A pornography firm has won an injunction against Google for breach of copyright
Google in a pickle over porn pics
/v3-uk/news/1990517/google-pickle-porn-pics
22 Feb 2006, Iain Thomson , V3
Google may have to modify its image search technology after a pornography company won an injunction against the search giant for breach of copyright.
Perfect 10, which produces a magazine and website featuring "natural women", is claiming that Google's image search feature infringes its copyright.
The firm also alleges that the search engine is linking to sites where pirated copies of its images are stored.
Perfect 10 originally filed a separate suit against Amazon, but has now combined both actions into a single case.
"The court now concludes that Google's creation and public display of 'thumbnails' likely do infringe Perfect 10's copyrights," wrote US District Judge A Howard Matz in a 48 page ruling.
"The Court also concludes, however, that Perfect 10 is not likely to succeed on its vicarious and contributory liabilities."
Judge Matz explained that Google derives no financial benefit from the images and that it is the company hosting the pirated images which is at fault, making a damages claim against Google unlikely to succeed.
Google is not contesting that the thumbnails are copyrighted but does dispute the assertion that it is infringing those rights. The search giant insists that its display of the images constitutes 'fair use'.
The two parties were directed to collaborate on a joint injunction that will protect Perfect 10's copyright, but not curtail Google's ability to categorise the web. The sides must reach agreement by 8 March.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Great PR for Perfect 10
This is all a PR stunt designed to feed off the Google hype machine.
I'm not a porn aficionado, but I'd certainly never heard of Perfect 10 before. Now I have.
How many readers will check out Perfect 10, just to see what the fuss is about?
Posted by Chris, 22 Feb 2006
wow, what complete idiots...
What motivates "Perfect 10"?
How dumb do you have to be to run a business (or any site) and NOT want your link to appear in search engines, especially in Google?
Their case is against those who pirate their images on other sites - not at all against Google, which by displaying thumbnails is obviously bringing them hits and presumably revenue. At no cost to them!
I would have expected the move to censor "adult" images from search engines to come from fundamentalists, and certainly not from a porn provider!
Posted by NL, 22 Feb 2006
WHO CARES?
Who cares about a washed up has been porn star?
Posted by dexter, 05 Mar 2006
All you posters are idiots
Do any of you read the articles?
The problem with this case, according to the srticle is that google is displaying someones images that are copyrighted from a third party website. According to the lawsuit, people pirate p10 images and google picks them up and gives the infringing website the traffic. In fact in the lawsuit, these infringing sites are useing google adsense. Which means google and the infringing site are making money, and perfect 10 is getting nothing out of it but expense. So, I don't blame perfect 10 at all, I hope they win... Remember the gov't is going after them because they are the largest provider of porn in the world. Ever notice why google never displays in the zeitgeist adult natured searches?
Do your research or read the whole article before comment.
Posted by WGFC, 18 Mar 2006
Don't fall into the trap
If you could view the "hits counter" of that porno site... it just jumped throught the ROOF as soon as this lawsuit was filed.
Win or lose... they just gained a HUGE # of new users.
Posted by Carol, 23 Feb 2006
pr0n industry = boneheads
There's likely long-standing animosity here. Porno websites, because of the competitive nature of the field, employ some of the most blatant black-hat, worst-practices search optimization known to humankind, yet some of the most sophisticated web architecture available can be seen in this industry. As a result, the pornographers resent Google because Google bans websites which use spammy techniques to artificially enhance search engine rankings.
Yes, this is all about a porn supplier busting Google's balls. Why?
1. Because they can.
2. Because they can brag about it later over drinks at whatever bar pr0n webmasters frequent.
There's no reasoning with these people sometimes. They like to play weird search games too, to show off their SEO prowess. For example, for a while, a Google Image search for the term "Jazzercise" turned up a pic of a nude female model for its #1 result, with no other pr0n evident in the top SERPs.
I'll be the first to admit I could look at pr0n all day, but please, please don't ask me what the hell I was doing searching for "Jazzercise" pictures... I must be some kind of pervert ;)
Posted by Kaiju Stampede, 22 Feb 2006
Not enough
I like Google but I am sick of how google seems to be getting away with murder when it comes to porn.
You can search for pretty tame stuff and still come across porn. Now with Google Video they now have "almost" porn and such streaming. It is coming soon I'll be switching my search engine.
Posted by Michael Parks, 22 Feb 2006
Must be a head tumor
Perfect 10 or shoulf it be Perfect Idiots have effectively sealed their doom by bashing on a search engine. In a few months they will drop into who cares abyss with no links in site.
Posted by Joe PR, 23 Feb 2006
Re: Others
Pardon the double-post but I'd just like to respond to the other commenters here.
NL: "How dumb do you have to be to run a business (or any site) and NOT want your link to appear in search engines, especially in Google?"
Perfect 10 DOESN'T have an issue with Google producing links to its site, it has a problem with Google producing links to sites which illegally host its copyrighted images. (Which, as you note, isn't Google's fault, it's those sites'.)
Steve: "Go after the thief, not the search engine..."
I hate to nitpick, but I think the distinction between theft and copyright infringement is a very important one, and I think that groups like the RIAA and the MPAA have gone to great lengths to convince people that these two things are the same. Infringement is NOT theft, not legally and not logically. It's illegal, but it's completely different from theft.
Posted by Thad, 22 Feb 2006
Re: Michael Parks
Either I've been duped by a troll or you're completely ignorant of what the point of this article is. Either way, you just blurted out a complete non sequitur.
The fact that this is a porn company is COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL to the case. This is a copyright versus fair use issue. The legal issues would be exactly the same regardless of WHO was accusing Google of infringement. And, frankly, IMO the suit is absurd and the judge has made a very bad call. Thumbnails in a search engine are CLEARLY fair use.
Now, on the point you DID make (which, again, is completely irrelevant to the story), what on Earth are you talking about regarding Google "getting away with murder when it comes to porn"? Google is a search engine. It returns results for your search terms. If it returns porn, that's because -- and hang onto your shorts, this is a radical concept -- THERE'S A LOT OF PORN ON THE INTERNET. This content is not hosted by Google. Search engines are only there to help people find things on other sites.
Posted by Thad, 22 Feb 2006
must be beneficiuos to someone
It's possible that when i see a thumbnail of perfect 10 images i click it to see it better and go to P10 page? It gives benefit to the company? it is more beneficious than when i search in google for porn, google not links to P10 pages? I think that company lawyers are kidding, joking or drunk to go on with tis process. Or are they the only that takes benefit? jajaja
Posted by greycloud, 27 Nov 2006