Slashdot Mirror
Adult Site Sues Google, Google Compared To MS Again
daria42 writes "It looks like Adult magazine publisher Perfect 10 is suing Google to stop the search engine giant from using images of models in the images part of its search engine. The publisher has alleged Google is in breach of its copyright by displaying more than 3,000 photos." From the article: "Perfect 10 first became aware of Google serving up text links to other Web sites that allegedly carried copyright images of Perfect 10 models back in 2001, Zada said in an interview on Thursday. The company then sent notices to Google, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, asking the search giant to discontinue linking to the other sites." Additionally, with users writing to mention that that Google has changed their 10 Things statement recently, yet another article comparing them to Microsoft was bound to turn up. From the Sydney Herald article: "The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth." Update: 08/26 13:27 GMT by Z : xmas2003 points out that the requested injunction is part of the suit Perfect 10 brought against Google last November, which we have previously reported on.
How about instead of suing Google, they sue the people who are actually displaying the copyrighted images on their sites and simultaneously give Google a big pat on the back for making it so easy to find these people using GIS?
The images aren't from Perfect 10 directly. They wants Google to stop linking to other sites that have (potentially illegal) copies of their copyrighted images. So to put it in really simple terms, Perfect 10 wants Google to enforce their copyrights for them. Seems to me that the burden of copyright enforcement is on the owner of said rights and Google isn't doing anything to aid in misappropriation of copyrighted material. Throwing the DMCA claim on top just adds to the absurdity. Personally, I hope these guys get crushed in court for trying to pull a stunt like this.
Oh come on, get off your high horse. Search engines facilitate people connecting with content. If it is on the web, and I can view it, then Google's web-engine has every right to view it. They are giving you the option.
This case is nuts. I'm not going to 100% back Google, it IS a gray area, but having Google protect your own copyrights for you is crazy!
-nick
"The question is whether the young upstarts who have built a hugely profitable business on Google's anti-corporate image are on the way to following Gates's path from bright young turk to monopolistic behemoth."
All it takes is someone being successful for all of you to take a shot at them...That comment and yours was worthy of a slashdotter any day!
* Full-disclosure update: When we first wrote these "10 things" four years ago, we included the phrase "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." Over time we've expanded our view of the range of services we can offer -- web search, for instance, isn't the only way for people to access or use information -- and products that then seemed unlikely are now key aspects of our portfolio. This doesn't mean we've changed our core mission; just that the farther we travel toward achieving it, the more those blurry objects on the horizon come into sharper focus (to be replaced, of course, by more blurry objects).
Far better than just changing it on the sly and hoping no-one will notice.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
states
so for one I doubt they have exclusive rights to all their "Thousands of images", in fact there are quite a few wholesalers that will sell you rights to tons of porn on a non-exclusive basis for the budding pornographer, I'm sure more than a couple of these photo's ended up in their archives, or possibly perfect10 has a subsidiary that wholesales to other sites. Another problem is for example I take a few pictures, while burning through a roll I get a couple that are almost identicle, who's to say I can't sell rights for one to one company, and rights to another. perfect10 definetely has an uphill battle, even proving infringement even took place.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I am a big guy, 6 and a half feet tall,definitly not your typical computer engineer, although it does work to my advantage during spec reviews ;) During school I worked as a bouncer at a "gentlemans club". Almost all of the woman I talked too there knew what was going on, they were there of their own free will, they knew the long term consequences, they were there for the money. Granted some girls were forced to work there, but thats another store about Russians importing girls. Additionaly most woman at the club believed the men to be suckers or the ones being taken advantage of. Just my two cents.
Quoted from the article: Bill Gates certainly sees similarities between Google and his own company. This spring, in an interview with Fortune, Gates, Microsoft's chairman, said that Google was "more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with."
Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting someone else to do the work. --John G. Pollard
These lawsuits should be thrown out.
We've seen this before with the lawsuits that took place against companies who developed p2p networks because the plantiffs had a misconception that the developers knowingly allowed this material on their "network".
They just want someone to blame as an easy way to get money. Google has lots of it, so their next logical step is to blame them.
Google is not responsible. They are merely a search index. You know this, I know this, but the technologically illeterate morons we have for judges don't see this.
Instead they see in black and white, and without knowing the truth about how the technology works and who's to blame/not to blame, they blindly dish out decisions - and a lot of times they aren't in favor with real justice.
I wonder if they could countersue for these companies trying to manipulate the system.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
You know, if women just walked around naked (in perfect lighting and airbrushed) the whole porn industry would collapse.
Well, ok, they'd have to tongue-kiss each other in passing, but that's a technicality, really.
-Styopa
The only way around this would be for Google to
Another interesting idea would be to use such software to compare the images on the web, with images that a company sent in and wanted protected for a fee, when matches were found, the protection purchaser could be sent a notice.
This software would be very difficult and bleeding edge to produce, a worthy challenge for a company like Google
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Firstly - you can insert tags into your website that prevent search engines from spidering your pages.
If the website in question has not added these tags into the pages well its there own darned fault.
But honestly the only loser in this game is the porn site Google should just remove them from the results entirely then watch their visitor logs go right down. I dont see how there can ever be a case for a a website to sue google succesfully on these kinds of grounds. That is provided Google are going by the book and parsing those "dont spider this site" tags.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
It is not impossible to do this. There are a number of technologies available for embedding copyrights in images, and I'm sure Google would gladly comply with those. Granted, none of these technologies are 100% effective, but most randoms swiping images and posting them on their angelfire webpage aren't likely to be savvy enough to defeat digital watermarks.
However, for companies like this, it is much easier to call the lawers than to not suck in the first place.
What people are expressing here is their ideal reality, not the way things really are. For every one middle-aged woman that you can show me who's proud of her stripper heritage, I can show you 500 women who would look down on such a thing.
See, this is the problem. You state that for every woman WHO STRIPPED, you can find 500 WHO DIDN'T STRIP that look down on it. News flash. For every single hot stripper, you can always find 500 frumpy old bags who disapprove. However, who cares?
You would have a point, if you could find 500 ex strippers who look down on it, for every ex stripper that defended it. But you can't. Why? Because for many of these women, it was EASY money, with almost no risk.
These are choices that adults get to make. No more, no less. And do not kid yourself, you can find 500 people in opposition to ANY decision that you may have to make in life. In the end, only one person has to accept that decision, you.
I find this quote really funny
Come on, why are people acting like there's no stigma attached to having been a stripper or a porn star.
There is no stigma attached to it, at least not in my eyes. Stigma is the sole property of the person passing judgement.
In the grand scheme of things, here is a little list of things that I would find MORE embarassing than having my daughter strip her way through school:
-vote Bush
-become an evangelical christian
-become a US citizen
-join the US millitary
-support a war
-be a thief
-be a liar
-drop out of school
Everyone has different things that would drive them nuts. Nudity does not offend me. Sex does not offend me. The above list does.
It is not passing judgement BTW, they are the things that drive ME nuts, and that I would find more embarassing to tell my family and friends about my child. Your list would be different, I am sure.