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.
This looks like a publicity stunt if I ever saw one. No, I won't provide a link, thankyouverymuch.
More
to just remove themselves?? They could just read http://www.google.com/remove.html or google for "remove website from google"... But then again, lawyers have got to make a living...
How to Destroy Angels II
If they're putting these images out on a public website, how can they be upset when people view the images? It doesn't matter if they're found in a search engine or if someone browses to the site, they're out in the open.
Smells like someone is up to some clever marketing.
Because the images in question aren't on Perfect 10's website, but are on other websites that have stolen their content and are redisplaying it without permission. The robots.txt file doesn't allow you to force google to not index other people's websites... only the almight lawsuit can do that.
--
RumorsDaily
Concrete Cam is up and running ... ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
"Sex is my job"
""I have never felt exploited. If anything it's giving you power over men. The only people exploited, if anyone is, are the men who go out and spend their money on porn," says..Michelle Thorne, who has worked in the porn industry for six years"
Perhaps google should completely remove all references to the site from its search engine database, and ensure that it never gets listed again?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Strangely enough, these people are suing google for the actions of others. They are suing google because google's webcrawler doesn't automatically block sites containing their copyrighted works. They're basically saying it's Google's job to police the entire web to enforce their copyrights. They have no case, because they would have to prove under the DMCA that Google was built to facilitate the copying of copyrighted works. Not only that, but it'd be difficult to say that they are circumventing a copyright protection scheme because the pictures are not protected by anything more elaborate than password protection on the website. They'll lose and they're dumb for wasting the time filing the suit. This is a real good example of a frivolous lawsuit.
James
It seems they're in a habit of getting free publicity. From TFA:
Perfect 10's lawsuit against Google is similar to one it filed against Amazon.com in July. In that suit, Perfect 10 makes similar allegations against Amazon's A9 search engine.
If they're so damn pissed with their images turning up on search engines, why don't they just pull them off 'public' access. I mean put them under an area accessible only after someone logs in.
Heck, there's robots.txt...
Nandz.
Then the suit should be filed against the websites illegally serving their copyrighted images, not Google.
I do things for money that I wouldn't ordinarily do. It's called "gainful employment".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
In other words, they are suing Google for not policing Perfect 10's copyright. Not for indexing Perfect 10's sites, but rather for indexing other sites who happen to have stolen Perfect 10's images. And they're not suing the other sites - they're suing Google. This would be like if the *AA immediately started suing all ISPs as if they were knowingly involved in large-scale copyright infringement.
This is scary, and I hope Perfect 10 falls flat on their ass. It's not Google's job to police everyone else's copyright and make sure that they don't index images in such a manner.
FC Closer
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.
It really is about time now. Why not just create a free (as in beer) pr0n-service while holding up "Don't be evil" moral standars, and watch the competition be washed away?
;-)
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
Yeah, and I'm sure google can help Perfect 10 find them and help put the people away since they have the pictures cached with the URL. Case closed, but no, go after the one that has more money is always the way people go these days. Not after the real criminals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
12345
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Search Google Images for "site:perfect10.com" and see for yourself. Even with SafeSearch turned off there are only 112 softcore pictures (mostly non-nude, naked breast on very few of them, a lot of logos and other website design elements). I Call bullshit.
Then.. uh... shouldn't Perfect 10 be going after the real offenders, and not the index server which simply aggrigates all of the images that fit the searched terms?
To me, it looks like everyone and their mother is trying to cash in on Google. They're such a huge target that they're easy to attack with lawsuits. This actually does make them like Microsoft, but unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a legal department the size of Kentucky to back it up... give it time though.
Who knows, I might sue Google for aggrigating my slashdot comments! That's about as frivilous as this lawsuit is.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
IN other words, what the fuck is the comparison? Wake me up when I'm NOT ALLOWED to switch away from their products and they've managed to muzzle the regulators despite clearly illegal monopolistic behavior!
Doesn't anybody get it? MS doesn't have to do anything for their customers and they automatically get billions every month. Google has to satisfy customers to get revenue. Does Google try to go over your head if you don't want to use their products?
They complain not that Google indexes and displays their site. They complain that people copy pics off their site, then display them on their own sites, and google indexes these sites.
IMHO bullshit. Google is not a police to check whether images they index infringe on someone's copyright. All they host are thumbnails which can be easily proven to be "fair use" for informative purposes. Then they LINK to pages that infringe on the site's copyright - and from then on, admins should send out C&D, sue and do all kinds of nasty things to admins of these sites. Once they remove the infringing content, Google will make its own indexes expire automatically, with next update. Of course assholes think it's easier to make Google remove the links, removing all traffic to the competing sites at once, instead of hunting each of them separately, but it seems all they can get is waste a lot on lawyers and have the case thrown out of court.
