US Judge: Google infringed copyright by posting thumbnail porn photos

AFP ^ | 2/21/06

[mathprof]

[af_vet_rr]

I wonder if this will affect people posting pics/thumbnails here and elsewhere (I'm talking non-adult stuff, just thumbnails of whatever)...granted Google generates revenue from searches, and in this case this company sells images that are thumbnail size, but it raises some concerns for future litigation.

[VRWCmember]

Google should simply block this company's websites from coming up in any searches. Problem solved. Of course that might reduce the number of hits and sales on the firm's website.

[weegee]

Google makes their own thumbnail images and stores them on their own servers.

Very few images are actually hosted on the FR servers, they are linked in from other sites (sometimes FReepers' own storage someplace, othertimes HTML cited from another site).

[weegee]

Google permits "opting out". That said, they are a commercial enterprise.

[thulldud]

The judge ruled that because Google receives advertising money from offering search functions, it is not entitled to the same level of free use of the images as other entities would be.

Interesting. This is essentially the position of the operators of Scroogle. Google is appropriating the content which others are freely sharing to generate revenue for themselves. Something rotten there.

[mysterio]

Boy, that's bad news. Hope Google appeals. This copyright infringement by the big evil internet stuff is bunk.

[weegee]

Matz's ruling also notes that because Perfect 10 sells similar-size versions of its images to cell phone users through a separate company, Fonestarz Media, Perfect 10 stands to lose revenue if its request for a court order blocking Google's use of the thumbnails is not granted.

Good that they can make money selling thumbnail sized images but I don't understand why there is even a market for them. And Perfect 10 may get their images off Google but they may lose their customer base to Google's other thumbnail searches where a user could probably come up with 1.5million matching images in a few seconds.

And Perfect 10 will no longer receive any new customers BECAUSE of a Google Image Search that someone follows back to the host site for MORE (and bigger) pictures.

Companies can opt out of Google. Is there any HTML or Javascript they can put in their webpages to block ALL crawling spiders from mining their sites? The nature of the internet is it is a WEB. Granted Google has "copied" and "stored" other companies images. Without thumbnails you would just get text displays of file names.

[madprof98]

From another article posted here on FreeRepublic:

Matz was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by President Clinton in March 1998 on the recommendation of California Senator Barbara Boxer, who argued at the time that Matz had "a deep commitment to justice."

[snarks_when_bored]

Those thumbnail pics are way too small to be useful seen anyway...

[desertlily]

That judge is a supreme idiot. The Google image search is of incredible value to the entire world.

I bet that this judge has never been online and understand zero about the internet, which would make this case like one of a pedophile creating laws about the rights of children.

[zeugma]

Is there any HTML or Javascript they can put in their webpages to block ALL crawling spiders from mining their sites?

Yes. If you place a file called "robots.txt" on your webserver with directives in a specified format in it, search engines will not crawl your space if they honor the robots file. Most legitimate search engines do.

[Revolting cat!]

Good decision. What's the use of thumbnails? We demand full size!

[weegee]

So there are measures that a company can do without personally contacting a website.

Companies do things to prohibit right clicking on images and to prohibit entering into subdirectories without a password.

Seems to me the company needs to do more. Or keep their images off the internet and in print (book/magazine).

If we let this ruling stand, there will be no image searches (unless companies/individuals OPT IN).

Was Altavista also named in this suit? Are there other sites that host thumbnails of website images?

Could Google and other sites protect themselves by including a disclaimer on the search page that all images are owned by their respective owners?

Google does include this disclaimer "Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright."

[weegee]

I've seen several articles on this that headline the porn content of this case but this decision would affect all websites and content.

[zeugma]

Well, from a historical persective, the 'robots.txt' file has been used since just about the web started to be popular. I'm not sure if there was a similar mechanism before the web regarding Gopher sites, because I never actually ran one of those. There were similar search engines back then (i.e., Veronica, Archie, Jughead), but I do not know if there were ways to tell, say, a Veronica search engine not to index your gopher server. Granted, the internet was a lot smaller, and in many ways a nicer place back then, so it might not have been deemed necessary.

 Regardless, these days, there are ways to make sure that your site is not indexed into the search engines, and all the major search engines honor these requests not to be indexed. I have a couple of subdirectories on my server that I disallow indexing to, and I've not found it to have been in the past. So, what I would say is that if someone doesn't want their stuff to show up on Google, MSN, Yahoo, or AltaVista, then he should fix his site so that it won't happen. Because of the nature of the internet, the default assumption must be to allow searches. Exceptions must be noted at the website level. If, in the case in question, Google ignored a 'robots' directive and indexed the site anyway, they should be liable for that. Otherwise they should not be.

[adam_az]

They could configure their web server to prevent this.

My guess is they just want to sue Google and fish for a settlement.

[weegee]

The point they seem to be making here is that a thumbnail is "new content" derivative of their copyrighted material.

And it sounds like that is legal for non-commercial sites but if you "make money at it" then you are liable.

Let's set aside the case of "Perfect 10" for now. Let's take a Hollywood film like (WB-Turner's owned) MGM production of The Wizard of Oz. The book is public domain but the film is owned by WB. There are a lot of unlicensed fan sites (and other sites, including say DVD review and catalog sites) that reproduce (in violation of copyright) images from the film. To carry this judge's decision to its logical conclusion, Google (and Altavista, etc.) are liable for each and every thumbnail image that they would host on their server (even if the original host site was in violation as well). Lawyers will find it easier to go after Google for infractions than each of the offending sites (yet such Google searching would make it easier for legal teams to send out cease and desist letters to fan and other violating sites).

I don't know the answer in this case. The courts permit SOME sampling of someone else's song and using it as the HOOK for a "new" hit (generally rap). This certainly has more public good served and means little in the singular case (a thumbnail image doesn't significantly traffic on someone's "image").

There is also the "educational" provision which are exempt from copyright law. Doesn't say that only "non-profit public schools" can reproduce copyrighted materials.

In the end, copyright cases are generally won by the side with better lawyers, the actual law means little.

[Always Right]

The judge ruled that because Google receives advertising money from offering search functions, it is not entitled to the same level of free use of the images as other entities would be.

Funny that was a factor in this ruling, but it did not seem to help out FreeRepublic by not receiving advertising dollars.

[zeugma]

I didn't know the Wizard of Oz was PD. I saw your post, then went to Project Gutenberg, and *poof*, there it was!

Regarding the effects of this ruling, you're right. It seems to be pretty far reaching. Looks like the court has found a way to put google out of business.