Search Engine Sued Over Copyright

jesser writes, "The L.A. Times reports that a Web site operator is suing image search engine Ditto over copyright infringement. A lower court has already found Ditto to be exercising 'fair use' legally. One wonders why the Web site operator isn't happy that people can actually find his Web site, and also why he didn't submit his page to an image search with more money behind it ... and then sue it instead of Ditto." Here's the courtopinion - don't know how much longer that URL will be valid.

Comments

More important: Free Use upheld

[rgmoore]

More important than that the suit is taking place is that the lower court has already ruled that storing and displaying part of an indexed site constituted protected fair use. Others on slashdot have pointed out that this is a potentially contentious issue. Some sites, like Google actually keep a copy of each page as it existed when they referenced it. The lower court ruling protects that practices as fair use copying. The LA Times article suggests that the ruling is likely to be upheld- a big win for free speech on the net.

Protection from search engines

[Markar]

Seems to me if someone didn't want search engines to access their photographs and written works they wouldn't put them on the site, merely a reference on the web page. They could encrypt the photos, written works, etc and only give keys to registered guests. Or they could do what some musicians on MP3.com do, put examples on the site for free download to review to generate interest in purchasing the complete work. They should be intelligent enough to understand that works on websites will be copied whether they approve or not. Give me a break, if you don't want it copied, don't put it on a website!