## Facts

- Scientific and technical journal publishers, as copyright holders or exclusive licensees, sued Texaco Inc. for unauthorized photocopying of journal articles.
- Texaco subscribed to plaintiffs’ journals for use in corporate research laboratories and maintained library copies that circulated among researchers.
- Researchers commonly photocopied individual articles from the library’s journal issues and kept the copies in personal laboratory files for ongoing reference; originals were returned to the library.
- The case used copying by one Texaco scientist, Dr. Donald Chickering, as representative of broader company practice, including copying of eight journal articles.
- A licensing system for institutional photocopying existed (including through the Copyright Clearance Center), but Texaco generally did not obtain photocopying licenses and asserted fair use.

## Issues

1. Whether Texaco’s unauthorized photocopying of scientific journal articles by corporate research employees for internal research files qualified as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination, on interlocutory review, that Texaco’s photocopying was not fair use.
- The court treated the copying as commercial and part of a systematic practice that multiplied usable copies while avoiding payment.
- The court found the copying non-transformative because it merely duplicated articles for convenient access in the same informational use as the originals.
- The court weighed the factual nature of the works modestly in Texaco’s favor but found it insufficient to overcome the other factors.
- The court held that copying entire articles weighed against fair use.
- The court concluded the fourth factor strongly favored the publishers because unlicensed copying substituted for, and harmed, existing or developing markets for permissions and additional subscriptions.
- A dissent would have credited the research context more heavily and questioned the asserted market harm.

## Legal Principles

- Fair use under § 107 requires case-specific balancing of four statutory factors; no single factor is dispositive, but market effect can carry substantial weight.
- Copying by a for-profit entity for internal business use is generally commercial for fair-use analysis, even if undertaken by researchers.
- Making photocopies of articles for convenience, storage, or ready reference is not transformative where the copies serve the same purpose as the originals.
- Copying an entire work (or the entirety of an article) generally weighs against fair use, particularly when practical alternatives such as licenses or additional subscriptions are available.
- Unlicensed copying that acts as a substitute for transactions in an established or likely-to-be-developed permissions market can constitute cognizable market harm under the fourth factor.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Texaco’s systematic, unauthorized photocopying of entire scientific journal articles for researchers’ internal files in a commercial research setting was not fair use because it was non-transformative, copied complete works, and materially impaired subscription and permissions markets.


Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995)