Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Wins Nude Thumbnail Legal Battle

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the over-for-now dept.

Google 204

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."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fs0rt pss1s (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172451)

0yabebe

Re:fs0rt pss1s (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173553)

On a related note, please click on this link [mydamnforum.org] a lot. For Great Justice!

Yay! (-1, Offtopic)

J053 (673094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172459)

Frist Psot? Actually, this is a good thing...

How is this different from text? (4, Interesting)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172469)

For many years, Google has shown snippets of a website's likely copyrighted text. Is this really any different from a legal standpoint?

yes (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172509)

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 (5, Funny)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173379)

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.

Text is a part; a thumbnail is a whole (5, Insightful)

searchr (564109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172693)

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. (5, Insightful)

Uniquitous (1037394) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172797)

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

Don't apologize. Yes way. (4, Insightful)

searchr (564109) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172975)

It's not the detail that matters, it's the entire image that's is in view, not a corner or portion. The court didn't define "thumbnail", either. So thumbnail to one person is small viable image to another. If the original is 3000 pixels wide, is a 400 pixels enough of a reduction to be considered "thumbnail"?

For certain uses, having full resolution doesn't matter. A small version of a porn image, meant only for online viewing to begin with, may be enough to, um, function, for the viewer, degrading the value of the original. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just saying there's a difference between taking a paragraph from an entire novel, or a single frame from an episode of The Daily Show, and showing an image in its entirety, except smaller.

Example would be, say, the first exclusive pics of Angelina Jolie's baby. Million dollar shots. Or the first image ever of the iPhone. Priceless. But posting a tiny version online, it would still "reveal" everything that the larger version would, taking that right of publishing/profit/secrecy away from the owner. On a cellphone, a way that many many millions of people are viewing images now, a "thumbnail" is plenty big enough to see all they need to see.

I don't need to print a six foot framed print to hang over my couch. I just want to see Britney nekkid. So there's a difference.

if da vinci painted ... (1)

mliikset (869292) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173431)

...la giaconda on a postage stamp, thumbnails would be toast.

Why does a small part have to be contiguous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173761)

The fair use doctrine doesn't seem to require that to me.

And now a court has ruled that it doesn't.

Because if you don't think detail matters, try and watch a movie on an old CGA monitor...

Re:Don't apologize. Yes way. (2)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173911)

I agree that there is a difference between taking a paragraph from a novel and a reduced-size "complete" image. That's the point of thumbnails: to show the "complete" picture, I think.

But it is not the entire image that's in view. Not by a long shot, in most cases. Sure, you can see naked some girl with your face nearly touching your monitor and be done with it; but it is still just a sample of what you are looking for. A sample in the sense that most details are gone. Perhaps not as much as the original author would like, but they are gone anyway.

Also, let's look at the text thing: If you have a short (very short) story of about two paragraphs and you show only one of them, what would happen? If you have a full body pic of a girl and they show you the upper half, what would happen?

Of course this all fails if by thumbnail we understand an image of 1200 pixels wide, but I think it is important to point out that even when they show you the "complete" picture, they just don't show you the complete picture. At least not in the thumbnails I have seen so far in Google.

Re:Don't apologize. Yes way. (1)

dido (9125) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174393)

If you've seen how Britney's been looking lately, I don't think you'd be very happy getting your wish [thesuperficial.com] ...

Re:Sorry, no way. (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173025)

Not necessarily: you lose fidelity, that is true, but you don't need to fill in the pixels with solid color ;)

There are interesting follow-on questions from this. For example, there are fractal-based algorithms that, instead of pixellating the image, put in some fractal image based on the surrounding area. While it doesn't stand very close scrutiny, it does provide an illusion of detail. Or you could have an artist paint in the missing detail. Are these copyright infringement? I think surely yes, it is certainly a derivative work.

Re:Sorry, no way. (5, Funny)

snarlydwarf (532865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173211)

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

Re:Sorry, no way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173727)

haha, good one.

Re:Sorry, no way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173645)

What about thumbs of vector graphics? Will those still be pixelated?

Re:Sorry, no way. (4, Funny)

ignavus (213578) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173901)

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

Been trying that with nude thumbnails, have you?

