Court Rules On Google use of Thumbnails - Goodbye Guba

congrats to Perfect 10 Inc...

Wow so does he finally get some real cash?

G'ddamn those guys from Perfect 10 are killers!

So does this mean no more adult google image search?

But.. but... but there's no ads on google images.

Congrats to perfect10 for fucking up another good traffic source.

Alex

hooray for bullshit

not so fast


Matz ordered both sides to craft a narrow preliminary injunction that would respect Perfect 10's copyrights but not curtail Google's broader right to catalog and display online images.

Thats what folks call a precedence which opens the door wide open for Lawsuits.

This would include GUBA should people begin filing it would bascially be cut and dry at this point and alot of money for the damaged party

I mentioned this earlier today but no one caught on.

actually i think in some cases images show up in non image searches ( at the top ) and google adwords on the same page

I wonder how they'll handle this

Oh yeah, that's true. That's a fairly recent thing... they may want to rethink that feature.

if the judge doesn't award Perfect10 significant statuatory $$$ damages then it's a toothless decision and will strike no fear in GUBA and the rest. if it comes down to Google just has to do its best to filter out Perfect10's images it sucks and i bet that's the way this will come down.

That comes later Mutt
Damage is decided later. I predict a big amount if I recall there was some news about the suit itself when it started way back it mentioned the amount perfect wanted and its in the millions...

I am very happy about the courts decision though, because I believe it is unethical to thumbnail others works and display them. In my opinion it is no different than scanning a photo that does not belong to you and offering it up for free or a fee.

It takes food off the table plane and simple.

so this means anyone who's thumbnails are on google can win millions of dollars in court???

you have to make millions to prove you lost millions heh , but yes.. if googl eimages cost your company million in revenue..

That's a good question. They can't possibly police the engine for specific content.

well the first and easiest thing to do is for google to stop rewarding hotlinkers with traffic..

if i hotlink playboys pictures on gfy , GFY shows up on google not playboy, that seems like a silly way of doing things.. if it cant find a record of the images in the html of the server it find the image on it shouldnt be showing it..

When google images first came out i made a thread about using this flaw to profit ( and it works )

What right does google or anyone have to utilise other peoples created works or derivative work in the case of google or even other image theft companies such as GUBA regarding thumbs without paying for it or even getting approval from the owner of the work?

It is wrong, plain and simple.

News Groups themselves in my opinion are infringing as well on peoples works and making them freely available. Its Theft and there is no two ways about it.

I see almost everyone joins the bandwagon bitchin about google imags but they damn sure weren't bitchin with the traffic they got from there.

content owners dont get traffic from google images , people who hotlink them do..

Just the ones that stand to loose money with this feature of the internet.

Its about money not ethics.

people getting traffic from google are not bitching its people who are NOT getting traffic from google bitching..

You display my image in return you send me some traffic is an allright deal..

You display my image and send someone else the traffic and ill be pissed.

pretty cut and dry

guilty beyond reasonable doubt and based on preponderance of evidence...

That's stupid. Goolge images does in fact provide a function. And this takes the web back to the stone-age if Google has to stop showing most images. For example I'm a huge Bucs fan. Now I use Google images to find pics and logos and such to use for my own personal use. Now in the old days I had to search actual SITES to see if that site has any pics. Is this what I have to go back and do? Last time I checked anything NFL realted is certainly subjected to copyright. Often times kids have to find pics to use for school projects. I use to do this in the "old days" with magazines. Was I violating copyright? Um no. Why make it harder on kids?

Fact is if you go to Google Images there is ZERO advertising. Period. This is where Google will win on appeal.

Second how is a pic different from a webpage? It's information. If Google can't use it's image function then it's normal search function also violates copyright, and do we really want that?

Only thing I can see wrong is that when you search for an image you shouldn't be able to see the image without seeing the page it came from. Google can easily change this. I should still be able to see a thumbnail of that pic. If there isn't a thumbnail how in the fuck am I supposed to see what the pic is? Like I said show thumbnail only. Link to actual page where it came from.

