| Thumbnails infringe
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:1234565 | 8:02 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
[news.ft.com...] | A US judge ruled on Tuesday that Google's search engine for images had breached the copyright protection of a publisher of pornographic photographs, dealing one of the first legal blows to the company's core technology. However, the internet search company said that, although it was disappointed by the finding, it believed the ruling would have no effect on the vast majority of image searches it conducts. In an opinion issued in US district court in the central district of California, Judge Howard Matz said that he would issue a preliminary injunction to prevent Google displaying thumbnail-sized images of nude women that belonged to the publisher, Perfect 10. |
|
|
howiejs
msg:1234566 | 8:08 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Does this destroy google images and then yahoo images?
|
StupidScript
msg:1234567 | 8:12 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Very interesting, and despite the judge's intent in crafting a narrowly-defined ruling, it may have a bigger impact than he knows: | Since [Google] sells adverts to run alongside its search results, the image search service does not fall under the "non-commercial" test |
|
One of four "fair use" requirements down ... | the "creative" nature of the images meant they should have protection |
|
... that's two ... | [Perfect 10] had licensed a UK company to distribute similar-sized pictures to mobile phones |
|
... and a majority three. We can expect several more of these suits as companies begin to distribute images to mobile phones. After all, precedence is precedence.
|
nutsandbolts
msg:1234568 | 8:22 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
Published February 22 2006? Bit old this isn't it?
|
Brett_Tabke
msg:1234569 | 8:54 pm on May 10, 2006 (gmt 0) |
*ouch*! Yes indeed. My bad... Pulled an old news story out of the aggregator by mistake. I thought it was really deja vu... [webmasterworld.com...]
|
|
|