Re:Text is a part; a thumbnail is a whole (2, Interesting)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174417)

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?

Re:How is this different from text? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172715)

For many years, Google has shown snippets of a website's likely copyrighted text. Is this really any different from a legal standpoint?

It depends if you are in Belgium with no fair use or if you are in the United States with fair use.

pics or else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173183)

pics or it didn't happen! ;)

Re:How is this different from text? (4, Interesting)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173569)

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 ;)

Re:How is this different from text? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173721)

keep it up judges, its just a matter of time before your elected instead of appointed. it is clear that most judges have forgotten what there jobs are. and people think big oil is robbing us blind. wake up people.

What happened to robots.txt? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172485)

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.

RTFA (5, Informative)

dubonbacon (866462) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172531)

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 (1)

tburke261 (981079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172813)

Google seems to be into a good amount of legal trouble lately. It seems like the lawsuits have started only when google had the $$$ to pay up.

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172823)

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:RTFA (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173583)

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?
That's the BILLION DOLLAR question.

Re:RTFA (1)

172pilot (913197) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173607)

What you're Wondering??

Of course, you sue where the money is, right?? Why do the work yourself, when you can sue and have someone else do it, while you collect from them!

Simple answer. (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173617)

What I'm wondering is why go after the intermediate?

Deep pockets.

Re:RTFA (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173119)

OK, so it touches on different laws. Even that isn't Google's fault. Weeding out copyright infringement isn't the search engine's responsibility.

Re:What happened to robots.txt? (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172549)

Well, I don't know how to do it off the top of my head. I'd Google it, but I might end up with all these pornographic pictures... :^)

Seriously, I agree that this is a good thing and there are ways to not have Google index your pages if you'd prefer that they don't. I have to admit, I'm curious if there's a way to not have Google do images or videos but do text. That seems like it would be a feature worth having...

Re:What happened to robots.txt? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172929)

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

Re:What happened to robots.txt? (1)

yabba-dabba-do (948536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174315)

It is very simple using robots.txt, just move all your images to a single directory (/images) and then add /images to the deny list in robots.txt. Robots can index the rest of the site, but ignore the /images directory.

The photographs suck anyways. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172493)

nt

errr.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172539)

So in theory I could display google's logo in a prominent place on my webpage and use it as a logo, as long as it links back to their page..

If they complain, its just a thumbnail.. cool.

Re:errr.... (5, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172597)

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:errr.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172729)

The service benefits both parties.

Is that why the nude site was suing Google?

Other use is obviously copyright infringement.

NO, its a thumbnail so obviously fair use, even without the owner's permission. That was the point of the case.

Re:errr.... (1)

josteos (455905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172925)

While I agree that Google should do this, and I think most people would agree, I do find it interesting that Slashers think its OK for Google to use an Opt-Out strategy whereas spammers are pilloried for trying the same thing. Both involve someone offering you a service which you didn't request, and you (not them) have to do something to make it stop.

Not the same thing. (2, Interesting)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172961)

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.

opt-out means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173273)

...you agree as an email inbox holder to "opt out" of having a less spam filled mailbox.

If you mean that spammers will take you off their lists if you ask to be removed, following their helpful opt-out link, nope, it doesn't work that way, because spammers tell fibs, the naughty boys. In other words, there is no "opt out".

Re:errr.... (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173227)

And using "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" as a snippet from an article on how to make a content restriction system that fails would be fair use, too, right?

Re:errr.... (1)

UserGoogol (623581) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173471)

I have no legal training at all, but that's more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. Using another company's logo is as your own is one of the most obvious examples of trademark infringement around.

Re:errr.... (3, Informative)

Macadamizer (194404) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173565)

So in theory I could display google's logo in a prominent place on my webpage and use it as a logo, as long as it links back to their page..

If they complain, its just a thumbnail.. cool.


Don't confuse copyright and trademark law. Google's logo is more than a thumbnail -- it's a trademarked logo. Your use might be a "fair use" under copyright law, but would likely be infringing under trademark law.

opt-out (1)

pytheron (443963) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172561)

In the UK, we have a parallel situation with phone numbers. Anyone can 'search' for them in a phone book, but it is up to you to voluntarily opt out (ex directory). Unfortunately, several companies choose to ignore the opt-out listings ! It seems reasonable that the web directory (google) has a similar mechanism for avoiding unwanted listing (robots.txt).

