Perfect 10 Still Suing Anyone And Everyone They Can

from the not-what-copyright-law-was-for dept

Tue, Apr 10th 2007 7:08pm — Mike Masnick

You may recall the company Perfect 10 -- a purveyor of pornographic images -- which made a name for itself suing Google. It was an odd case with an odd decision. Basically, Perfect 10 was upset that some other websites (not Google) had taken their photos and placed them on free websites. Google then indexed those sites, and would display thumbnails for the images in its image search. According to Perfect 10, this is copyright infringement -- even though it wasn't Google that had done the copying, but other sites. Also, this was odd because courts have found that thumbnails linking to full images are fair use. Either way, what became clear was that Perfect 10 wasn't exactly concerned with how things got where the were -- it just wanted to sue anyone who touched its photos in any way. So, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that the company is also suing various payment processors who process payments for other porn sites. Once again, the situation is that these other porn sites made unauthorized copies of the photos, but are then charging fees to access the content. The billing company have absolutely no way of knowing how these sites got their content, but Perfect 10 is arguing that since they profited from these sites anyway, they're liable. So far, the courts don't appear all that sympathetic to the reasoning -- but the appeals court has just sent it back to the lower court to examine whether one of the billing sites lost its DMCA safe harbor provisions by cutting off Perfect 10's credit card. The billing company says it did so for perfectly legitimate reasons: Perfect 10 kept buying subscriptions to various sites and then canceling the subscription, costing the billing company money. What's still not clear is why Perfect 10 feels the need to go after all these companies who were just doing their jobs -- rather than focusing on the companies who actually made copies of its content.

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2007 @ 8:01pm

I would say "First" but it would just get deleted. How many people sue Google daily anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Googy MacPheresm, 10 Apr 2007 @ 8:56pm

More Google
Everyone is scared/afraid/jealous of Google. They used to be the darling of the internet until they raised more money than God.
Just look at this week's edition of Businessweek...

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_15/b4029001.htm

I still rally around Google. They have a lot going for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2007 @ 9:00pm

Google has just become a big target with deep pockets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bumbling old fool, 10 Apr 2007 @ 9:10pm

Google is my anti-drug.

(sorry, I've been waiting like 3 years to use that crappy line, I got tired of waiting for the right moment. (yes, that was an attempt at humor))
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster (profile), 10 Apr 2007 @ 10:58pm

This is just plain stupid. I'm talking Jack Thompson stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 11 Apr 2007 @ 12:04am

why the hell not
Suing these days is only ever about making money. Why woulndn't you go after everyone you possibly could if it might result in a nice fat settlement, possibly even out of court. There's plenty of businesses around that simply wouldn't exist if they couldn't sue everyone and their mother for somehow infringing on "their content."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bobshaker, 11 Apr 2007 @ 2:14am

Im just a consumer/user and all I care about is efficient and useful services. Google provides them for free. So as Google grows bigger and more powerful, im gonna sit back and applaud it like any other user. Google Rulez (literally)...so there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 11 Apr 2007 @ 3:19am

It's all about money
The problem is simple: lots of porn site operators are a bit on the shady side. Ones that steal other people's content are almost always on the shady side. This makes it harder to track them down, sue them, and actually get any money once you win.

But Google is easy to find, and easy to sue. And they have shedloads of cash as well. The billing company is probably in the same boat, though obviously less wealthy. All Perfect 10 is doing is suing people who are peripherally related to the original offense who are richer and much easier to find in the hopes that they'll actually get some money out of it. It's pretty much a desperation move made by someone who simply doesn't understand the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 11 Apr 2007 @ 3:56am

Publicity stunt
This just reeks of a publicity stunt. OK its expensive but how many people are going to go to perfect 10 just to see what the fuss is about?

"Gee they sue you if you even *look* at the photies - those must be some HOT ladies!"

etc etc

if you sue Google you automatically get publicity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 11 Apr 2007 @ 3:58am

PS
Tenth! ;0)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
teknosapien, 11 Apr 2007 @ 5:31am

its all about the
The Lawyers
:->
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You never know, 11 Apr 2007 @ 6:16am

Litigation, America's other occupation. If you can’t make money legitimately and don’t want to resort to larceny, sue every body! It works for the RIAA!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John, 11 Apr 2007 @ 9:28am

Was it not just a few years ago that people where trying to sue Google because they where not listed or they where not listed on the first page of a search.

Now Perfect 10 & Belgium newspaper sue beacuse they do not want to be listed.

I wonder if someone has sued them twice for both reasons?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The author needs to grow up, 11 Apr 2007 @ 12:25pm

Creating thumbnail images of copyrighted materials that is publically accessible is fair use.

Creating thumbnail images of private data that is not publically accessible IS NOT FAIR USE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2007 @ 12:30pm

Re:
by John on Apr 11th, 2007 @ 9:28am
Now Perfect 10 & Belgium newspaper sue beacuse they do not want to be listed." Read the story again. Read it. Perfect 10 is not suing them because they are being listed. Perfect 10 was suing them because it is displaying their private content and linking it to other sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
|333173|3|_||3, 11 Apr 2007 @ 5:40pm

Google were not linking to private data, they were linking to publicly availabel data which happened to have been gained illegally. They should npot be liable, any moe than if they had linked to a site contianing illegal content (kiddie pr0n, terrorist materail), possilby even less liable, since the material was not in and of itself illgal so google's bots could nto readily tell that there was any problem linking to it.
Google can only link to material where it finds it, or where a site that it finds the material on says to point to for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Walter Dnes, 11 Apr 2007 @ 8:09pm

Why not sue the electric utility
that powers the offending porn site's computers? Same (so-called) logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
airen, 13 Jun 2007 @ 1:35am

bu12yao
[ link to this | view in thread ]