If I make a photo of a pile of CDs, with purpose to put it in a newspaper, I don't copy them, and in no way I'm responsible about finding out whether they are pirated or original. Same with thumbnails of images found on various sites. Google states the fact: "This site has these images". Determining legal status of that site having these images is completely offtopic.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Archive.org's cache of Google's Ten-Things list:m /corporate/tenthings.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.google.co
Google is helping them by allowing them to easily find sites that have said copyrighted images on them.
How would the magazine know about these infringements if it weren't for google?
Are they asking for money, or just asking Google to take down the links once they've been notified of the offending content? I wouldn't call it "cashing in" if they're just asking for the links to be taken down. I have other problems with it, but it's not "cashing in."
--
RumorsDaily
What is happening is that some random people took some "Perfect 10" images, either from P10's publicly available previews, or by any other means. Then these same random people have put up their own web site with these selfsame images, without permission from P10.
Finally these sites were harvested by Google and indexed.
So who is committing copyright infrigement again?
If anything Google should be thanked for providing a link to the people's website who took the images without permission, allowing them to be perhaps identified. P10 should be suing *them*.
But no, it's too much work and they probably are just a bunch of amateur with little to no money, so P10 is choosing to sue Google instead. Guess why.
How this has anything to to with Google's alleged "arrogance" we'll never know.
"Arrogant" is another term for successful people who are onto a good thing and they know it. Many can't take somebody else's success. So Apple, Microsoft and now Google are "arrogant".
Personnally I'm delighted that Google is doing so well. So far everybody benefits, including mere users. At least we have Microsoft running scared a little. In the past this meant they react intelligently and fast (like in the case of the web browser for win95) but these days they take the PR approach a bit more.
We'll see what happens.
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 thing about the web is that you really have no idea how things are happening under the hood. i find it pretty unlikely that google is simply letting their search technology rot on the vine, instead of continuing to improve it. or perhaps you'd prefer more press releases? ("Google search v10.3.5.2.1.1.9a released!")
Well, lawsuit tends to have the word "settlement" attached to it, which usually has a monitary value either in time, lawyer's paychecks, etc. And it's free publicity for Perfect 10, at the cost of Google's shining 'Do no evil' image.
So it may not have financial value, but it definitely has value. If it were a sane company/person, they would have emailed Google and said "hey, look. please, please take down those links, they're hurting our business and violating our copyright".. instead of waving around the DMCA and getting the media involved, which I'm sure Perfect 10's gonna use to their advantage in trying to get a bigger settlement.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
* 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.
Whats the worst part about it is that if people had known that google was going to trash dejanews, they wouldn't have deleted their own usenet archives.
i) harder to track down than Google
ii) probably much poorer than Google,
so it's really not a tricky decision for Perfect 10's lawyers as to who they go after.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Basically Googles "do no evil" slogan is slowly whipped away with every lawsuit it gets. Because the more you sue a company the more protective it will get to preserve its own rights. The more protective it gets the more likely it will strike back. If we knew how to properly boycott companies that do evil things until they stop vs. trying to sue them but still purchase their stuff. Companies will probably be a lot less "evil" because their bottom line is based on their goodness.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Replace Google with Napster and Perfect 10 with the RIAA. Is this really such an open and shut case in favor of Google?
This is a tricky question. Here we have two systems, with different targets and goals that collide. Much like when two cultural societys meets each other.
Google aims to provide the best possible search engine on the internet. This requires certain methods that are optimized in regard to provide the users with the content they need. This engine has not been designed to violate copyrights. Should it be held liable when it happens? It's the same as being able to make a law suit against a baseball bat manufacturer, as their bats might be used as weapons.
Perfect 10 deliver porn to its users. Most of this content is in images, and therefore the value (the product) is the images them self. This is the reason copyright laws were made. If their content is "stolen" and "sold" through other channels than their own site, they lose money.
The problem is that both arguments make reason.
It would be difficult if a company like Google should integrate a filter to lockout individual cases, like Perfect 10. In a sense such a filter would work against the Google product.
Technically the real case will probably end with discussions about caching of images on the Google servers and displaying content outside their context... time will show. The winner will probably be the company with most muscle, as it usually is, and this will unfortunately deprive us of knowing the best solution to the problem.
-:) Oh no - not again.
www.rednebula.com
With luck, the law will (ultimately) distinguish between enterprise and infrastructure. Suing Google makes as much sense as suing your post-office for mail fraud.
Moreover... beyond images, what about copyrighted phrases like "Things go better with Coke"? Should Google not search for them?
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
Goodwin's Law is retarded. I think a better law is the Special Olympics Law which is as follows. "Arguing online is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you're still a fucking retard." Oh noes, did I win? DAMN IT!
Feel free to compares Google and M$ when Google requires all PC OEMs to include a browser that will only display their Web site and Google penalizes these companies if they attempt to provide a browser that will display non-Google pages. Oh, and when Google builds and operating system and only provides their services/apps to that OS. Oh yeah, and when they use their marketshare to rebrand technologies that will only work with their upcoming OS.
