Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Wins Nude Thumbnail Legal Battle

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the over-for-now dept.

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."

4 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. How is this different from text? by Anarchysoft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    1. Re:How is this different from text? by WoLpH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And Google has been sued (atleast in Belgium) for just that, some newspapers didn't want Google to show the text on there site, so they sued and won. In exchange Google removed those websites _entirely_ from there search results, I'm just wondering what they would have liked better ;)

  2. Re:errr.... by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!
  3. Why must they mention porn? by AaxelB · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.