120150239GoogleCannotJustifyitsUseofWorksintheLibraryProject.Todecidethiscase,theCourtmustconsiderallthemanyfactorsthatweighoneithersideoftheequationtodeterminewhetherGooglehasborneitsburdenofshowingthatitsuseofcopyrightedworksaspartoftheLibraryProjectisjustified.12Google(andthedistrictcourt)oftenconfusetheworksthatareatstakebyreferringto“GoogleBooks,”whichincludesworksinthePartnersProgram.OnonesideofthatbalanceisGoogle’sclaimthatitsLibraryProjecthelpsusersidentifyandlocatebooks.ThisCourtmustconsiderwhetherthepublicbenefitsuchaprojectmayhaveisjustifiedbytheharmtocopyrightownersifGoogle’sLibraryProjectissanctionedasafairuse.Ontheothersideoftheequationisthefollowing:(1)Google,oneofthelargesttechnologycompaniesintheworld,hasmadeunauthorizedcopiesofmillionsofbooksforitsowncommercialbenefit.(2)Withoutauthoritytodoso,Googlehasdistributedunauthorizeddigitalcopiestoeach                                                            ThisbalancingdoesnotinvolveanyoftheworksinthePartnersProgram,whicharegovernedbycontract.AtissueherearecopyrightedworksthatGoogledisplaysinsnippets,worksGooglehasdecidedtoexcludebecauseitdeemstheworkstooshorttobedisplayedevenassnippets,andworksexcludedbyauthorswhohavedirectedGoogletoremovetheirworksfromtheLibraryProject.Butthesemillionsof“excluded”worksremaininGoogle’sbookdatabase.12  30Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3704/14/2014120150239libraryofallthebooksitreceivedfromthoselibraries,disavowingbycontractanyresponsibilityforthelibraries’usesofthoseunauthorizedcopies(A601at¶10.1).(3)ThemerepresenceofGoogle’sroyalty‐freeprogramhasdestroyedpotentiallicensingopportunitiesforauthors.(4)Thecreationofmillionsofdigitizedcopiesforitselfandthelibrarieshascreatedsecurityrisksconcerningthecontrolofthosedigitalcopies.(5)Google’sdisplayoftextdisembodiedfromitsoriginalcontextdevaluestheoriginalworksandfuelsthenotionthatcreativeworksarecommoditiesavailableforotheruses.And(6),despitebeingacompanythathascreatedenormouswealthbydevelopingnewwaystodeliveradvertisingtousers,Googlehasmadenorepresentationsabouthowitwillseektoprofitfurtherfromthevastdatabaseofcopyrightedworksithascreated.Giventhisunequalbalanceofcompetingfactors,GooglecannotjustifyitsmammothLibraryProject.ThisCourtshouldnotfallvictimtoGoogle’sattempttoavoidthelimitsofthelawbypresentingthebroader“BooksProgram”asafaitaccomplithatistoobigtofail.NoexampleoffairuseallowsthedegreeofcopyingundertakenbyGoogle.TheLibraryProjectisnotthetypeofcreativeauthorshipthefairusedoctrinewasdesignedtoprotect,andthedistrict31Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3804/14/2014120150239court’sefforttostretchthefairusedoctrinebeyonditslimitsshouldnotbesustained.CONCLUSIONFortheforegoingreasons,thedistrictcourt’sordergrantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorofGoogleshouldbereversed.NewYork,NewYorkApril14,2014Respectfullysubmitted,______s/GloriaC.Phares____________GloriaC.PharesChristopherM.StrongHOFFMANNMARSHALLSTRONGLLP116West23rdStreet,Suite500NewYork,NY10011(646)741‐4503AttorneysforAmiciCuriaeAuthors32Case: 13-4829Document: 73Page: 3904/14/2014120150239CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCEThisbriefcomplieswiththetype‐volumelimitationofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)because,excludingthepartsofthebriefexemptedbyFed.R.App.P.32(a)(7)(B)(iii),itcontains6959wordsasmeasuredbytheword‐processingsystemusedtopreparethebrief(MicrosoftWord);andThisbriefcomplieswiththetypefacerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(5)andthetypestylerequirementsofFed.R.App.P.32(a)(6)becauseithasbeenpreparedinaproportionallyspacedtypeface,14‐pointCambria._______/s/GloriaC.Phares___________GloriaC.PharesAttorneysforAmiciCuriaeAuthorsDated:April14,201433