The users alleged a number of federal and state law violations by Google. The district court dismissed all claims against Google. The Third Circuit reversed as to the California Constitution privacy and California tort law intrusion upon seclusion claims. This post discusses only those two state law claims.
Continue reading “State Law Privacy Claims Still Baking in Google Cookie Suit”
Authors of published books under copyright sued Google for copyright infringement, alleging that Google’s book copying activities for Google’s Library Project and Google Books project infringe the authors’ copyrights. In Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, authors alleged that the HathiTrust violated the authors’ copyrights by allowing Google to electronically scan HathiTrust members’ book collections and create a repository of the scanned works. The Second Circuit ruled in that HathiTrust’s activities were fair uses. It’s no surprise, then, that the Second Circuit also ruled in this case, Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., that Google’s activities were fair uses. The Second Circuit’s ruling in the Google case is closely related, but not identical, to its ruling in HathiTrust. My post, HathiTrust Book Scanning Ruled Fair Use, discusses the Second Circuit’s ruling in HathiTrust.
The opinion in the Authors Guild v. Google case was written by Second Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval. Judge Leval created the transformative use test as a way of determining whether a later work made fair use of a preceding work. He described the transformative use test in his law review article, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court frequently referred to Judge Leval’s law review article in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). In Campbell, the Supreme Court adopted the transformative use test in ruling that 2 Live Crew’s commercial parody of Roy Orbison’s song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” was a fair use.
Continue reading “Google’s Book Digitizing Activities Ruled Fair Use”
The Second Circuit began its opinion with its intriguing ruling:
The primary question presented is whether an unauthorized work that makes ‘fair use’ of its source material may itself be protected by copyright.
We hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge), that, if the creator of an unauthorized work stays within the bounds of fair use and adds sufficient originality, she may claim protection under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 103, for her original contributions.
Continue reading “Fair Use Protects Copyright Holder of Unauthorized Parody”