Re:opt-out (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172619)

In the US, we usually *pay* to not be listed in a phone directory.

Re:opt-out (1)

epee1221 (873140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173349)

And we can also pay to get the listings of those who paid to not have their info listed.

And that sound... (3, Funny)

adona1 (1078711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172565)

is millions of 13 year olds cheering, as their first taste of pr0n surfing remains within their grasp.

Re:And that sound... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173117)

... or the sound of thousands of /.-ters booing the story submitter for not showing the nude thumbnails in question. Here I was, ready with a manifying glass as soon as I read the title. No dice. Meh!

Re:And that sound... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173137)

Actually, that sound is what millions of 13-year-olds are doing after hearing of this news...

(...eewwwww...)

Idiots like that photographer should be banned (-1, Troll)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172585)

from the internet. apparently they are more harm then participant for the medium they are using. less of them to make the internet a better place, now !

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (2, Interesting)

Anarchysoft (1100393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172611)

Idiots like that photographer should be banned
I'm glad people can't be banned from the net. The internet should be considered in the commons, like the air waves supposedly are. ;)

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172875)

I'm glad people can't be banned from /. Of course, you always have that 'foe' option to quell a pesky poster, but so far, I haven't had to use it... the moderation system works quite well. Could such a system be applied to the Web, through a 3rd party service like /.?

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173153)

Of course, you always have that 'foe' option to quell a pesky poster
Hmm... I wonder if I can put "Anonymous Coward" on the foe list.

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173597)

I like being AC, but you are right.. as an AC how would I ban you? You think we got it so easy, us AC's....

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173449)

allowing some abusers exploit the commons and demolish it just for the of the concept of "commons" is contradictory and foolish.

Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172907)

This is true and very simple, stay off the internet if you can't take it. How can you want only the benefits of the internet and then bitch when it works like it's supposed to. If you want to control exposure then pay for advertising on television or shut up when your free exposure is out of your control - you get what you pay for.

So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (4, Insightful)

joeflies (529536) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172617)

this appears to be a case of fair use over copyrighted work. So why's the nudity a part of the article headline?

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (5, Funny)

The Real Toad King (981874) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172647)

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

I'm not falling for it though.

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172917)

Ha! I be they get $$ for click throughs! So... where exactly are those "Perfect 10" thumbnails?

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (1)

irtza (893217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173417)

well, it may get more people to click through, but I doubt it will get more people to read. More likely a lot of disappointment.

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (1)

Paradigm_Complex (968558) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172663)

Sex sells (advertisements).

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (3, Informative)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172869)

Because nudity draws the attention of everyone. It's about choosing words that attract the attention of people while they're skimming the article headlines. You need to draw them to your spamvertising site to get revenue. Nudity does that, as does the terrorist threat, and a few other select social buzzwords.

But, I am glad to see that common sense is prevailing here. Score one for fair use. Maybe the world is changing as the courts start realising that copyright is not about making as much money as possible, but about encouraging the creation of new and interesting material for the benefit of society as a whole.

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174223)

So goatse is a form of NUDE TERRORISM! Is that why so many people click on it?

Re:So this case has nothing to do with nudity? (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172997)

Because it's not every day that one can combine porn and copyright issues.

do you have to ask? (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173087)

This *is* slashdot...

Victory! (2, Insightful)

yotto (590067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172653)

This is more than a victory for Google. It's even more than a victory free speech. It's a victory for copyright law reform and a victory for anybody fighting a battle for free distribution of content over the internet.

And it's of course a victory for all of us who like teh boobays.

Re:Victory! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172785)

All made possible by the DMCA and it's safe harbor provision. Ironic no?

Re:Victory! (2, Insightful)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173423)

No.

Just because one part of a law is good, doesn't mean the entire thing is good. Especially with the federal government and their tendency to cram 100 unrelated issues into one act.

Re:Victory! (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172895)

You know, if you grow a personality you can get 3d-touch-screen boobays. It's amazing technology... They're so much better than the old CRT-based boobays that you discovered at the ripe old age of 12.

