The Act defines derivative works "largely by example, rather than explanation." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 215 (2d Cir. 2015) (hereinafter "Google Books"). Those examples include "translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."

Fox does not challenge on appeal the dismissal (on summary judgment) of its claims alleging "hot news" misappropriation and "direct competition" misappropriation.This appeal shares features with our decision in Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015) (" Google Books"). That case held that Google's creation of a text-searchable database of millions of books (including books under copyright) was a fair use because Google's service was "transformative" and because integral features protected the rights of copyright holders. However, we cautioned that the case "test[ed] the boundaries of fair use."

Authorship is irrelevant to this test. See 17 U.S.C. § 107 (listing the factors relevant to a fair-use determination, authorship not among them, and singling out the making of "multiple copies for classroom use" as a potential fair use); Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282, 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that digital scanning of books, rendering them searchable and displaying "snippets" to the general searching public, was permissible fair use), aff'd sub nom. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). The Court evaluates below the statutory fair use factors to determine whether the Joint Moving Defendants' use of the 2001 Documentary was fair.

These examples are easily understood: the book review excerpting a passage of a novel in order to comment upon it serves a manifestly different purpose from the novel itself. See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , 804 F.3d 202, 215-16 (2d Cir. 2015) ("[C]opying from an original for the purpose of criticism or commentary on the original ... tends most clearly to satisfy Campbell's notion of the ‘transformative’ purpose involved in the analysis of Factor One.").

The first and fourth factors are most important. See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 213-14 (3d Cir. 2015).

953 F.2d 731, 735 (2d Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). See, e.g., Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 229 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, finding fair use was established); Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73, 77 (2d Cir. 2014), as amended (affirming district court's sua sponte grant of summary judgment to defendants, finding fair use). DISCUSSION

While a transformative use is " ‘not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use,’ ... transformative uses tend to favor a fair use finding because a transformative use is one that communicates something new and different from the original or expands its utility, thus serving copyright's overall objective of contributing to public knowledge." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Campbell , 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164 ). Thus, copying from an original for the purpose of criticism or commentary on the original or to provide information about it, tends most clearly to satisfy the notion of the ‘transformative’ purpose involved in the analysis of factor one.

The doctrine of fair use has its roots in the "ultimate goal" of copyright law—that is, "to expand public knowledge and understanding, [a goal] which copyright seeks to achieve by giving potential creators exclusive control over copying of their works, thus giving them a financial incentive to create informative, intellectually enriching works for public consumption." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 212 (2d Cir. 2015). Implied in this objective is the principle that "while authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship."

Similarly, a secondary use may be transformative if it provides information about the original, "or expands its utility." Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , 804 F.3d 202, 214 (2d Cir. 2015) (" Google Books"). Examples of such utility-expanding transformative fair uses have included scanning books to create a full-text searchable database and public search function (in a manner that did not allow users to read the texts), Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust , 755 F.3d 87, 97-98 (2d Cir. 2014) ; copying works into a database used to detect plagiarism, A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) ; displaying tiny, low-resolution "thumbnail" reproductions of art works to provide links serving as Internet pathways to the appropriate websites containing the originals, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) ; Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. , 336 F.3d 811, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2003), and copying by one who has acquired the right to view the content of a telecast to enable a single, non-commercial home viewing at a more convenient time, Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 421, 448-55, 104 S.Ct.

Our case also looks a lot like Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015). There, Google, again-as part of the Google Books project-made digital copies of tens of millions of books.