Google Wins Nude Thumbnail Legal Battle 204
eldavojohn writes "Google is currently fighting many fronts in its ability to show small images returned in a search from websites. Most recently, Google won the case against them in which they were displaying nude thumbnails of a photographer's work from his site. Prior to this, Google was barred from displaying copyrighted content, even when linking it to the site (owner) from its search results. The verdict: "Saying the District Court erred, the San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that Google could legally display those images under the fair use doctrine of copyright law." This sets a rather hefty precedence in a search engine's ability to blindly serve content safely under fair use."
How is this different from text? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:errr.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You CAN use a thumbnail of Google's logo to represent a link to them, that would be fair use, which is EXACTLY what this is about. Other use is obviously copyright infringement.
Try reading US Title 17 Section 106A and comprehending it. It isn't that hard.
Re:Idiots like that photographer should be banned (Score:3, Interesting)
Why must they mention porn? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google : You are doomed to lose (Score:1, Interesting)
Lobby, lobby, spin the news, (mis)lead the public, and then go to legislator, make new international convention, then you are secured.
Re:Victory! (Score:1, Interesting)
Not the same thing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Spammers put emails in YOUR email box.
Further, when you publish something on the web, it is public by default.
Would this still be forbidden for icons/smileys? (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL, but from what I have gathered about fair use a sign of it being exceeded is if the third-party provides sufficient material that the likely user would not need to seek out the original source. Hence small thumbnails of professional photographs are not infringing.
However - what if the image itself was the size of a smiley? What if Google Image Searching for 'afro smiley' displays an identical copy of the one you would find on a copyrighted, smiley-designing, ad-supported website? In this case the original source _would_ be completely replaced by Google. If a case like that ever comes up the result would be very interesting - either 1. allowing full display of any picture smaller than your average thumbnail, 2. giving carte blanche for copying in the absence of a robots.txt (i.e. you need to take active action to make infringement of your works illegal), or 3. mandating that the thumbnail be either microscopically small or obscured in some way. All of which would be interesting and slashdotworthy news.
Re:How is this different from text? (Score:5, Interesting)
One file to rule them all: robots.txt (Score:0, Interesting)
This schmuck is saying "don't steal a cigarette out of my car ashtray just because the window is open". Close it.
Re:Text is a part; a thumbnail is a whole (Score:3, Interesting)
Put it this way: Say the original image is 1024x768 in size, and the thumbnail is 160x120. That's 786,432 pixels of image versus 19,200 pixels, or 1/40th of the image.
I think 1/40th falls well under fair use, don't you?
Re:yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't apologize. Yes way. (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, by the very nature of Google Image Search, that wouldn't be a problem for Google so much as whatever page it indexed.
Re:Missing something... (Score:3, Interesting)