Partial Victory for Perfect 10? 306
An anonymous reader writes "Internet News is reporting that a recent statement made by district court judge A. Howard Matz has declared a partial victory for Perfect 10 in their efforts to stop search engines from displaying their photos in an image search. From the article: 'Perfect 10 is likely to succeed in proving that Google directly infringes its copyright by creating and displaying thumbnail copies of its photographs. Perfect 10's copyright infringement case may take years to wend its way through the courts. But a victory could hamstring image search, along with video and audio search services.'"
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
They are displaying the entire copyrighted work not an excerpt. The owner has legal control of where and how the work is displayed. They would have to recieve permission to use the work in any form. A thumbnail is still the image itself just greatly reduced. They might get away with showing a modified alias of the work where it's stylized in some way but that's the only way around the issue I can think of.
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
Why?
Because those thumbnails are similar in quality to content that Perfect 10 sells for mobile phones.
In other words, the thumbnail is copyrighted work. This is why you (the parent post) are wrong, and the GP is correct.
Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)
So, if you want to stop google from scanning and indexing all the books you want which are copyrighted, all you need to do is to offer every phrase in the book for, say, $5.99/use for fortune cookie manufacturers or even mobile phones. I bet the cost of a low-traffic server (thanks to the ridiculously high price) with the online shop for that would be a hell of a lot cheaper than the lawyers.
Easy solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2, Interesting)
The tricky bit here is that they are arguing that the thumbnails have the same resolution and quality as photos that they sell to be displayed on mobile phones, meaning they have an inherent value.
Of course, Google is not using them in the same manner, but one could argue that by displaying the thumbnails, Google is diluting the value (for example, for those people who use Google Image Search from their mobile).
Re:Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:3, Informative)
However I would like to clarify for others that commercial use can in fact be Fair Use. To clarify that money and profit are not incompatible with Fair Use. One of the landmark cases in the field of copyright law and Fair Use was the US Supreme Court case CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. (1994) [findlaw.com] which ruled that copying for the direct and explicit purpose profit c
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question (Score:2)
As an alternative that they might all agree to, how about google placing a watermark over the images they cache or display that says "Link" or something?
I
robots.txt? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/webmasters/bot.html#robotsi
Case closed? Oh, sorry, I forgot Google has lots of money.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Sorry, that doesn't fly in real life.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2, Insightful)
In which case, yes it is.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Besides, Google isn't "taking it" in any way that your web browser doesn't "take it" when you view a page. They aren't redistributing the original image. They are providing a reference to the original image. They are providing a thumbnail of the original image. The first is providing an index, which falls clearly within fair use bounds. The second is equivalent to quoting a small sample for research purposes, which also almost
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Po-tae-to - Po-tah-to. If you take it, it's still larceny.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless, from a legal perspective, this is a copyright issue, not a theft issue. Since it is a copyright issue, this case is a clear cut, open and shut case. There is zero, repeat zero possibility that Perfect 10 will win this suit, though they may get a temporary stock boost i
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
And then abruptly dragging someone they willfully gave a picture to through the legal system.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2, Insightful)
This case is clearly a gold digging scheme, so here's hoping "Perfect 10" loses.
Google should cave in. (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:5, Informative)
They are *not* suing google for indexing THEIR web site. They are suing google for indexing OTHER PEOPLE'S websites. Websites that are infringing on their copyright.
I think their legal theory is BS, and yeah it sounds pretty gold-digging to me too. However all you people screaming "duh, robots.txt, LOL!!1!" are missing the point too. You can't put a robots.txt file on a domain you do not control.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
You have to read the whole article carefully. Perfect 10 is suing on TWO grounds. One is for linking to other sites that display their images. The other is for displaying the thumbnails. The first is indeed BS. The second may not be.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless an Image thumbnail is defined or has precedence as being used under the guise of being equivalent to an excerpt in a court of law - this "common sense" definition is worthless.
