« Apple's DMCA to the Max[xuss linkers] |
Main
| Judge to NTP, RIM: Settle! »
February 23, 2006
Google, Porn Images, Copyright Violations?
Posted by Alan Wexelblat
What's not to like? Well, to start with, the judge's ruling. OK, backing up for a second... Yesterday, US District Court Judge Howard Matz issued a partial preliminary injunction in the case brought by Perfect 10 - an online porn site - against Google and Amazon's A9, which uses Google technology.
Matz's ruling agreed with Perfect 10 on one aspect of its claims, that thumbnail images used by Google Image Search are copyright violations. The judge declined to issue an injunction based on Perfect 10's other claim, which is that Google was responsible for providing links to third-party Web sites that, themselves, host images illegally copied from Perfect 10. So linking was OK, but caching was not.
And therein lies the rub. Caching is used in a number of Internet technologies, including proxy servers, media services such as Akami, server farm and load balancing applications, and of course all search engines and services that run Web spiders. Matz is clearly trying to tread a line that both allows Google's indexing business and respects Perfect 10's copyrights. The problem is that I don't think there is any such line to be walked. Either what Google does is fair use and Perfect 10 can go away, or it isn't and we will have to fundamentally rethink Web search and indexing.
Comments (6)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Laws and Regulations
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Oh and by the Way
- › Tor Sees No Increase In Illegal Copies After One Year DRM-Free
- › Free Publication on "Seismic Shift" in CA Copyright Law
- › EFF Challenges Bad Patent Filings - But There's a Bigger Issue
- › Video Game Development Game Ironic Piracy
- › British Photo Copyright Orphans' Concern
- › Mike Masnick Curb-Stomps Jaron Lanier
- › Microsoft Appears Ready to Relent on Xbox DRM
1. V Smoothe on February 24, 2006 6:01 AM writes...
Okay, so I don't like this ruling at all. Shouldn't I be frightened about the idea that caching could be illegal? I would love to hear more commentary about this.
Permalink to Comment2. Branko Collin on February 24, 2006 7:05 AM writes...
Can Google and A9 appeal this ruling?
I guess there is one thing to be said for legislation; that judges must try harder to come up with arguments to please their corporate overlords.
Permalink to Comment3. Inddsgn on February 24, 2006 12:32 PM writes...
Seems I have a different reading of the order. The judge didn't opine on whether caching is illegal. Google admitted that it had copies of copyright protected material on its servers (the reduced quality thumbnails), but that it could use them because of fair use. The judge concluded, after a traditional fair use analysis, that in fact Google's use was not fair use. I believe the "detail" that tipped the judge's opinion was the fact that P10 had a licensing arrangement to distribute thumbnails of its photos to cell phones. Since Google's thumbnails could be used instead of the licensed ones, with no payment to P10, Google's use had a detrimental affect on this market for P10. This distinction, in addition to other factors, led to a conclusion that the thumbnails were a direct infringement of P10's property, but that the full-size photos to which Google linked were not.
Permalink to Comment4. drwex on February 28, 2006 10:20 AM writes...
Smoothe: yes, if the final ruling does come down in the same manner as this injunction there's going to be a lot to dislike. Caching has always been a gray area, and some laws have contained "temporary copy" exemptions for things like local caches on your hard disk. Whether such an exemption would cover the cache used by a 'net search engine is something I can't even guess at.
Branko: Google has not yet appealed the injunction. My guess is they'll let it go forward for now and appeal after trial if necessary. The A9 case hasn't come to court yet - it's a separate docket.
Inddsgn: I agree with you that the turning point appears to have been the separate commercial usability of the thumbnails, but that doesn't affect the basic point. Commercial usability could be claimed for any cached material.
Permalink to Comment5. Mike on March 5, 2006 2:34 AM writes...
What about images that are cached in your brain?
Permalink to Comment6. Doh on December 5, 2007 6:14 PM writes...
It would've been bad news for porn surfers and porn sites if this ruling had stuck.
Permalink to Comment