Court rules thumbnail' images OK, full-zized copies not - GoFuckYourself.com

digifan · 02-12-2003, 09:15 PM

Is there a way to stop Google or other SEs presenting pics from your member area? I know .htaccess can help but as far as I know this is the only way... read the story.

Court Rules Thumbnail' Images OK, Full-Sized Copies Not

By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.

In an important decision for the application of copyright law on the Internet, a federal appeals court has ruled that while Web sites may legally reproduce and post "thumbnail" versions of copyrighted photographs, displaying full-sized copies of the images violates artists' exclusive right to display their own works.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and reversed in part a district court decision in a case brought by Leslie Kelly, a professional photographer who sued Web search engine Arriba for carrying his pictures on its site.

Arriba, which changed its name at the start of the trial to "Ditto.com" provides a service that scours the Internet for picture files. Instead of returning text links, Arriba's search engine displays the results of the request using miniaturized "thumbnail" images of the actual work.

When clicked on, the thumbnail shots lead visitors to a page that uses a technology called "framing," or "inlinking," in which an image from another Web site is imported and displayed at full size. From the user's perspective, the picture appears as if it were part of the search engine's own Web page, when in fact clicking on the picture transports the user to the artist's Web site.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas G. Nelson said that the indexing and use of thumbnail images was a fair use, in part because
it was "transformative" or added value to the work, and also because it did nothing to diminish the market for Kelly's works.

But the judge also ruled that "Arriba's display of Kelly's full-sized images is not a fair use and thus violates Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his copyrighted works."

The panel ordered the case to be remanded back to the district court, which will determine the appropriate amount in damages and whether an injunction is necessary.

Kelly's co-counsel Steven Krongold said his client plans to seek attorney's fees and treble damages, which can be awarded if the court finds Arriba acted in willful disregard of copyright law.

Krongold said he believes "there is sufficient evidence that Arriba did this with reason to know that many of the works they took were copyrighted."

He also believes the court's decision will encourage class-action suits against Arriba.

Arriba's lead counsel Judith Jennison, a partner with the San Francisco office of Perkins Coie, said her client was very pleased with the ruling on the creation and use of thumbnails.

"We think that's absolutely the right decision for copyright law and the Internet," she said.

Jennison said there was little chance that the court would find willful misconduct against Arriba because there was never any evidence that any of Kelly's pictures were actually viewed or downloaded.

Mark Lemley, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the decision was a landmark case in that this was the first time a court had addressed the issue of inlinking and framing.

Lemley called the first part of the court's decision an important vindication of the right of search engines to make copies incidental to their search functions, but said he found the latter portion of the decision "troubling."

"While I agree that Ariba's use of full-size images was problematic, the court's opinion contains some troubling language suggesting that anyone who links directly to copyrighted material is directly infringing by displaying it," Lemley said. "That's a bad result. Kelly is the one displaying his images on the Net (and) linking to such a display is not itself a new display."

But Lee Bromberg, a partner with the Boston law firm of Bromberg & Sunstein, found the court's decision "relatively balanced."

"The court upheld the right of search engines to perform a very useful function of indexing, where the item being brought over is different from having access to the actual work i self," Bromberg said. "But the defense that 'Hey, we're not using a copy, we're showing you the real thing' doesn't matter because it's a public display, and the court said the copyright holder has the exclusive right to determinehow that's done."

Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com

(20020207/WIRES ONLINE, LEGAL, BUSINESS/COPYRIGHT/PHOTO)

? 2001 Post Newsweek Tech Media Group

Brujah · 02-12-2003, 09:19 PM

I know thats dated Feb 7, but didn't that get posted a long long time ago already ? The wire keep rotating old news or did something new happen ?

AOLGuy · 02-12-2003, 09:31 PM

curious to know the implications..

soon we will see pay porn sites thumbnailing others content and just linking off to it...

hell, good business model in the $2-$5 month field.

d0se · 02-12-2003, 09:35 PM

to stop google getting in there put all ur images and gallery pages in a certain folder
then in the root of ur domain put a robots.txt with the following

User Agent *
Disallow /yourcontentfolder

Problem solvered.