Now, I do not know if thumbnail images have been recognized as equivalent to excerpts in US courts - I'm just pointing out that it is unsound to make "logical" assumptions about things concerning law, because law is ab
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since this is basically a public opinion discussion forum, we talk about how things SHOULD work, not necessarily how they do. That's supposed to be the point of democracy... rather than waiting for a judge to tell you how things should be, the people figure out what should happen, tell their representatives, then those representatives make laws to tell the judges how things are going to be.
I didn'
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Like if there is no robots.txt file, it should default to not indexing?
So we should change the entire ruleset that governs robots.txt because one company has their proverbial panties in a wad about their images being ripped off by their own subscribers and then indexed by spiders? Any RFCs you'd like to thr
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
I do believe Google has good intentions, and they don't even display ads on their image search. And maybe >99% of the web does want it "opt-out", but Google should not be above the law.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2, Informative)
> because they want a piece of Google's pie) - should store owners have to place signs saying
> "no stealing" at their door, or expect to give theives free rein on their stuff?
No, they don't have a point. Google doesn't take anything from anybody. The more apt analogy would be if you want your phone & address listing left out of the white pages and 411; in which case you most definitely *DO* have to ac
Re:robots.txt? (Score:4, Insightful)
To me at least, it looks like they should be going after the people that steal their images, not google.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:4, Insightful)
OTH: If Google had even better image search, then the copyright owners could use Google to help track down the people who infringed by copying (not stealing) the images in the first place.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:5, Informative)
Second, most of the results for searches on his company name or the names of the models he has under contract lead not to Perfect 10 sites, but to sites that have pirated his images.
Finally, the suit claimed that Google should be held liable for helping searchers find sites that display stolen Perfect 10 images because, in many cases, those sites also show Google AdSense contextual ads. "Google not only copies and displays Perfect 10 images itself," the request for the injunction read, "but also links them to Infringing Sites with which Google has partnered and from which Google receives revenue through its AdSense advertising program."
They can ban google via robots, but google still displays their (pirated) images from other sites. Google has lots of money ... but they also make money (adsense) from those copyrighted images, which means fair use doesn't apply (per the judge).
In a fair world, they should be thanking google for making it so easy to track down people who are improperly distributing on their copyrighted images.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
As someone that has subscribed off and on to Perfect 10 though they're not doing much to win my affection. I usually subscribe to them for a while when a pirated pic renews my interest in their content and then unsubscribe again when I get bored of them. Most 'adult' content
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
I might not like Google as much recently, in light of their position with
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Google shows tiny little thumbnails of images... I have photos on my website that are for sail and I think it's great if Google indexes them and makes them easy to find. I'd have a problem if they made the full resolution originals available, but then I don't put those on the web. Google doesn't even make the reduced size pictures I DO publish available without visiting my web page.
I hope these guys don't
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Google Image thumbnails are larger than that.
Perfect 10 is suing because the Google Image thumbnails are similar in size and quality to copyrighted works that Perfect 10 sells. Specifically, porn for your cellphone.
So it doesn't really matter if Google is indexing content off the Perfect 10 website, or off other sites that utilize Google AdSense. This is the Judge's opinion, not mine.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or does Google's spider pay for a membership and then enter it's password so it can enter the member's area? That would be wrong.
As for the adsense thing, if a web page rips off your image, you sue them, not Google. If I steal your image and put it in my magazine you can't sue all the companies who paid me to put their ad in my magazine.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
So Perfect 10 makes these porn for your cell phone pictures available publicly on their website? So why exactly would I pay for them?
Or does Google's spider pay for a membership and then enter it's password so it can enter the member's area? That would be wrong.
As for the adsense thing, if a web page rips off your image, you sue them, not Google. If I steal your image and put it in my magazine you can't sue all the com
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
Perfect10 is not making these images publically available on their website. Other people are paying for them and then making these images publically available on their websites. Google Images is then indexing them from the third party websites.
Do you see
Re:robots.txt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Quoting AGAIN from my post, I believe this is the relevant part. To which you still have to add anything insightful:
As for the adsense thing, if a web page rips off your image, you sue them, not Google. If I steal your image and put it in my magazine you can't sue all the companies who paid me to put their ad in my magazine.
I'm having fun writing tags though.
