RLI 285  8 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC 2015 Moreover, the court found that HDL demonstrated its need to retain image files in the four locations in addition to the text files. While the text files are required for text search and the creation of text-to-speech capabilities for the print-disabled, image files “provide an additional and often more useful method by which many disabled patrons…can obtain access to these works.”3 What is the practical effect of these holdings? Because providing full-text search capability justifies the creation and maintenance of a database of text files, a library could create and maintain a database of text files if the library provided full-text search capability of those text files. Likewise, because providing access for the print-disabled justifies the creation and maintenance of a database of image files, a library could create and maintain a database of image files if the library provided the print-disabled with access to those image files. Additionally, the library could create appropriate backup copies of these databases.4 As discussed below, the claims relating to “preservation” that were remanded to the district court actually concern the making of replacement copies “to be read and consumed by patrons.”5 The court distinguished the creation of replacement copies for patron consumption from the broader preservation function: “By storing digital copies of the books, the HDL preserves them for generations to come, and ensures that they will exist when the copyright terms lapse.”6 While the Second Circuit vacated the judgment concerning the “additional use” of making replacement copies, it left undisturbed the broader preservation function, thereby reinforcing the argument concerning the permissibility of mass digitization and storage. In short, the HathiTrust decision indicates that a library could make digital copies of all the analog works in its collection, and store those copies as text and image files, if the library provided full-text-search capability and full-text access for the disabled. 2. Access to Works While the court provided broad permission for libraries to digitize their collections, it addressed full-text access to the text and image files outside the library premises only in the context of the disabled. The court did not define the universe of the disabled entitled to full-text access, but the discussion of image files indicates that it goes well beyond the blind. The court stated that “[m]any legally blind patrons are capable of viewing these images if they are sufficiently magnified or if the color contrasts are increased.”7 The court then added that “other disabled patrons, whose physical impairments prevent them from turning pages or holding books, may also be able to use assistive devices to view all of the content contained in the image files for a book.”8 But the court provides little direct guidance with respect to access for readers without disabilities. Significantly, a search on HDL does not result in a display of snippets, in contrast to Google Book Search (GBS). Indeed, the court stressed that HDL “does not allow users to view any portion of the books they are searching.”9 Instead, HDL simply informs users which books contain the search term, and on what pages in those books the term appears. This three-judge panel of the Second Circuit evidently did not want to preclude the panel considering the pending appeal in the Google Books case from distinguishing the