Zada, EFF Respond to Perfect 10 vs. Google Decision

[Paul Markham]

What's your take on this, good or bad for the industry

Zada, EFF Respond to Perfect 10 vs. Google Decision

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. ? Perfect 10 owner Norman Zada and Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jason Schultz have both offered their takes on yesterday's ruling.
With the decision, Google is safe to use thumbnail images in its search results but holds contributory liability for posting infringing sites in its search results.

"It's a great decision for Internet users and the next wave of Internet innovators," Jason Schultz, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told XBIZ. "Perfect 10 was basically trying to get the court to turn over control of Google's search function to them, and the court pretty much rejected all of their claims."

Zada told XBIZ that though he is disappointed about the thumbnail decision, the more important part of the ruling was the notice-and-takedown requirement. In order for Google to be responsible for removing the URLs of infringing sites, the copyright holder must provide the search engine with a notice that includes the exact location of the images.

Zada said Perfect 10 sent several notices to Google, compliant with the search engine's notice method, but he claims the search engine ignored them.

However, Schultz said Perfect 10 didn't give specific locations for each stolen photo, and that their notices were too general.

"Perfect 10 didn't do it the right way," Schultz said. "Perfect 10 doesn't like it because it has to do more work."

As for naming the posting of thumbnail images in search results "fair use," Zada said because Google displays both a clear thumbnail, as well as its full-size image when directing users to the website on which the image was originally posted, Google is directly infringing ? and profiting from ? the stolen images.

"They're not performing a public service by helping people find stolen material," Zada said. "What's fair about that?"

Zada also said Google knows which sites are stealing from Perfect 10 and they need to stop working with and making money from them. Many of the infringing sites Google links to carry Google ads, he said.

"There's a simple way to reduce the infringement," Zada said. "Remove all of the thumbnails or all links to the sites."

Armed with new evidence, Zada is taking the case back to court. He said that Perfect 10 has lost $50 million and that company research shows that there have been 27 billion image views and downloads of his content, and there are 1.5 million Perfect 10 images currently posted illegally online.

"The battle is far from over," Zada said, "and we think we're going to win."

And how can we use it to our benefit?

[Paul Markham]

No one got an opinion?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Magic join links?

ADG

[warlock5]

Of course its good. The cocksucking assfuck who runs Perfect 10 purchased rights to Peter Hegre's photographs, then turned around and started issuing DMCA notices to affiliates who showed up in Google Images. It appeared this was done in full knowledge and planning to sue Google. They already knew the images were ranking when they bought the rights to them!!!

Unrelated, but did anyone else notice how the newspapers covered this? I think the Washington Times headline was something like "Google wins Nude Images Case." This case didn't have any damn more to do with porno than it did about Perfect 10 being run by a Jew; it was about fucking copyright and fair use law.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by warlock5

Of course its good. The cocksucking assfuck who runs Perfect 10 purchased rights to Peter Hegre's photographs, then turned around and started issuing DMCA notices to affiliates who showed up in Google Images. It appeared this was done in full knowledge and planning to sue Google. They already knew the images were ranking when they bought the rights to them!!!

If we can't bring down the pirates maybe we can bring down those supporting them.

I sold him images and videos and gave him a list of people and sites using them. Then took them off my sites, never heard a single complaint from any other the customers who bought before he did.

So many here talk about stopping pirates and that's all most do, talk.

[jayeff]

In this context, there are two problems with US law. One is that judges are allowed far less discretion than in the UK (for example). This means that if they do not interpret the law precisely as it stands, they are setting precedents. That's the second problem. Not least because doing so often results in their decisions being overturned on appeal, most judges are unwilling to do so.

I'm only guessing that Google was targeted a) because it has deep pockets and/or b) because winning against Google would have had a significant impact on the likely outcome of future cases. Both true, but in view of what I wrote above, also a poor choice.

Google is a search engine on a massive scale. Its operators cannot fail to be aware that its spiders do pull in sites which include stolen content, but those are not its sole target and while when included, their presence in the index is monetized just as are fully legitimate entries, no-one reasonably imagines this is anything other than a consequence of the existence of such sites on the internet. This is a very different situation from that of the type of site knowingly based (almost) entirely on the use of stolen content.

The applicable laws on which abuses can be addressed are primarily breach of copyright (which may mean addressing fair use laws as it did in this instance, or laws providing protection to those who run "interactive" sites). Then you hit the problem that laws will almost always lag behind current technology and/or the imagination of those who seek loopholes.

Eventually the laws will catch up. Lawmakers don't like being made to look fools by having their own laws used against them and they are susceptible to pressure from industry. I don't see that pressure coming from online porn, but other branches of entertainment are affected too and they do have clout and are willing to use it.

It will probably take several years, but I'm sure we shall get easier solutions in the case of torrent sites and the like. Then hopefully, not only the site operators, but all those involved in monetizing stolen content will be subject to penalties. However I don't see something like Google being included.

Unless you outlaw search engine spiders or find some way to mark legitimate - and only legitimate - content, spiders are going to collect the bad with the good. And while some people are hiding behind onerous requirements to specifically identify and locate stolen content, imagine the potential for abuse, if someone like Google began removing links on someone's say-so.

Of course, there are also the "in-between" cases such as YouTube. Such sites are not built entirely on the basis of stolen content, but it would be hard to believe their operators are unaware of the extra appeal which the abuse of copyright laws adds to their sites. They must fall foul of the law eventually, because while they might claim that they cannot ban "The Beatles" - for example - because some users may want to upload homemade clips about that group, it would be easy to demonstrate that the vast majority of their Beatles' clips are copyrighted material being used without permission. At the very least they are going to end up with "due diligence" requirements, rather than being allowed to place the onus on copyright holders.

[Damian_Maxcash]

Some of the figures seem a little OTT - $50 Million?

I could be wrong, but I just cant believe they have 'lost' that sort of money.

Remember that's lost money - so how much are they saying they actually make?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by damian2001

Some of the figures seem a little OTT - $50 Million?

I could be wrong, but I just cant believe they have 'lost' that sort of money.

Remember that's lost money - so how much are they saying they actually make?

I think it's the US lawyers applying a very broad interpretation, as usual.

[ladida]

Google fucked him in the ass, no lube.