|copyrighted pictures of nude women for free by performing Google searches. |
No dollar amount was mentioned but wouldn't Google be liable only for the amount of money perfect 10 claims they lost? How much can it really be?
Also, how can the bots access a password protected area; could it be the webmaster made an error, no?
I think that lawsuit is a bit shady.
I think the issue was not pictures in a secured area, but rather pictures that were stolen from their members area and re-posted into a spiderable area on another website.
1) Perfect 10 should have gone after the places that stole their images and/or used an image tracking software like digimark etc.
2) If they really did send certified requests to Google with no response, and given this statement:
"Perfect 10 is represented by attorney Russell Frackman, who also represented major record companies in their lawsuits against file-sharing networks for copyright infringement."
It sounds like it could really open up some eyes in the image caching field.
To me it appears that Google is not being sued for caching the images, but rather failing to respond and act accordingly to the DMCA complaints and remove them from their index.
"No dollar amount was mentioned but wouldn't Google be liable only for the amount of money perfect 10 claims they lost? How much can it really be?"
if you download a song for free, you could be liable to RIAA for up to $150,000 plus their legal fees. A song cost 99 cents on iTunes. I think the same apllies to pictures but not sure
they should have just put up a robots.txt file hehehe
"they should have just put up a robots.txt file hehehe "
See first line of msg #3 :)
Nope, it doesn't appear that the suit was over caching. Google caches web pages, and they are not suggesting that the pages that google is serving up are cached pages.
They want the images removed from the google image search, but having the thumbnails does not violate the copyright.
The only thing that they can really successfully be suing over is whether Google inappropriately ignored takedown orders. But it appears that they want sites removed, not specific instances of copyright violations in the index.
What it really seems like they want is some publicity, and they certainly got some of that. Considering they sued Visa and Mastercard for
|Visa, MasterCard and other financial institutions, alleging they facilitated and have profited from the illegal sale of pirated sex images flooding the Internet and thus should bear responsibility for any related copyright violations. -Reuters |
I put less credence in this company's claims than I ever did in the SearchKing suit.
"they should have just put up a robots.txt file hehehe "
I think you're wrong hehehe ;)
the files that G cached, if I recall correctly were posted online by other people and on other sites, not perfect 10
If Google are only displaying thumbnails (legally) then it seems to me that the best bet for suing Google would be by claiming that they were willing participants in conspiracies to comit copyright theft. However, that's stretching things somewhat.
Just out of interest, does anyone know what size image constitutes a thumbnail?
|the files that G cached, if I recall correctly were posted online by other people and on other sites, not perfect 10 |
Google did not cache them. Perfect 10 does not hold the copyrights on the pages that perfect 10 wants removed.
Do a search with Google images. Where is the "Cached" link?
Where does the link "See full-size image." take you? It takes you to the original of the image.
Then, just above the frame where they show you the original page there is the following text "Below is the image in its original context on the page:" and then the clickable URL.
Google, at no time, displays the full size image from any of their own servers.
|"No dollar amount was mentioned but wouldn't Google be liable only for the amount of money perfect 10 claims they lost? How much can it really be?" |
If the copyright is registered, an infringing party can be liable for statutory damages plus the plaintiff's legal fees. (That's why it pays to register your copyrights: otherwise, the best you can hope for is real damages, which are hard to prove and may not amount to much.)
BigDave, I think what walkman meant was the images were being pulled from somewhere besides a secured members area of perfect 10.
The whole idea of caching or not does not matter and is irrelevant, its the fact that Google provided access to these stolen images.
The only real case, from my standpoint is whether they responded accordingly to the DMCA compliants or not.
Opener: I understand the cache issue here, this is related to other issues which fall under the same concerns in protecting my own photography. I am not going to battle this post, only putting this out on the table again. Based on a related topic posted a short time ago:
My experiment started today inspired around an earlier post (Here: [webmasterworld.com...] ) by The Contractor
I conducted searches seeking cgi-bin member access to photo galleries of all kinds, and my mission was a success. I was able to gain access to several private member and admin areas indexed by Google. Proof once again Gbot is not paying attention to robots.txt file.
