circumstances, distributing copies of the law for purposes of facilitating public access could constitute transformative use”); A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630, 639 (4th Cir. 2009) (noting allegedly infringing uses “can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work”); see also Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73, 84 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Vanderhye for same proposition).
A commercial actor’s dissemination of information to the public may be a transformative use. This was the case in Swatch, where Bloomberg L.P. shared an audio recording of a private Swatch earnings call in order to provide the public with material financial information it would have otherwise not known, and which audio recording Swatch would not otherwise have shared or had a market for. See generally Swatch, 756 F.3d 73. The Second Circuit found this use transformative because Bloomberg’s purpose was different from Swatch’s; whereas Swatch provided the information as something the listeners on the private call should believe, Bloomberg provided the same information more broadly so the public knew what Swatch said. Id. at 84–85.
79