Re:robots.txt? (Score:2)
He ruled that Google's ads on third party website mean that Google has not conducted secondary infringement, however, Google indexing the images from these third party websites and making them available on image.google.com is copyright infringement. There were two charges of copyright infringement, both primary and secondary, not just one. I was talking about the primary copyright infringeme
speaking of passwords... (Score:2)
So let me see. (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry to say, seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me.
Re:So let me see. (Score:2)
Re:So let me see. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So let me see. (Score:2)
So let them turn away the search 'bots (Score:2)
Never has victory left such a taste of ashes in your mouth.
Just start hotlinking. (Score:4, Funny)
That wouldn't be copyright infringement, right? Just yanking publicly hosted photographs from their rightful and providing owner.
Thumbnails (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is OK for Google to distribute these, why is it illegal for a person to distribute downsampled versions of WAVe files (aka MP3s)?
Re:Thumbnails (Score:2)
Re:Thumbnails (Score:2)
Re:Thumbnails (Score:2)
Re:Thumbnails (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't analogous. An MP3 file is missing much of the information that's in the original uncompressed audio file, but it's still functionally equivalent to the original; you can listen to it, burn it to a CD, mix it with other songs, etc. and in nearly all cases the differences between the MP3 and the original will be imperceptible. The information that's missing is information that your brain can't detect anyway (if the bitrate is reasonable and your encoder does a good job).
A thumbnail image is also missing much of the information from the original, but it's not functionally equivalent. The information that's missing is information that matters. You can't see nearly as much detail in a 128x102 thumbnail as you can in the 1280x1024 original, which severely limits the usefulness of the thumbnail.
Local cache (Score:2, Interesting)
Also by the same logic, am I thieving when I access text on their site? Is google breaking copyright when it provides the first sentence or so from each result on a search?
RTF Search Notes! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not "Thumbnail (C) 2006 Google, original (C) whoever actually owns it."
This is like being sued by a museum because you remember what a painting looks without having bought another ticket.
Hold on one sec (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically these Charlies sue Google because other websites pirate their content, and some of these have (gasp!) Google ads. Wow.
And in any case, since when did it become necessary for a search engine to know that its searches link to content that violates someone's copyrights? I mean, even the RIAA wouldn't sue Google just because I can do searches like:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q= -inurl%3Ahtm+-inurl%3Ahtml+intitle%3A%22index+of%2 2+mp3+%22pearl+jam%22&btnG=Searchthis [google.com].
(Not that they wouldn't like to try...)
All Google needs to do is to remove links to infringing sites when these are brought to its notice, and even there it is allowed to display the actual complaint with the list of bad URL's.
Watermark ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Only one problem (Score:2)
If Google provides a program, it will either be reverse-engineered or blackbox tested. Either way, an automated tool will pop up that can remove/distort the watermark.
Also, who wants to Google Brand their porn pics? If the watermark is non-visible, that just makes it easier to distort/remove.
people missing the issue (Score:2, Informative)
Re:people missing the issue (Score:2)
I for one am glad.... (Score:3, Funny)
The REAL question is... (Score:4, Funny)
On topic, Google can't possibly be held responsible for the actions of these sites. That's like the RIAA/MPAA forcing them to remove all links to any warez sites.
Of course, I may just be giving them ideas...
This only hurts Perfect 10 (Score:4, Insightful)
Congrats you've protected your IP but lowered your revenue stream. Good job! *applause*
The actual opinion, maybe? (Score:4, Informative)
Okay, so I actually read the opinion, at The court's site [uscourts.gov]. The substance of it is that there's no question that google is infringing a copyright (makes sense), because it is redisplaying images that are strictly for sale, and while the images are smaller, P10 itself sells images of that size, and the smaller resolution is still a form of reproduction. Google tries to rely on fair use, but fails because the court considered a "consumptive use" because google's ad service renders furnishing the image a commercial use, and since the reproduction is essentially identical to the image (though smaller), and the smaller image is actual for sale on the site. It's pretty much a slam-dunk for P10.
