Judge rules in favor of Google's 'fair use'

[grimfang]

A San Francisco appeals court has reversed a lower court's preliminary injunction that barred Google from displaying thumbnail-size pornographic images from the Perfect 10 site. Google might, though, be liable for allowing links to sites that display pirated copies of the images


The lower court had found Google guilty of violating Perfect 10's copyright on images, but said it was probably not responsible for displays of the underlying images from the porn merchant's site.


Importantly for search engines everywhere, Judge Sandra Ikuta ruled Perfect 10 was unlikely to be able to overcome Google's "fair use" defense in use of the images. A loss could have opened the door to other, similar cases against Google and fellow search engines.


Perfect 10, a magazine and web publisher, objected to Google returning thumbnails of its images of nude women without its permission in 2001. Perfect 10 typically charges, er, clients a monthly fee for access to its site. Perfect 10 has filed similar claims against Amazon.com and its A9.com operation.

[balls_deep]

hey grim,

do you have a link to this story?

[grimfang]

Yup.. got the link.. but thats the complete article I posted.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05...ct_ten_appeal/
I'm still hunting for any more articles that might provide a bit more insight. I'll get a link up as soon as I find something.

[balls_deep]

thanks grim, this story really peaks my interest. It seems there may be some useful info lying between all the clutter.

Please do post anything else you find on this subject

[jonnydoe]

So is the big G accountable for 2257 on their thumb?

[grimfang]

So is the big G accountable for 2257 on their thumb?

They should be, according to the text of the law. But good luck trying to find a prosecutor who would be willing to press the issue against Google.
IF anyone ever had the balls to call Google on thier obvious violation of the law, one of two things would have to happen: Either the laws would have to be altered to exclude hotlinked images from the 2257 recordkeeping requirments, or Google would be forced to dump its image search completely in order to stay compliant with the law.
The problem is that there is not a prosecutor in this country who would be willing to take them on in court. Google can throw more money at the case than the government can, and it would just be a huge financial drain. So Google gets to continue bypassing the legal system while we must all worry about every little detail of our recordkeeping.

[Cozy Monica]

I find it sick that the legal system has so much to do with money, who has it, and who doesn't.

It makes me angry that the entire system would be changed if they could just get google through the court system, but due to money issues, it will never happen.

[balls_deep]

It's good to know we can still buy justice in America.