That earlier matter stemmed from a lawsuit by the Authors Guild against the HathiTrust – a joint digital book-storage project of 13 universities, including the University of Michigan, the University of California at Berkeley, Cornell University and the University of Indiana, that worked with Google to digitize books.
Google told PCMag that it is “pleased the court has confirmed that the project is fair use, acting like a card catalog for the digital age”. So unless The Authors Guild, which originally sued Google in 2005, wants to appeal to the US Supreme Court, Google has won.
“The public show of textual content is restricted, and the revelations don’t present a big market substitute for the protected points of the originals”, the court stated. He is also VP of Strategy and Insights for the Local Search Association.
But the court dismissed these arguments, as a result of Google would exclusively make out there “details about” the books, and “snippets” from them, with out permitting entry to substantial elements of the books.
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The judges based their decision in large part on the constraints Google places on snippet viewing, which they found as now structured does not offer digitized works as effective substitutes for print editions that individuals or libraries would need to purchase. Instead, the three-judge panel affirmed a District Court judgment in 2013 that the online-search service does not violate intellectual property law because it provides “several important educational purposes”. “While Google makes an unauthorized digital copy of the entire book, it does not reveal that digital copy to the public”, the opinion states. At one point, the parties came to a $125 million settlement, but it was rejected by the judge as unfair to class members. That win has now been upheld by the appeals court.
The Authors Guild has not made any comments regarding the case. With no licensing requirement, any competitor who can muster sufficient resources and relationships with libraries could create an alternative to Google Books.
Federal appeals court rules Google’s massive online library does not violate