Google wins copyright suit thanks to Google Books’ public benefit
Chin cited precedents allowing fair use to to fulfill copyright's very purpose, [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
November 15, 2013 at 06:15 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Google Books lives on, says to a Nov. 14 U.S. district court ruling, and it has the service's public benefit to thank.
A federal judge ruled in favor of Google in an eight-year old class action suit bought by numerous authors who felt that Google violated their copyright through its Google Books service. Google Books has provided digital copies of over 20 million books since the company began the service in 2004.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan said that Google Books's public benefit outweighs the cost of any copyright issues. “Google Books provides significant public benefits,” Chin wrote. “It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.”
The judge also noted that Google Books could actually help authors rather than hurting them, saying, “Google Books provides a way for authors' works to become noticed, much like traditional in-store book displays,” according to the opinion. “Many authors have noted that online browsing in general and Google Books in particular helps readers find their work, thus increasing their audiences.”
Chin cited multiple “fair use” precedents in his ruling, most notably Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which allows fair use to “to fulfill copyright's very purpose, '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,'” as well as holding, “[f]rom the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose.”
The class action was seeking $750 for every illegally copied book in the Google system, which would have been a hefty sum had the judge not ruled in Google's favor. Chin previously rejected a $125 million settlement in the case in 2011. Lawyers for the authors said they plan to appeal.
If the ruling stands, Google Books could be a key in cementing even further dominance of the online search market. “It helps them continue to maintain a lead in indexing knowledge,” said Danny Sullivan, founding editor of SearchEngineLand.com, to Bloomberg. “Google Books allows us to search books in the same way we can search across the entire Web and who wouldn't think that that's a benefit for everyone?”
For more InsideCounsel news on the search giant Google, check out these stories:
A federal judge ruled in favor of
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge
The judge also noted that
Chin cited multiple “fair use” precedents in his ruling, most notably Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which allows fair use to “to fulfill copyright's very purpose, '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,'” as well as holding, “[f]rom the infancy of copyright protection, some opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has been thought necessary to fulfill copyright's very purpose.”
The class action was seeking $750 for every illegally copied book in the
If the ruling stands,
For more InsideCounsel news on the search giant
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250