Google Books vs. the Authors Guild: Milestones and Impact
Copyright is a vital part of the creative process. The idea that people maintain legal rights over their intellectual properties allows creators to safely share their work without fear that someone will dishonestly claim or profit from it.
Compromising these laws has severe consequences that can disrupt multiple industries, including entertainment, technology, and reporting.
Google Books vs the Authors Guild was a significant case whose decision would significantly affect copyright law in the digital age. It was even more influential due to Google's looming presence in the online landscape, raising critical concerns about the company's rights and fair use.
What is the Authors Guild?
The Authors Guild is the largest organization of writers in the United States. Its mission is to support writers, their creations, and their ability to maintain a living through the craft. The Authors Guild primarily acts in cases of copyright and compensation to defend writers in all industries.
Members gain access to legal advice, contract reviews, community feedback, and many other perks. This role forced the Authors Guild into action and filed a class action lawsuit against Google when the latter started to create an online library that included copyrighted works.
Why the Case Began
In 2004, Google partnered with esteemed research libraries to create digital copies of written works. The initial partners included places like the Harvard University Library, the New York Public Library, and the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
Google scanned books from the partner's collections, creating digital copies for the libraries' online services. The agreement also built a database that allowed users to read small portions of the scanned books through Google's search tool.
Many of the scanned books were still protected by copyright, and Google did not seek explicit permission from copyright holders to add books to its index. So, the guild acted on behalf of countless authors and filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit started by addressing how Google's actions infringed on authors' exclusive rights to decide how their work is used. However, the discussion evolved to cover a variety of issues, including reader privacy and fair use—a legal doctrine allowing limited use of copyrighted material without permission under certain conditions.
Major Milestones in the Case
2005 - 2007: Authors Guild Files a Class Action
The Authors Guild initiated a class action lawsuit against Google in the Library Partner Project. The guild cited "massive copyright infringement" as the Cause of Action, demanding an injunction preventing Google from scanning copyrighted materials.
Google responded with fair use claims, arguing that the scans complied with section 107 of the copyright act as its purpose was research and education. The company also stated that the database was just a digital version of already existing library management tools like card catalogs.
The next month, the Association of American Publishers filed a lawsuit against Google for copyright infringement. This act brought both the creative and business sides of writing into the fight. Both cases were taken to the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.
2008: Proposed Settlement Agreement
Google and the Authors Guild reached a proposed settlement after three years. The agreement required that Google pay $125 million to resolve the problems created by proceeding without the copyright holder's permission. The total amount was split between the following categories:
- $45 million for impacted authors and publishers
- $34.5 million to create the Book Rights Registry
- $45 million to publishers' and authors' legal fees
The primary goal of this settlement was to turn Google's mistake into a force for good. It aimed to compensate writers for their works' inclusion in the database while still providing libraries with digital copies through view-only licenses.
Any profits made from Google's use of this database would be split 37:63, with the greater percentage going to authors and publishers. The settlement also allowed copyright holders to opt-out of the service with an eighteen-month window.
2009: Opposition and Rejection
The 2008 settlements sparked severe backlash from academic institutions, other publishers, and the Department of Justice. Prominent author Ursula Le Guin even withdrew from the Authors Guild over the terms.
The most prominent criticism was that the settlement set a poor and dangerous precedent regarding fair use. Google had too much leeway in deciding how copyrighted works were used in their database, with only minimal interaction with the legal owners.
Other issues arose that weren't previously considered. Google's power to collect and record reader activity threatened personal privacy. Additionally, the database had too much power over the censorship of ideas, being able to remove or add content on a whim.
In particular, the DOJ and public interest groups feared that the settlement would give Google a monopoly in the literary field. The search giant's already substantial power in the online space would make it nearly impossible for new competitors to threaten its position.
These factors pressured Google and the Authors Guild to withdraw the terms and draft an amended agreement.
2009 – 2011: A Second Settlement and Second Rejection
The two parties returned to court under a dark cloud, both harmed by the settlement. Eager to avoid a prolonged legal battle, an amended settlement was offered only a month after the previous iteration was withdrawn.
The new settlement was a response to the most vehement complaints and included the following changes:
- Limited the inclusion of foreign books
- Improved safeguards against corruption in the Books Rights Registry
- Restrict access to reader information and regularly delete logs
- Grant copyright holders the power to negotiate revenue shares
At this point, Judge John E. Sprizzo had passed away, leaving Judge Denny Chin to reject the settlement in March 2011. His objections were based on the belief that the new settlement still did not sufficiently address the antitrust and foreign IP concerns. In his official judgment, Judge Chin states the following:
"The question presented is whether the ASA [Amended Settlement Agreement] is fair, adequate, and reasonable. I conclude that it is not."
2012 - 2016: Jury Trial, Decision, and Appeals
The rejection of the second settlement pushed the case into class-action status, with Judge Denny Chin presiding. Google filed for an appeal with the Federal Second Circuit the following year, successfully reverting the case into a fair use trial rather than a class-action for injury.
Under these conditions, Judge Chin ruled that Google's scans met the conditions for fair use. He stated that the digitization of library resources provided substantial public benefits without causing undue harm to copyright owners.
The Authors Guild appealed to higher courts, but the decision was unanimously upheld, and further appeals to the Supreme Court review were declined. This ended the decade-spanning dispute.
In summary, the courts' decisions broke down into the following points:
- Google Books would improve book sales and benefit authors
- Scans have a transformative purpose with the database's supporting functionality
- Copyright-protected books were not accessible in their entirety for free
- The service provided a public good for advancing research and literary preservation
Google Books vs the Authors Guild Case Impact
Google Books vs. the Authors Guild was a landmark case that affected not only the literary world but all creative endeavors related to fair use. The final decision reaffirmed the American legal system's inclination toward broad fair use interpretations in matters concerning the public good.
Libraries and online archive services saw the decision as tacit approval to initiate mass digitization of various media. They acted with the impunity provided by the term "preservation" and rapidly expanded their collections.
Additionally, this event was one of the first legal battles that dealt with the transformation of physical to digital media and how businesses were allowed to influence that change. Businesses learned that their projects that benefit creators were more favorable viewed in court.
For the literary world, this defeat caused publishers to lose confidence in countering online monopolies. The current online retail behemoth, Amazon, has an insurmountable command of the book market.
Amazon has used this power to control prices and punish authors and publishers by removing their products from the platform. Currently, publishers are scared to fight back due to previous court losses, including the Authors Guild case.
References
Brooke, R. (2023, February 24). Fair Use Week 2023: Looking Back at Google Books Eight Years Later. Authors Alliance. https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/24/fair-use-week-2023-looking-back-at-google-books-eight-years-later/​
Justia. (n.d.). Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-4829/13-4829-2015-10-16.html​Justia Law+1Association of Research Libraries+1
The Authors Guild. (2008, October 28). $125 Million Settlement in Authors Guild v. Google. https://authorsguild.org/news/125-million-settlement-in-authors-guild-v-google/​
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use. Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107​Legal Information Institute+1GovInfo+1
The Saint. (2025, April 5). How One Author Undermined Amazon's Monopoly. https://www.thesaint.scot/post/how-one-author-undermined-amazon-s-monopoly