02-12-2003, 09:15 PM	#1
digifan The Profiler Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: ICQ 76281726 and I'm female Posts: 14,618	Court rules thumbnail' images OK, full-zized copies not Is there a way to stop Google or other SEs presenting pics from your member area? I know .htaccess can help but as far as I know this is the only way... read the story. Court Rules Thumbnail' Images OK, Full-Sized Copies Not By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A. In an important decision for the application of copyright law on the Internet, a federal appeals court has ruled that while Web sites may legally reproduce and post "thumbnail" versions of copyrighted photographs, displaying full-sized copies of the images violates artists' exclusive right to display their own works. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and reversed in part a district court decision in a case brought by Leslie Kelly, a professional photographer who sued Web search engine Arriba for carrying his pictures on its site. Arriba, which changed its name at the start of the trial to "Ditto.com" provides a service that scours the Internet for picture files. Instead of returning text links, Arriba's search engine displays the results of the request using miniaturized "thumbnail" images of the actual work. When clicked on, the thumbnail shots lead visitors to a page that uses a technology called "framing," or "inlinking," in which an image from another Web site is imported and displayed at full size. From the user's perspective, the picture appears as if it were part of the search engine's own Web page, when in fact clicking on the picture transports the user to the artist's Web site. Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas G. Nelson said that the indexing and use of thumbnail images was a fair use, in part because it was "transformative" or added value to the work, and also because it did nothing to diminish the market for Kelly's works. But the judge also ruled that "Arriba's display of Kelly's full-sized images is not a fair use and thus violates Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his copyrighted works." The panel ordered the case to be remanded back to the district court, which will determine the appropriate amount in damages and whether an injunction is necessary. Kelly's co-counsel Steven Krongold said his client plans to seek attorney's fees and treble damages, which can be awarded if the court finds Arriba acted in willful disregard of copyright law. Krongold said he believes "there is sufficient evidence that Arriba did this with reason to know that many of the works they took were copyrighted." He also believes the court's decision will encourage class-action suits against Arriba. Arriba's lead counsel Judith Jennison, a partner with the San Francisco office of Perkins Coie, said her client was very pleased with the ruling on the creation and use of thumbnails. "We think that's absolutely the right decision for copyright law and the Internet," she said. Jennison said there was little chance that the court would find willful misconduct against Arriba because there was never any evidence that any of Kelly's pictures were actually viewed or downloaded. Mark Lemley, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the decision was a landmark case in that this was the first time a court had addressed the issue of inlinking and framing. Lemley called the first part of the court's decision an important vindication of the right of search engines to make copies incidental to their search functions, but said he found the latter portion of the decision "troubling." "While I agree that Ariba's use of full-size images was problematic, the court's opinion contains some troubling language suggesting that anyone who links directly to copyrighted material is directly infringing by displaying it," Lemley said. "That's a bad result. Kelly is the one displaying his images on the Net (and) linking to such a display is not itself a new display." But Lee Bromberg, a partner with the Boston law firm of Bromberg & Sunstein, found the court's decision "relatively balanced." "The court upheld the right of search engines to perform a very useful function of indexing, where the item being brought over is different from having access to the actual work i self," Bromberg said. "But the defense that 'Hey, we're not using a copy, we're showing you the real thing' doesn't matter because it's a public display, and the court said the copyright holder has the exclusive right to determinehow that's done." Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com (20020207/WIRES ONLINE, LEGAL, BUSINESS/COPYRIGHT/PHOTO) ? 2001 Post Newsweek Tech Media Group __________________ [email protected] Webair Rocks

02-12-2003, 09:19 PM	#2
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	I know thats dated Feb 7, but didn't that get posted a long long time ago already ? The wire keep rotating old news or did something new happen ? __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

02-12-2003, 09:31 PM	#3
AOLGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,261	curious to know the implications.. soon we will see pay porn sites thumbnailing others content and just linking off to it... hell, good business model in the $2-$5 month field.

02-12-2003, 09:35 PM	#4
d0se Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Western Australia Posts: 1,225	to stop google getting in there put all ur images and gallery pages in a certain folder then in the root of ur domain put a robots.txt with the following User Agent * Disallow /yourcontentfolder Problem solvered.