Google may be in this situation more often if they donít fix their issues.
[Edited for content change]
|Proof once again Gbot is not paying attention to robots.txt file. |
Does google have the pages indexed or just the URL.
robots.txt just tells the bot that it cannot go there, it does not tell them not to add the URL to the index.
If you do not want it in the index, you need to let the bot fetch the file and put in the meta noindex tag.
|It sounds like it could really open up some eyes in the image caching field. |
Well, we all know that sex sells. The media coverage Perfect 10 is scraping on this lawsuit is probably bringing their servers to a multi-million dollar crawl.
How could Google easily find out that it's not someone who fraudulently tries to get stuff actually and legally owned by a competitor removed from the search engine? If Google handles the remove claims thoroughly and with care and doesn't too easily give in I think it is in the best interest of webmasters.
If Google loses this case and has to pay a fine for linking to someone (from the article:"Google displays its results in postage-sized images, but links to Web sites that Perfect 10 says illegally display full-sized images") then it will be IMO a very bad precedent. What will be next? Lawsuits over linking to Dutch sites about marihuana? After all, that's illegal in the States.
It sounds like a cross of legal theories between the P2P/Napster "you should be liable for facilitating somebody else's copyright violations" and the Scientology "you shouldn't be leading anybody to sites which have violated our rights by posting our copyrighted materials" cases.
I think what Perfect 10 wants is to effectively delegate the responsibility for finding and acting against copyright violations to Google, rather than having to find offenders and report them to Google itself.
Could resolve the robotics.txt standard to what it should be...a positive rather than a negative standard. Bots only allowed to cache WHEN permission is given rather than current standard of has permission unless excluded.
Right on Mayor. It is too bad this issue came up with such a bogus case.
As others have said, the best way to steal a site is through a search engine cache.
Like Google always say, "be careful who you link to".
Looks like they're getting a taste of their own medicine.
[quote] best way to steal a site is through a search engine cache.[/quote
They cache CGI scripts now!?
I reckon all you can get is the HTML and some images.
While it's great when you're searching, the cache is putting up a lot of info without asking permission. It helps Google grow, helps people search, but is it really legal? Prediction: we haven't heard the last of this.
|The media coverage Perfect 10 is scraping on this lawsuit is probably bringing their servers to a multi-million dollar crawl. |
Their a GoldenPalace wanna be!
However, stupid (and sometimes funny) pranks at major events causes the person to be fined; however, if it is judged that Perfect 10 caused this lawsuit for publicity purposes causing the courts time to be wasted; can Google return the favor and sue them in return?
If Perfect 10's lawsuit has no substance (which probably doesn't); I do hope Google sets off the hounds on them! How much does it cost to sue a multi-billion corp? Where's my lawyer!?
I wholeheartedly agree with Visi. Default bot behavior should be that it will *not* cache unless the website operator specifically gives it permission to do so.
|I wholeheartedly agree with Visi. Default bot behavior should be that it will *not* cache unless the website operator specifically gives it permission to do so. |
I disagree. There will be a lot of webmasters & designers that dont know much about meta tags never mind Robots.txt
Im sure thats one way to cut googles index by 1/3. I think this the best way is to keep it. If someone wants to get out of the index they should say so. After all a search engine will try and bring back the best results it can.
I'm a walking example of the kind of webmaster rj talks about. My site has been online since 1996 but I hadn't even heard of a robots.txt file until a couple of years ago--and I still haven't bothered to create one. Don't see any need for it.
I think we might soon be finding out if search companies get "common carrier" status like telephone companies and ISP's do. Hard to say which way it might lean since search companies have some elements of common carriers but lack others.
|I think we might soon be finding out if search companies get "common carrier" status like telephone companies and ISP's do. |
Why? This case has nothing to do with caching. Do you know of some other case?
| This 34 message thread spans 2 pages: 34 (  2 ) > > |