Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

Syllabus 

execute a task.  As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently 
bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (the overall organization of
the  API)  and the  creation  of  new  creative  expression  (the  code  inde-
pendently written by Google).  Unlike many other computer programs, 
the value of the copied lines is in significant part derived from the in-
vestment of users (here computer programmers) who have learned the
API’s system.  Given these differences, application of fair use here is
unlikely to undermine the general copyright protection that Congress 
provided for computer programs.  Pp. 21–24. 

(2) The  inquiry  into  the  “the  purpose  and  character”  of  the  use
turns  in  large  measure  on  whether  the  copying  at  issue  was  “trans-
formative,” i.e., whether it “adds something new, with a further pur-
pose  or  different  character.”  Campbell,  510  U.  S.,  at  579.  Google’s 
limited copying of the API is a transformative use.  Google copied only 
what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different compu-
ting environment without discarding a portion of a familiar program-
ming language.  Google’s purpose was to create a different task-related 
system  for  a  different  computing  environment  (smartphones)  and  to
create a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and 
popularize that objective.  The record demonstrates numerous ways in 
which  reimplementing  an  interface  can  further  the  development  of 
computer programs.  Google’s purpose was therefore consistent with
that creative progress that is the basic constitutional objective of cop-
yright itself.  Pp. 24–28. 

(3) Google  copied  approximately  11,500  lines  of  declaring  code 
from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed 
to  call  up  hundreds  of  different  tasks.    Those  11,500  lines,  however, 
are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 
million total lines.  In considering “the amount and substantiality of
the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed 
as one small part of the considerably greater whole.  As part of an in-
terface, the copied lines of code are inextricably bound to other lines of
code that are accessed by programmers.  Google copied these lines not 
because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow pro-
grammers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing envi-
ronment.  The “substantiality” factor will generally weigh in favor of 
fair use where, as here, the amount of copying was tethered to a valid,
and transformative, purpose.  Pp. 28–30.

(4) The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the cop-
ying  in  the  “market  for  or  value  of  the  copyrighted  work.”    §107(4).
Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not
a market substitute for Java SE.  The record also showed that Java 
SE’s copyright holder would benefit from the reimplementation of its 
interface into a different market.  Finally, enforcing the copyright on