Internet Archive Loses Major Copyright Case Court Rejects Their Arguments

The Internet Archive has lost a critical legal battle, potentially affecting the future of internet history. Today, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided against the long-running digital archive, affirming a previous decision in Hachette v. Internet Archive, which determined that one of the Internet Archive’s book digitization initiatives infringed copyright law.

Notably, the appeals court’s ruling rejects the Internet Archive’s argument that its lending practices were shielded by the fair use doctrine, which permits for copyright infringement in certain circumstances, calling  it “unpersuasive.”

In March 2020, the Internet Archive, a San Francisco-based nonprofit, launched the National Emergency Library, or NEL. The epidemic had forced library closures that prevented students, scholars, and readers from accessing millions of books, and the Internet Archive has stated that it was answering to calls from common people and other librarians to assist individuals at home in obtaining the books they required.

The NEL was an extension of the Open Library, an ongoing digital lending experiment in which the Internet Archive scans physical copies of library books and allows individuals to borrow digital versions as if they were conventional reading material rather than e-books. The Open Library lent the books to one person at a time—but the NEL eliminated this ratio requirement, allowing a large number of people to borrow each scanned book at once.

Shortly after its inception, the NEL faced criticism, with some authors claiming that it amounted to piracy. In response, after two months, the Internet Archive abandoned its emergency strategy and imposed lending caps. But the harm had been done. Major publishing giants, including Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, filed the complaint in June 2020.

In March 2023, the district court found in favour of the publishers. Judge John G. Koeltl determined that the Internet Archive had created “derivative works,” claiming that its copying and lending had “nothing transformative” to offer. Following the initial verdict in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the parties reached an agreement, the specifics of which have not been released; however, the archive has filed an appeal.

According to James Grimmelmann, a professor of digital and internet law at Cornell University, the ruling is “not terribly surprising” in light of recent court interpretations of fair use.

Internet Archive won the appeal

The Internet Archive won the appeal, but only narrowly. Although the Second Circuit upheld the district court’s first decision, it underlined that it did not regard the Internet Archive as a commercial business, emphasising that it was clearly a charitable organisation. Grimmelmann believes this is the appropriate decision: “I’m glad to see that the Second Circuit fixed that mistake.” (He joined an amicus brief in the appeal, saying that classifying the use as commercial was incorrect.)

“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,” Association of American Publishers president and CEO Maria A. Pallante said in a statement.

“If there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that under fair use jurisprudence there is nothing transformative about converting entire works into new formats without permission or appropriating the value of derivative works that are a key part of the author’s copyright bundle.”

In a statement, Internet Archive director of library services Chris Freeland expressed dismay with “today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are electronically available elsewhere.” We are reviewing the court’s decision and will continue to defend libraries’ right to own, lend, and preserve books.

Dave Hansen, executive director of the Author’s Alliance, a nonprofit organisation that frequently advocates for increased digital access to books, also spoke out against the verdict. “The authors are researchers. “Authors read,” he says. “IA’s digital library assists authors in creating new works and encourages their desire to have their works read. This verdict may boost the bottom lines of the largest publishers and most well-known authors, but it will harm more people than it will help.

Difficult period for copyright law

The Internet Archive’s legal problems are not ended. In 2023, a collection of music labels, including Universal Music collection and Sony, sued the archive for copyright infringement on a music digitization project. That case is still working its way through the courts. The damages might total up to $400 million, posing an existential danger to the nonprofit.

The new ruling comes at a particularly difficult period for copyright law. There have been scores of copyright infringement cases filed against large AI businesses that provide generative AI tools in the last two years, and many of the defendants contend that the fair use doctrine protects their use of copyrighted data in AI training. Any big lawsuit in which judges reject fair use grounds is widely monitored.

It also comes at a time when the Internet Archive’s critical role in digital preservation is becoming increasingly apparent. The archive’s Wayback Machine, which catalogues website copies, has proven to be an invaluable resource for journalists, scholars, lawyers, and anybody interested in internet history. While there are other digital preservation programs, including national efforts by the US Library of Congress, there is nothing comparable available to the public.