Perfect 10 Still Not Giving Up In Lawsuit Against Google
from the an-a-for-effort dept
Back in May, when a court shot down yet another of porn publisher Perfect 10's lawsuits against web search engines, we wondered if the publisher would finally realize that Google is not liable for what its image search engine finds. Yet, the company doesn't seem interested in giving up. It's claiming that Google abused the discovery process and failed to hand over important materials, including its "DMCA log." At issue is the fact that some people out there had used unauthorized images from Perfect 10 on their own websites, and Google's image search found them. Perfect 10 first tried to claim Google itself was guilty of copyright infringement for displaying those images, but eventually the courts realized that displaying a thumbnail of an image from another website in a search result is not, nor should it be, considered copyright infringement.Of course, this particular statement is pretty amusing:
"Google appears to have the view that it is above the law," says Perfect 10 President, Dr. Norm Zada.That's a funny comment for someone who's been losing pretty much every lawsuit. It seems that the courts have thought all along that Google was very much within the letter and spirit of the law.
In this case, Perfect 10 is now trying to stretch what the DMCA requires of a recipient of a DMCA notice, saying:
"Under the DMCA, a search engine such as Google may receive limited immunity from monetary damages for copyright infringement if it complies with the requirements of the DMCA," Zada says. "The search engine must act expeditiously to remove or disable access to infringing material upon receiving notice of infringement from the copyright owner, and it must adopt a procedure so that copyright holders will not have to provide the search engine with notices about the same infringing material or the same infringers over and over."The first part is true. The latter part is not true. However, it's the latter part that Perfect 10 seems to be relying on, demanding its "DMCA log" which is apparently "a spreadsheet-type document summarizing DMCA notices received, the identity of the notifying party and the accused infringer, and the actions (if any) taken in response." Considering Google has a pretty long history of quickly responding to DMCA complaints, it's difficult to believe that it would somehow not adhere to the DMCA in this case. Once again, it seems likely that Perfect 10 is going to end up on the losing side of a court battle. If only it actually put this much effort into actually building a business.
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, discovery, dmca
Companies: google, perfect 10
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not a fan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the same black hole that YouTube fell into.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Are you talking about the thumbnail or the link to the offending website?
"in the future re-indexes the same image from the same site again."
- Are you implying that this is somehow wrong? If so, please provide additional info. Is there some statute, law, court ruling, etc that leads you to think this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a very simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "robots.txt" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's called "robots.txt" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's called "robots.txt" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's called "robots.txt" ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]