Defeat! (4, Funny)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172943)

But when you try to upgrade they take half of everthing you own.

Re:Defeat! (1)

wizzat (964250) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173561)

But that's why you pick the best model to start with. It costs a bit more in the beginning, but it pays off in the end.

Mine's lasted 6 years so far, and its still the best one on the block.

Re:Victory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172915)

It's a victory for copyright law reform and a victory for anybody fighting a battle for free distribution of content over the internet.

Oh please fuck off. No law has been reformed here. To do that would involve convincing politicians, not judges.

And the people "fighting a battle for free distribution of content over the internet"? You can already do that.

Why must they mention porn? (4, Interesting)

AaxelB (1034884) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172677)

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, where are the links? (3, Funny)

Tatisimo (1061320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172709)

In a past story, we got links to all kinds of piracy websites, but this time we get no links to pr0n... Am I missing something? Since when is linking to pr0n any more taboo than linking to piracy?

Re:Hey, where are the links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19172959)

In a past story, we got links to all kinds of piracy websites, but this time we get no links to pr0n... Am I missing something? Since when is linking to pr0n any more taboo than linking to piracy?

You must be new here, telling Slashdot readers where to find porn is more than a little redundant.

Re:Hey, where are the links? (1)

$0.02 (618911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174061)

I don't want links to pr0n. Give us thumbnails.

Re:Hey, where are the links? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174133)

Why don't you just google for links instead?

duh...

I don't understand what the big deal is (2, Funny)

MutantHamster (816782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172719)

I mean, I don't know about you, but my thumbnails are always nude? Since when is this an issue?

Re:I don't understand what the big deal is (2, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172737)

Same here. I've never used fingernail polish either.

Re:I don't understand what the big deal is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173807)

You've never had a girl play with your nails? How boring for you ;-)

Re:I don't understand what the big deal is (1)

whitehatlurker (867714) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174221)

I for one am glad that I can proudly bare my thumbnails once again. Whhat about finger nails, though?

Google : You are doomed to lose (2, Interesting)

kentsin (225902) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172733)

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.

Re:Google : You are doomed to lose (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173509)

How is google doing anything wrong here? They have an image searching service. The website owners didn't have a robot.txt file. (Yes, I know that the works were being hosted by some other place than the owner, but they should have gone after THOSE guys, not google).

Justin from Justin.tv getting Digg Tour (0, Offtopic)

phatoneusa (1103865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172757)

Check it out on Justin.tv right now live.

Missing something... (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172887)

Couldn't the photographer have a robot.txt file in the website root directory to tell the robots to leave the image directory alone? That's what I do for my website to keep my pictures off the image search.

Re:Missing something... (5, Informative)

adminstring (608310) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173073)

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 Please (1)

schweini (607711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19172979)

Link, please ;-)

Precedent. With a T. (4, Informative)

koreth (409849) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173069)

Operator precedence. [wikipedia.org] Legal precedent. [wikipedia.org]

English: learn it and love it!

Seriously (1)

gekoscan (1001678) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173185)

Nobody jerks off to thumbnails... oh and i know, I am an expert in this area.

Subscription required? Here's a free site. (3, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173231)

Even if it is a free registration, this has been reported in many places, it's not hard to find a subscripton-free report, for example: here [itweek.co.uk]

Would this still be forbidden for icons/smileys? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173301)


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.

It set a precedent, not a precedence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173683)

Get it strait. ;)

Yuo Fa1l IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19173869)

ago, `8any of you

Link to the actual ruling (5, Informative)

seaturnip (1068078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19173889)

Here [uscourts.gov] . 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.

google (0, Offtopic)

colala (1103897) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174179)

i like google Free Software Download http://www.populardownload.net/ [populardownload.net]

One file to rule them all: robots.txt (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19174217)

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.

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19174287)

I don't see what the big deal about this case is, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, a case decided by the 9th Circuit in 2002 already said that using a thumbnail image is fair use, is it the fact that it's nude? Thats not really a copyright issue, so much as a it is a decency issue.

Is this really surprising? (3, Funny)

katterjohn (726348) | more than 7 years ago | (#19174385)

Judges prefer using Google to get porn too!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>