## Facts

- Google partnered with major research libraries beginning in 2004 to scan millions of books, including in-copyright books written by members of The Authors Guild and named authors.
- Google created full digital copies to build a text-searchable index that lets users search across books for words or terms.
- For in-copyright books, Google displayed only limited “snippet” results showing brief text segments around search terms, with technical limits (including permanently blocked portions) that made reconstruction of full books impractical.
- Google provided participating libraries with digital copies of the books they supplied, under agreements requiring uses consistent with copyright law.
- The Authors Guild and individual authors sued, alleging infringement based on (i) scanning and copying entire books, (ii) maintaining a searchable database, (iii) snippet display, and (iv) provision of digital files to libraries.
- After a rejected proposed settlement and a vacated class certification, the district court entered summary judgment for Google on fair use, and the authors appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Google’s copying of entire books to create a searchable index and display limited snippets constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.
2. Whether providing participating libraries with digital copies of scanned books creates direct or contributory copyright infringement liability for Google.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Google.
- The court held that Google’s digitization of books, creation of a search function, and snippet display were non-infringing fair uses.
- The court held that Google’s provision of digital copies to participating libraries, under agreements limiting use to lawful purposes, did not constitute infringement.
- The court rejected contributory infringement based on speculative possibilities that libraries might later misuse their copies.

## Legal Principles

- A use may be fair where copying is for a strongly transformative purpose—such as enabling search and providing information about texts—without offering a meaningful substitute for reading the works.
- Commercial motivation does not bar fair use; it is weighed within the first statutory factor and may be outweighed by transformative character and limited substitution risk.
- Copying an entire work can be consistent with fair use when the complete copying is reasonably necessary to achieve the transformative function, especially where public display is tightly limited.
- Market-effect analysis focuses on substitution and cognizable harm to traditional or likely markets; asserted licensing markets for transformative functions are given limited weight where recognition would effectively grant rightsholders control over socially beneficial informational uses.
- Providing copies to third parties does not establish contributory liability absent more than conjecture of downstream infringement, particularly where contractual and practical measures aim at lawful use.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that Google Books’ full-text scanning to enable search and its limited snippet display were fair use, and that supplying digital copies to partner libraries under lawful-use restrictions did not create direct or contributory infringement liability.


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