Do you have a link or a URL?
"As long as you are not substituting for content by showing readers all of it, and instead simply show where to find content or tell things you learn about it, this opinion means you are legally in the clear," Grimmelmann said.
From the ruling:
The benefits of the Library Project are many. First,Google Books provides a new and efficient way for readers andresearchers to find books. (See, e.g., Clancy Decl. Ex. G). Itmakes tens of millions of books searchable by words and phrases.
Although transformative use is not "absolutelynecessary" to a finding of fair use, "the goal of copyright, topromote science and the arts, is generally furthered by thecreation of transformative works."
Google's use of the copyrighted works is highlytransformative. Google Books digitizes books and transformsexpressive text into a comprehensive word index that helpsreaders, scholars, researchers, and others find books.
Google Books thus uses words for a differentpurpose -- it uses snippets of text to act as pointers directingusers to a broad selection of books.
I can see the reasoning behind the ruling for the searching part of the suit, but I'm not sure that providing digital copies of copyrighted works will actually hold up under appeal. That rationale seems a bit flimsy to me.
While partnerlibraries have the ability to download a scan of a book fromtheir collections, they owned the books already -- they providedthe original book to Google to scan.