Google infringed copyright by posting thumbnail porn photos

[BJ_M]

Internet giant Google Inc. infringed copyright rules by posting thumbnail-size photos from other websites on its search results pages, a US judge said in a ruling issued.

US District Judge Howard Matz's ruling, handed down in Los Angeles, stems from a lawsuit filed in 2004 by the pornography firm Perfect 10 Inc., which accused Google of breaching on its copyrights.

The type of search with which Perfect 10 took issue is Google's "Image Search" function, which returns a page with tiny images -- known as thumbnails -- that fit the searcher's query.

The image search function also allows searchers to view the image as it appears on the page.

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.

Much of Google's revenues come from so-called keyword searches that link advertisers to users by their search criteria.

He said Google's use of pictures was different from that Arriba Soft Corp. -- which a US court of appeals in California ruled earlier was operating within "fair use" principles by creating and using thumbnail images on its site.

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.

"Google's use of thumbnails likely does harm the potential market for the downloading of P10's reduced-size images onto cell phones," Matz's 47-page ruling stated.

The ruling, which was signed Friday, asks both sides in the case to come up with the terms of a preliminary injunction that would bar Google from using the thumbnail-size images.

The judge found, however, that Google did not violate Perfect 10's copyrights by linking to pages that Perfect 10 claims are using its images without permission.

He noted that "given the exponentially increasing amounts of data on the Web, search engines have become essential sources of vital information for individuals, governments, nonprofits and businesses who seek to locate information."

Google lawyer Michael Kwun said in a statement that while the company is "disappointed with portions of the ruling, we are pleased with Judge Matz's favorable ruling on linking and other aspects of Google Image Search."

"We anticipate that any preliminary injunction will have no effect on the vast majority of image searchers, and will affect only searches related to Perfect 10," Kwun said.

Agence France-Presse in March last year also sued Google Inc. for copyright infringement, claiming the search engine was displaying its news and photos without permission.

[Supreme2k]

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.

"Google's use of thumbnails likely does harm the potential market for the downloading of P10's reduced-size images onto cell phones," Matz's 47-page ruling stated.

Bullshit.

If you can see it, you can download or capture it.
If they don't want people getting the pics for free, then they should only give a description and not an example. Or better yet, have a very intrusive watermark/stamp over the image.

This ruling will get overturned, once they explain to another judge how compys and teh intarnets work.

[adam]

I think the issue was that google somehow circumvented the site's access restrictions. I use google's image search all the time and often it links me to a page where I cannot access the picture through the link on the website. It says access is restricted or I need to join the site or something. Yet when I click on the thumbnail preview I can get to the picture nonetheless. Maybe this is what the suit is about, I have no idea.

In any case I think this is somewhat moot now because I believe google implemented an opt out procedure of sorts. I know there is a way to code a website so that your pictures do not show up in google's image search.

[lordsmurf]

robots.txt

[Doramius]

Honestly, I don't think Google should be responsible. The Company should be, unless Google is the one who's choosing which pictures to be posted. Last I heard, you have to list what page(s) you want Google to show and the images automatically pop up as a thumbnail. If you want it blocked, don't post it where it gets selected by Google.