Let's make an effort here to make the point that there might be some similar aspects to Google and Microsoft, but this bland statement of comparision is silly.
One 'o', you fucking nazi!
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
I think there's two parts to a large majority of the bad press that Google has been getting. Keep in mind, I'm not going to defend them blindly, but I just can't bring myself to buy into most of the garbage that's being run, so here goes:
1. Like you said ciro, people are just suing Google because they know that Google has money. It's like all the Michael Jackson pedophile cases (please don't go further into those). As long as people can suspect that something is going on even without proving it, they're going to go for the gold. Google tries to keep their secrets about the business and so people think that the mystery behind their search engine gives companies the right to sue over the stupidest things.
2. As childish and stupid as it may sound, I think there are a small number of cases of bad press about Google going around whose flames were fanned by getting lowered on the grand ladder of Page Rank. With how much money people are pouring into SEO and SEM 'experts' however knowledgable they really are, I can easily conceive that someone will cough up that same amount to shit on Google's front lawn when that SEO project resulted in a lower rank in the only engine they think matters.
Bottom line: The internet is a big and scary place, and when you can't find that mean man that stole your purse, you can blame it on that really big guy standing next to you because he's probably that big for a bad reason. Or at least you can make a few judges believe you.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
Show me a porn site that doesn't want people's browsers sent its way. Half of spam sent is trying to achieve that effect (okay and infect you with spayware and other creepy crawlies.)
They must be be getting their money some other way than by earning it.
So who are the players here? What links are there to some competition. (And there must already be a way to tell search 'bots' to ignore subdirectories so this suit is nothing but a legal annoyance, not a valid suit.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
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
The problem is that they're going after Google, not the sites that are trying to profit from copyrighted material...
-JMP
Sigh... are you kidding me? Liberals and/or feminists are the people that define porn as exploitation. And, of course, a "conservative = bad" post get's a +5 Insightful.
The point is it's more like have your house invaded and your lawn mower stolen, then sue the news paper for publishing your address that was contained in the public record police report, making it easier for the next crook to know where some idiot that doesn't lock up lives.
Google only shows a thumbnail of the image, this is assumed to be within the doctrine of fair use as its a small portion, not the full image, to get the full image you have to follow the link to it, where the rights owner is able to distribute the full image on their standards, or to the location of the infringer.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
How about all the 18-24 year old girls who are paying their way through school or supporting a family?
BTW - age 18 is considered in Canada (and much of the United States) as "age of majority". By that age, people are considered mature enough to vote to change the future of our nation, smoke cigarettes, drive any form of motor vehicle, own property, enter into legal contracts, hold full-time careers, etc. Why then are they not old enough to decide how, when and where to use their own bodies?
BTW2 - what are the consequences? To have people such as yourself and others look down on them for their career choice?
A friend of mine was a stripper (no sexual favours, just dancing) who paid her way through college, bought a car then replaced it some years later and completely supported her husband while he attended university. She now works full-time (with her clothes on) as does he, and he makes more than enough money to support them both comfortably due to his credentials.
Does she hide the fact that she stripped? Hell no. Does she feel exploited? Yep. She feels that she exploited dozens of men every night who turned over 10, 20 or even several hundred dollars to be in her company.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Duh, they can GOOGLE for them.
Never confuse volume with power.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
So why aren't they suing the image thieves?
that's right, google's got deep pockets.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Google pisses off their competetitors, who can't compete because, well, they suck at competing. Their users all love them.
Microsoft pisses off their competetitors because they use illegal, immoral, unethical tactics to forgo competition, even with companies that are far better ethically and technologically.
Microsoft's customers hate them because their products suck.
We are ALL exploited by our employers and made to do things that make us uncomfortable in order to secure our next paycheck. Whores and strippers are not unique in this.
This is Jack's inability to be impressed with one form of exploitation vs. another.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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!!
Half of spam sent is trying to achieve that effect (okay and infect you with spayware and other creepy crawlies.)
I've got the creepy crawlies just thinking about what spayware could do to a person.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
If this "Perfect 10" found a publisher illegally using their images was advertising in a local newspaper, they'd sue the newspaper rather than the publisher, right?
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
So as I understand it, Perfect 10 contends that the image search function on Google is the equivalent of Google actually producing a web site of images. Since the images belong to Perfect 10, displaying them is copyright infringment. Part of the complaint seems also to revolve around a Google actually indexing and producing "text links" to sites where someone has copied their images and is redisplaying them. Perfect 10 has supplied a list of these URLs to Google and asked that they "remove the links". So, seems simple to me, Google blocks all those sites that have Perfect 10 content as listed by Perfect 10, including the the Perfect 10 site. End of problem....oh, unless they were sort of banking on Google links getting new customers.
1) mark their site with a robots.txt file which would prevent Google from indexing it and have Google take down the content they've already indexed, yet...
2) still leave some pages index-able as a teaser to the bulk of their content
idiots...