googlehqRead the Reuters and AP stories. Oh, the glories of fair use.

Thing is, the Authors Guild might even have hurt some of its members if the AG had prevailed against Google—given the importance of fair use in the researching and writing of books. Not to mention other purposes such as news reporting!

Granted, quoting people within fair use for biographies and other books is not exactly the same as Google-style snippeting. But I hate to see fair use weakened in any way.

“Google has constructed the snippet feature in a manner that substantially protects against its serving as an effectively competing substitute for plaintiffs’ books,” Judge Pierre N. Leval wrote for the court.

Related: Yes, Authors Guild, writers are screwed—here’s what to do about it.

Photo credit: Brionv. CC licensed.


  1. I think the AG is hurting its members by continuing with these silly lawsuits. Had they cut a deal from the beginning that would have paid authors a small royalty every time one of their works was accessed (could have been based on quantity or some other metric) the authors would have benefited as would the public since Google wanted to digitize everything. Under the current scheme supported by the AG, nothing gets digitized and the authors get nothing. The only people to come out ahead in this whole mess are the AG lawyers.

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail