Perfect 10 Shot Down Again; Will It Finally Realize That Search Engines Aren't Liable For Photos?
from the it's-time-to-give-it-up dept
Porn magazine publisher Perfect 10 has spent tons of money on a long series of fruitless lawsuits against the operators of search engines. The issue is that people with access to Perfect 10 photos had put them online, and (of course) search engines indexed these and included them in their image search features. Perfect 10 insisted that, since these search engines showed thumbnails of the images, the search engines were liable for the infringement. Except that courts keep throwing these cases out. But, that hasn't stopped Perfect 10. However, all it has to show for it is another loss. In its lawsuit against Amazon, for Amazon's A9 search subsidiary, the court has tossed out the lawsuit, pointing out that the DMCA safe harbors clearly protect Amazon, while also highlighting a bunch of pretty basic mistakes that Perfect 10 made in filing the lawsuit (you would think, having filed so many similar lawsuits, that it would get the specifics right). At some point, the company needs to realize that these lawsuits aren't getting it very far.
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
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, safe harbors, thumbnails
Companies: amazon, perfect 10
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
am I missing something here? clearly Perfect10 only had to contact the host(s) and send them a take down notice.
or is perfect10 complaining about "the way back machine"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhh
Perfect 10's girls must not be so perfect, or you'd think if a few photo's got out, they wouldn't care as it might generate more traffic to their sites or clubs or whatever they run to see the rest of their girls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah!
everybody is suing somebody else.
Now I want to become a Defense Attorney :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is there not a fine ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite...
It's getting them publicity. Perhaps one should argue that people ripping off their photos is just a good business plan - like ripping music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a side note...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: On a side note
Loved that guys comedy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>
ending on technicality that Amazon and A9 are not specifically linked in a way that a takedown notice to Amazon would automatically inform A9. Nothing more.
once again mike fails to truly understand a story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ending on technicality that Amazon and A9 are not specifically linked in a way that a takedown notice to Amazon would automatically inform A9. Nothing more.
Hence: "highlighting a bunch of pretty basic mistakes that Perfect 10 made in filing the lawsuit"
once again mike fails to truly understand a story.
Actually, I'd argue the reverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That said, it is an unfortunate fact of life that far too many lawyers hold themselves out to the public as "copyright lawyers", when in fact this is far from the case. Hence you get suits filed against the wrong party, procedures that have not been followed appropriately, ignorance of safe harbor provisions, etc, etc...the list goes on. Personally, in my view if truly competent counsel was retained in these cases the number of lawsuits would decrease, the issues would be more accurately defined, and court decisions would be more predictable.
As much as I detest those little weasels who make what are clearly unauthorized downloads and share them with the world, I do have to agree that this conduct will continue no matter what content providers do. More laws with more draconian penalties will simply not be able to keep up with those who have the ability and capacity to bypass these laws and technical protection measures.
While I realize that new people are coming up with new business approaches that capitalize on the above truism, I also realize that an entire industry built around the provisions of copyright law are not going to go away overnight and will eventually have to adapt to the present reality. What I do wonder, though, is if there might be a way to expedite the transition by some form of a business arrangement between the "content provider industry" and the "P2P industry"? I am fairly sure of your answer, but am curious if you might see a way forward that might reasonably balance these competing interests? Right now they are locked in battle. Is there a way for them to each raise a white flag and arrive at a mutual consensus of temporary duration that could hasten the transition?
This is not a rant or criticism of your views, but a question that is being asked in all sincerity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To be honest, I used to think that would be a great solution -- and in the late 90s/early 00s there was a real opportunity to do that. I can't see it happening at all today. The interests are just way to divergent.
So... possible solution? Sure. In fact, it's a very Coasian view. I just think it's culturally massively unlikely. I'm afraid that any "balance" between these competing interests quickly turns into tug o' war to try to collect as much as possible of the pie rather than easing a transition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"once again mike fails to truly understand a story."
What part of having lost every single suit that has been brought using those failed legal theories don't you get?
There is someone here not understanding all right, however, it's not Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crap!
So much for proofreading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok Now I'M just stupid....
(hangs head in shame...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it isnt a good story like this I know mike, but sometimes things arent as bad as you make them out to be. it must be tough to be morally outraged all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So because you failed to understand something, it's my fault? Ok... I guess there's somethings I can't help.
it isnt a good story like this I know mike, but sometimes things arent as bad as you make them out to be. it must be tough to be morally outraged all day.
How is this not "as bad" as I made it out to be? Who said anything about it being "bad"? Actually, this story seemed pretty good.
And, uh, I'm not outraged, morally or otherwise, but it's nice to hear you're concerned about my welfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People, who need people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its about trying to set a precedent...
Perfect 10 is throwing a pot of spagetti noodles at the wall and hoping that at least a few of them stick.
(BTW I'm not the same Danny as comment 18.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
when will search engines learn that it isn't legal to profit from the intellectual property of others?
Copyrighted works (Perfect 10's as well as any copyright owner, including artists, movie studios, music industry) were (and are) legitimately stolen by search engines and other. Look at the damage to the music, movie, art industries because of theft... Search engines, without doubt, not only contribute to this damage, but also directly profit from it. How is it fair that they shouldn't be held liable?
It seems to me that instead of cooperating with copyright owners, search engines have instead chosen to do nothing, or give the run around, when a copyright owner tries to prevent their work from being stored on unauthorized servers and/or being shown without permission.
I think Perfect 10 is attempting to keep alive the ability to profit from intellectual property (the arts), and I don't believe that's something worth giving up on.
I have a simple request from Mike Masnick: learn the facts before reporting. Journalists, writers, bloggers, anyone who earns a living (or just enjoys) making/creating their copyright-protected work should appreciate what Perfect 10 is doing. Mr. Masnick, if you make a living by your writing, I hope nobody steals it and then profits from it, but if they do, Perfect 10 is working hard to protect your right to defend yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: when will search engines learn that it isn't legal to profit from the intellectual property of others?
If you've been putting your stock in Perfect 10, congratulations on your brand new fuck all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]