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."

Comments

What happened to robots.txt?

[Opportunist]

If you don't want your page to show up in google, send the robot home. They actually honor that, ya know.

If you don't know how to use it, well, then maybe you should not display your content on the internet. It will survive without.

Re:What happened to robots.txt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd Google it, but I might end up with all these pornographic pictures... :^) Isn't that the point of a search engine?

yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this really any different from a legal standpoint?

Yes, because now a court has ruled that it is legal.

If Google gets fair use, others will too. This helps to chip away at the damage the DMCA (and a few very uneducated court rulings) has done.

Re:yes

[flyingsquid]

Personally, I don't really see what the fuss is all about. I go around with my thumbnails uncovered all of the time (even though they are a bit chewed-up) and I don't care if people can see my nude thumbnails on Google or not.

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is different from a legal standpoint. There are a few reasons one could point to, but I think the main one is that a snippet of text is just that - a piece of a larger work. In the case of thumbnails, you get the whole image, even though it's shrunken down. But it's still the whole thing. So the question is: does that make a difference under the law? And the answer we got yesterday is, at least in the territory governed by the 9th Circuit, "probably not much of a difference."

But I have to caution everyone against a few things: first, you should refrain from describing the case before reading it: the court didn't say Google's practices were exactly "legal." They did give a strong fair use argument related to the use of thumbnails in image searching, but they didn't say that everything Google did was kosher - they laid out a rule and told the lower court to look into the facts and apply their new ruling to see if Google did everything properly. So, while it was a positive ruling, Google didn't quite "win."

Second, I don't know what the poster above is talking about when he mentions "the DMCA" and "uneducated court rulings." The only thing the DMCA has to do with this case is that it might help Google avoid liability because of the so-called safe harbors for internet services. The "bad" part of copyright law that Google was sued under is just the plain-old copyright statute that has - more or less - been in effect for the past 100 years. Also, there aren't any "uneducated court rulings" in regard to this case - the trial court decided mostly in favor of Google and against it only on a pretty narrow set of issues. It was a thoughtful decision and, again, I'd recommend it to anyone who's interested in these issues.

RTFA

[dubonbacon]

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals undid a preliminary injunction, issued last year by a Los Angeles District Court, that had kept the Web search giant from displaying thumbnail-size photographs of images owned by Perfect 10 Inc. that other sites had improperly posted.

Re:RTFA

[Volante3192]

np, Perfect 10 just has to send DMCA removal requests to the original sites...which they can easily find with Google image search.

What I'm wondering is why go after the intermediate? Google's providing them a wealth of information on infringers. Shut down the middleman you lose your path to the top. (bottom?) Seems to me Perfect 10's just (a) lazy and (b) looking for a quick buck. Go after the REAL infringers already.

Re:errr....

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity?

[The Real Toad King]

It's a strategy the /. editors are using trying to get more people to RTFA.

I'm not falling for it though.

Text is a part; a thumbnail is a whole

[searchr]

Main difference is the protection for text and video is the ability to fairly take a portion of the entire copyrighted piece. With a still photo, even though it's a smaller version, it's still the ENTIRE image, which on the surface seems to go against the definition of "All Rights Reserved". The question a court has to consider, is if that thumbnail, that smaller version, in any way detracts or takes away anything from the original (and not just commercial, there's an artistic value to it as well.) For this case, I think specifically as a search engine function, the court says meh, you're fine.

In fact, as a test of Fair Use, it isn't clear if the wholesale simple shrinking of an image to smaller size is in itself fair game, or if it is just within the specific context of a search engine.

Makes me wonder what this means for the Google Books thingamajig.

Sorry, no way.

[Uniquitous]

A thumbnail doesn't give you the full detail of a full-sized image. Try to scale it up and you get pixellated garbage.

Re:Sorry, no way.

[snarlydwarf]

You, sir, seem to have never watched CSI: modern computers (at least on TV) have infinite resolution.

Re:Missing something...

[adminstring]

The photographer's complaint was not with Google indexing and showing thumbnails from HIS website, but rather with Google indexing and showing thumbnails from OTHER sites which had illegal copies of his photographs. The photographer has no control over the robot.txt file of the other sites, and his complaint is that "...Google substantially assists websites to distribute their infringing copies to a worldwide market and assists a worldwide audience of users to access infringing materials."

The real issue here is whether Google deserves a kind of common-carrier status, whereby they are not responsible for the content they index and return as a search result, or not. For example, the telephone company can't be sued if someone uses a telephone to plot a robbery because they are a "common carrier" and are not expected to know or censor the content that is shared over their network.

My own personal opinion is that the nature of Google's business resembles a telephone company more than anything else - when their crawlers come across an image, Google has no idea if the image is hosted legally or not, and it places an undue burden on Google to expect them to figure out the legal status of each image they index and thumbnail.

Link to the actual ruling

[seaturnip]

Here. 50 pages but a good read at least for me.

Note that slashdotters are always complaining about judges not knowing anything about computers, but this court has a very good understanding of the relevant technical issues. They are fully aware of which servers are transmitting what data even when this is not immediately apparent to amateur users, and base part of their judgement on that basis.