.png){kind=logo}
In a major ruling with significant ramifications for copyright law, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of publishers on Wednesday. The court upheld an earlier decision finding the Internet Archive liable for copyright infringement for its distribution of digital copies of books without the permission of publishers.
The decision closes one of the most-watched copyright cases to come before the courts in recent years, dating back to 2020 when four of the biggest publishers, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House, filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive.
The case involved the Internet Archive's "National Emergency Library," launched at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made more than 100 digital books free to the public. Some of those were written by renowned authors such as Toni Morrison and J.D. Salinger. The publishers said that the Archive distributed these books without the correct licensing, a violation of copyright law.
In response, the Internet Archive invoked the doctrine of fair use, which allows for limited use without authorization of works protected by copyright. However, the court's judgment rejected this outright. Even assuming that an emergency library created under a pandemic might justify scanning and distributing full books, the court said it did not constitute fair use.
"Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act, as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no," the appellate court ruled in agreement with the earlier judgment of the district court.
This confirms the permanent injunction issued by the US District Court in Manhattan in 2023, which had already ruled in favor of the publishers.
Maria Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, called the decision a landmark win for publishing and authors' rights. "Today's appellate decision upholds the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest," said Pallante.
By contrast, however, the Internet Archive was not pleased with the ruling. "We are reviewing the court's opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books," said Chris Freeland, the Internet Archive's director of library services in a statement. The archive reiterates its mission of making information available to the public despite the legal setback.
This ruling represents
another milestone in the long-running debate over lending digital books, copyright law, and fair use within the digital age. While publishers hail a significant legal victory in a test case, that broader discussion about the rights of digital libraries to provide access to books in a way that does not infringe on copyright law is far from over.
