Porn Site Sues Google For Displaying Images
from the not-clear-at-all... dept
Google seems like a lawsuit magnet these days, which probably isn't too surprising. The latest one, though, is going to get a bit of attention, but so far the details aren't clear at all. It appears that a porn site is suing Google for displaying images from that site -- which they claim is a violation of their copyright. The article is too vague on the specifics of the lawsuit, but it raises a bunch of questions. The company in question claims that Google is hurting their business, since they can't charge for what Google is giving away for free. This implies that it's somehow "premium" photos that Google is displaying -- and if it's a subscription service then Google's crawlers shouldn't be able to access them anyway. So, it may simply be that others have taken the photos and copied them on free sites -- which Google scraped. That would be a nearly impossible situation for Google to police widely, and would require the company in question to point out each offender and have Google remove the images -- which would be quite a process. The other possible complaint is that Google is displaying images directly from their site within Google's image search. The only problem with that is that a US court has already ruled that a search engine can display thumbnails and a link to the original. Maybe the company should have filed the lawsuit in Germany where courts ruled the exact opposite, and said that thumbnails were a copyright violation. Either way, if the site didn't want Google scraping them, then why not put up a system to block it (robots.txt, anyone?). The reason, most likely, is that a lawsuit against Google acts as good publicity. Update: As explained by people in the comments, the lawsuit is about the first situation, with a publisher having photos displayed by other sites without authorization, which Google then scraped. So, the simple question is why aren't they going after the infringing sites?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Details Seem Clear
Of course, you have to wonder why Perfect 10 isn't going after the offending sites directly, as they're the ones actually violating the copyrights. Maybe they're located in regions where U.S. law doesn't apply, so Perfect 10 is trying to use the DMCA's take-down rules but Google isn't complying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and porn
To which the article above asks, the initially reasonable, but ultimately overly simplistic, question: "why aren't they [the porn purveyors] going after the infringing sites?" It very well may be that the relevant sites are foreign-owned or are on servers domiciled in a foreign country. If this is the case, the porn purveyor clearly would have more trouble going after the rogue sites than going after Google. This again points to the troubles governments and rules of law have when it comes to the internet, given its global, unstructured nature.
The question is not a simple one of "going after" the rogue sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google and porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google and porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This lawsuit was decided in error...
Thumbnail do not violate 17 U.S.C.? ONLY in the confused courts of the United States until they are educated about copyrites in New York, CA, and Arkansas by this particular Plaintiff.
Perfect 10 Inc v. Google Inc et al (2:2004cv09484)
Has the appeal been decided? Not hardly....(10-56316) Argued April 11, 2011 and not decided yet by the confused judges.
Perfect 10 Opening Brief PDF
Google Redacted reply Brief PDF
Read linked Briefs and try to understand.
It is not rocket science!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My linked case above...
http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org Current complaint served yesterday in most common text formats. Doc/PDF/ODT/rtf/txt
http://TheEndofPornbyWire.org/docket Free mirror of the docket and all filings.
The idiotic US ruling that indecent thumbnails can be fair-use is called per se unconstitutional in this suit and the ENTIRE backwards US Copy[rite] regime with fair-use is called per se unconstitutional.
ALL PORN SHOWN TO THE UNAUTHENTICATED IS CALLED CRIMINAL because it has been since Wi-Fi radio developed.
--------------------------------------------
Yes; I failed to protect one pornographers' moral right{mine} to exclusively control showing morally questionable art to children in the case linked above.
----------------------------------------------------
ANY display of a porn image to the anonymous by GOOG, MSFT or ANYONE ELSE is criminal. The emperor has been naked for twenty+ years.
Neeley v FCCs, et al, (5:13-cv-5293) can be seen above or be ignored.
I know GOOG/MSFT/US Attorney General/FCC/US Senators/US Representatives will NOT ignore this litigation like everyone else will to help keep porn flowing to the anonymous for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]