Test –On Friday 24 March the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York granted summary judgement for publishers Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House, and rejected the summary judgement request from the Internet Archive. In layman’s terms, the Court upheld the publishers’ that their exclusive rights had been infringed and rejected IA’s argument that they could continue business as usual under the cover of US-style ‘Fair use’.

Reacting to the judgement José Borghino, IPA Secretary General, said: Given the enormous significance of this case to the global publishing industry, the IPA is deeply heartened by the comprehensive judgement of the US Court. Its firm backing of basic copyright principles is particularly comforting. IPA affirmed these principles in our Amicus brief to the Court, along with additional concerns about the United States’ international treaty obligations to uphold copyright protections on the Internet.

Maria A. Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers said: The publishing community is grateful to the Court for its unequivocal affirmation of the Copyright Act and respect for established precedent. In rejecting arguments that would have pushed fair use to illogical markers, the Court has underscored the importance of authors, publishers, and creative markets in a global society. In celebrating the opinion, we also thank the thousands of public libraries across the country that serve their communities everyday through lawful eBook licenses. We hope the opinion will prove educational to the defendant and anyone else who finds public laws inconvenient to their own interests.

The member companies of the Association of American Publishers had officially filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Internet Archive on June 1, 2020.

The judgement followed over 90 minutes of oral arguments which had been heard by Judge Koeltl on Monday 20 March 2023. In several filings, the publishers documented the considerable and consistent precedent—in multiple circuits—against unauthorized copying and public distribution, particularly when it comes to transmitting entire creative works worldwide without a license and in direct competition with established markets.

At stake are the livelihoods of authors and the statutory incentives and protections that make creative works possible in the first place.

Key points made by publishers’ counsel and/or amicus curiae in the litigation can be found in the AAP’s statement following oral arguments here. To read Maria Pallante’s reflections on the judgement, click here.