Authors Guild, Inc. v. Hathitrust

Filing 11

FORM C, on behalf of Appellant Australian Society Of Authors Limited, Australian Society Of Authors Limited, Authors Guild, Inc., Authors League Fund, Inc., Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society, Pat Cummings, Pat Cummins, Erik Grundstrom, Angelo Loukakis, Norsk Faglitteraer Forfatter0OG Oversetterforening, Roxana Robinson, Helge Ronning, Andre Roy, Jack R. Salamanca, James Shapiro, James Shapiro, Daniele Simpson, Danielle Simpson, T.J. Stiles, Sveriges Forfattarforbund, Union Des Ecrivaines Et Des Ecrivains Quebecois, Fay Weldon and Writers' Union of Canada, FILED. Service date 11/27/2012 by CM/ECF.[779275] [12-4547]

ADDENDUM B
Issues Proposed To Be Raised On Appeal
•

Did the District Court err in deciding that Defendants-Appellees could
avoid judicial scrutiny of their Orphan Works Project that was on the
verge of distributing unauthorized digital versions of copyrightprotected books, including books whose copyrights were held by
living authors, easily findable heirs and charitable organizations, and
represented by major literary agencies, by merely "suspending" (but
not ending) the Project after this litigation was commenced?
Review: De Novo

•

Did the District Court err in ruling that Defendants-Appellees' actions
connected to their mass book digitization venture with Google,
through which millions of copyright-protected library books were
digitized, copied, stored and used without the permission of their
authors or other rights owners, constituted fair use under the
Copyright Act?
Standard of Review: De Novo

•

Did the District Court err in holding that Section 501(b) of the
Copyright Act precludes an association of authors from seeking to
enjoin a group of universities from digitizing and making various uses
of copyright-protected books without the permission of the books'
authors, including authors who are members of the association, or
other rights owners?
Review: De Novo

•

Did the District Court err in holding that Defendants-Appellees' mass
digitization activities are peimitted under Section 121 of the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 121?
Review: De Novo

171(KS 471403.vt

5

19894 500