Porn publisher sues Google over images

http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library...ib_case269.cfm

They're haters

great, this perfect10 idiot is at in again

Reading the title I knew it had to be p10.

Funny thing his magazine sucks.

Maybe someone could help P10 out with meta tags, .htaccess or password protected directories.

A link back, what more could ya ask for? And its for free.

Take away the link and I see the point.

I dont think that Norm has made a penny off that magazine. I bet all of his money has come from all of his fucking lawsuits.

lol
You just gotto love P10

Creative Spam?

haha Nice.. Perfect 10!

they sue everyone!

lol, judge just threw out their case against Visa so now they're going after Google?

Doesn't Google have instructions on it's site on how to set up a robots.txt to avoid being spidered/catalogued?

Yeah, and how the fuck you install thoose robots.txt on other ppl sites who steal your pics?

I can sugest you to re-read the original post

Thats not the point, they are sueing over the original fact that google allowed access to these pictures, they are not sueing because other people posted them, that is a seperate lawsuit for those specific webmasters.

Norm hasn't been doing very well suing adult companies so why not go after google. Hopefully he'll get the idea after Google is done with him

WG

p10 sucks

Let's pretend for a moment, this has nothing to do with 'p10' - from your replies, I gather there is no love lost here, but the issue is an important one.

I remember the first time I saw my content used without my express permission in thumbnails in a way which clearly leveraged their presentation to get their surfers to cruise their realm without many 'offramps' to the copyright holder.

Some engines do a half decent job of making it easy fo their surfer to visit you if they like what they see.

Others, are shameless in hording their traffic and if they do have a link to you somewhere, it's often in a frame with them sitting on your head.

I think frames used this way are another form of hotlinking (bandwidth pirates).

If they cause you do deliver your content (and pay the bandwidth), giving you only half a screen to make your pitch this is an unfair disadvantage.

The obvious fixes are not as simple as they may seem:

Use frame busting logic in your pages? -- Maybe this is fine if you don't cater to an international audience which uses translation tools to surf your site. In my case, I get signups from surfers using translation tools (frames) and breaking out of these frames would break their experience (and my signups).

Exclude the image search bots? -- I don't know about you, but I am very wary of hoping for SE prominence on my text content if I'm telling the same owners I don't want their image bots snooping around - we know how the world turns.



What do you think about search engines encroaching the realm of using (your) 'adult images' to get traffic?

-Dino

Google doesnt hotlink, they make a preview hosted in their servers and there's a court decision allowing certain dimension thumbs to be used on internet without violating copyrights.

Which makes a strong argument to visually stamp every image on one's site with copyright and/or domain info.

This can really mess up the clean look of a site.

-Dino