People on /. need a heaping helping of knowing what the law means. (Hint: It's not "what my favorite company is doing is fine" or "what I think is right")
robots.txt (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, honestly... (Score:2)
Honestly, if you're not even willing to do that, stop complaining when I steal from you!
Re:Oh, honestly... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, honestly... (Score:2)
Devil's Advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the law didn't work like that.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:5, Informative)
The court granted summary judgment in favor of Google on four independent bases:
Serving a webpage from the Google Cache does not constitute direct infringement, because it results from automated, non-volitional activity by Google servers (Field did not allege infringement on the basis of the making of the initial copy by the Googlebot);
Field's conduct (failure to set a "no archive" metatag; posting "allow all" robot.txt header) indicated that he impliedly licensed search engines to archive his web page;
The Google Cache is a fair use; and
The Google Cache qualifies for the DMCA's 512(b) caching "safe harbor" for online service providers.
All of those would seem to equally apply to Google Images' thumbnails cache.
Re: Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
No, merely to identify it as controlled content.
i see you used the verb "steal" (Score:2)
being as its just bits, effortlessly copied
not that you aren't alone in your delusions, but the legal world is only beginning to wake up to the nonsense of laws written in the days of the printing press being applied to the internet
it's kind of absurd
Re:i see you used the verb "steal" (Score:2)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
Last I checked copyright law had nothing to do with theft.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
The web is PUBLIC. When you put something on the internet, you understand that people are going to use it for things like search engines.
If you don't want them on the web, password protect the pictures... or use a robots.txt file... or whatever.
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I'd also argue that google is not stealing their product, or devalueing it in any way. To get the full size image, you must get it from the source. Clicking on the picture leads you to the page it was found. All you get from goog
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
It depends on where you live. In the U.S. and many other countries, all works are protected by copyright the moment they are in a tangible form. (Of course, this assumes that the content in question is eligible for copyright anywa
Re:Oh, honestly... (Score:2)
You failzor! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Parent Modded Down? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why does Google bother with these people... (Score:2)
This is not a case of a missing robots.txt file, but of Google actively (debatable...) helping thieves enrich themselves from their theft.
Here's an analogy. Suppose you operate a pawn shop. Someone brings in a stereo to sell. It is your responsibility to
Re:Why does Google bother with these people... (Score:2)
Did you read TFA? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the case in a nutshell. Perfect 10's copyrighted images are being appropriated by others. Google indexes them and displays the thumbnails of them. Since Perfect 10 didn't give Google permission to display those images (as you noted in your post, they don't allow Google to index their images), when Google displays the thumbnails they are, under our current copyright laws, breaking the law.
This is similar to the case brought against Kinko's for creating coursepacks (see Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation [stanford.edu]. Kinko's made partial copies of course material and sold it to students. Kinko's believed these coursepacks were allowed by educational fair use rules. Kinko's, like Google in this case, didn't make complete copies. They only copied pieces of the material to help students get to the heart of the material. Google doesn't copy the entire copyrighted image, just enough to get the important part. The courts ruled against Kinko's, and the judge here said it's likely the courts will also rule against Google.
The biggest difference is, in the case against Kinko's, they were the ones taking direct action. The Kinko's case would apply more directly if someone had come to Kinko's and said, "Hey, we've got these great coursebooks for sale. If you point people our way, by giving away the first five pages with a link to us, we'll give you five cents for each copy we sell. You have to make copies of the first five pages yourself, though."
There are some other differences, too. Kinko's directly profited, whereas Google only indirectly profits (from advertising). The judge agreed that that part of the case is weak. But you don't have to make money to be infringing a copyright. That may help Google avoid paying as much in damages, but that's about all it means.
No, they have done nothing. (Score:2)
Try http://images.google.com/images?svnum=100&hl=en&lr =&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=site%3Awww.perfe ct10.com&btnG=Search [google.com]
This search, using the term "site:www.perfect10.com" (without the slash) returns "about 122" results.
It works because there is no robots.txt file on the Perfect 10 site. See http://www.perfect10.com/robots.txt [perfect10.com]. It's 404, baby.
So really, they need to implement robots.txt, and tell Googlebot-images to go away. Oh
caching can be disabled (Score:3, Insightful)