Slashdot Mirror
Google Wins Nude Thumbnail Legal Battle
eldavojohn writes "Google is currently fighting many fronts in its ability to show small images returned in a search from websites. Most recently, Google won the case against them in which they were displaying nude thumbnails of a photographer's work from his site. Prior to this, Google was barred from displaying copyrighted content, even when linking it to the site (owner) from its search results. The verdict: "Saying the District Court erred, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that Google could legally display those images under the fair use doctrine of copyright law." This sets a rather hefty precedence in a search engine's ability to blindly serve content safely under fair use."
For many years, Google has shown snippets of a website's likely copyrighted text. Is this really any different from a legal standpoint?
Hax-fu?
You just don't get it. Google isn't pretending to be YOUR site by showing thumbnails. It is providing a service, one you can opt out of using a single line in /robots.txt. The service benefits both parties.
You CAN use a thumbnail of Google's logo to represent a link to them, that would be fair use, which is EXACTLY what this is about. Other use is obviously copyright infringement.
Try reading US Title 17 Section 106A and comprehending it. It isn't that hard.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Hax-fu?
This is a really good thing, it sets a good precedent and so on and so forth, and is probably news worth posting on its own merit. Why must we promote it with "nude thumbnails" in the title? I mean, you should only add an empty promise of porn if the story can't stand on its own. With an interesting story, it's just distracting.
Hey, there must be one country one court that rule against you. These are meaningless fights.
Lobby, lobby, spin the news, (mis)lead the public, and then go to legislator, make new international convention, then you are secured.
All made possible by the DMCA and it's safe harbor provision. Ironic no?
Google puts links to your site on THEIR website.
Spammers put emails in YOUR email box.
Further, when you publish something on the web, it is public by default.
paintball
IANAL, but from what I have gathered about fair use a sign of it being exceeded is if the third-party provides sufficient material that the likely user would not need to seek out the original source. Hence small thumbnails of professional photographs are not infringing.
However - what if the image itself was the size of a smiley? What if Google Image Searching for 'afro smiley' displays an identical copy of the one you would find on a copyrighted, smiley-designing, ad-supported website? In this case the original source _would_ be completely replaced by Google. If a case like that ever comes up the result would be very interesting - either 1. allowing full display of any picture smaller than your average thumbnail, 2. giving carte blanche for copying in the absence of a robots.txt (i.e. you need to take active action to make infringement of your works illegal), or 3. mandating that the thumbnail be either microscopically small or obscured in some way. All of which would be interesting and slashdotworthy news.
I am a photographer and I'm glad Google won. I also know how to code my robots.txt, and am thankful Googlebot respects it.
This schmuck is saying "don't steal a cigarette out of my car ashtray just because the window is open". Close it.
It's not the entire image. Technically, it's a grid of small parts of the image, averaged together. You lose a LOT of the original image that way.
Put it this way: Say the original image is 1024x768 in size, and the thumbnail is 160x120. That's 786,432 pixels of image versus 19,200 pixels, or 1/40th of the image.
I think 1/40th falls well under fair use, don't you?
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
How does this chip away at the DMCA? What part of the DMCA was violated? Just because it's digital content?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Of course, by the very nature of Google Image Search, that wouldn't be a problem for Google so much as whatever page it indexed.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I'm afraid that Google doesn't deserve common carrier status: they haven't earned it, due to their willingness to censor content with unfounded copyright claims, and to censor references to dissident content, etc. It's not that Google is bad, or historically outrageous about this, but engaging in that kind of censorship as a matter of policy can ruin your status as a common carrier.