Fact is simple hotlink protection would cure this if someone thought their pics were so precious. Anyone that doesn't and bitches about their pics is either lazyand/or retarded. In fact many website do this. I have seen thumbnails and when I click "See full size version" I get a 404 page.

Someone does a image search on google see a thumbnail pic of yours they like and then goes to your site to see the pic and you are losing money how? Seems like you INCREASE your income. Perfect 10 does NOT want Goolge to stop showing thier thimbnails unless they are retadred. They just want the surfer to have to go to thier site FIRST before they see the full size version. And as was said many times if their obviusly ignorant webmaster used hotlink protection techniques this wouldn't even be an issue.

If you think this is bad, go to YAHOO video search. Not only does Yahoo show thumbnail images from video clips but you can download the clips without ever having to go the the actual page it came from. That is worse in my book. Butlie said voer and over the SMART ones use hotlink protection and take surfers to a 404 page where they can advertise thier sites and make money.

yes you were violating coptright law.

its infringment.

it is against the law to use or copy a picture without license or permission from the owners or licensors of said pictures and publish said pictures in any medium.

forget about the old days - it doesnt apply.

and if you cant see how it does take food off the table your a moron but i do agree its good advertising.

and speaking of morons you call perfect 10 retarded. Last time i checked they are a multi million dollar co.

what multi million dollar co do you run again to make this statement?

bye bye guba

what is guba?

looks like guba is gonna get bit in the ass after all... i knew it was comming it was just a matter of time...

coming...spelt with 1 "m" not two.

Ummm a kid cutting pic from a magazine for a school assignment is NOT violating copyright infrinement. Try looking up the meaning of that word.

So I am violating copyright infringement if I use a Bucs pic as my wallpaper if I don't ask the Bucs for permission first? Um yeah right. Once agian look up the meaning. I could make my own Bucs t-shirts for my own personal use and that would be perfectly legal. Trying to SELL them would not be.

How could it be GOOD and yet take food off the table? Hiring a webmaster that doesn't know how to prevent hotlinking is taking food off of Perfect 10's table.

Doesn't mean shit. Enron was a multi BILLION $ company. Maybe local cable company is Charter which is $19 BILLION in debt and has shitty service. Are the SMART? I'm quite sure they are larger than Perfect 10. I can name loads of large companies that are run by idiots.

im not going to argue with you asshole and i call you that because your talking out of your ass as usual.

- you are violating Intellectual Property rights as well as copyright laws without having permission or licensing to use said media.

end of fucking story.

have a nice day - and may i suggest you go on a fact finding mission on the above today, so it may shed some light on your otherwise dark and clueless mind.

You are an asshole. Show me ONE case, that's all, ONE case where a school kid was sued by someone for copyright infringement for using pics out of magazine for a school project. Until then STFU.

definately!

and guba will be next

fcking stupid, perfect 10 are a bunch of cry babies.

youre truly an idiot.

Im talking about the law, not if the nfl would go after a kid for using a picture you fucking moron.

GatorB is stuck on "IF" today...

There is "IF" and there is "What it is".

Regarding Copyright Law there is a lengthly portion about fair use and fair use of copyright material in education.

So no kid will goto jail fuckin around with actual logos or copyrighted works really as long as it remains within education and out of commercial exploitation.

http://goog-ipo.blogspot.com/2006/02...erfect-10.html

"The judge ruled that because Google receives advertising money from offering search functions, it is not entitled to the same level of free use of the images as other entities would be."

Thats intense, and I doubt any appeal will hold water on that principle.

What he said ...

You're correct .. they do. Try doing a search for "[country_name] map", for example.

Now as a site owner, I'd probably be pretty happy as I'm sure it leads to great clicks but not everyone would agree.

i know - they guy is stuck on dense.

i was speaking just about the law and its applications, not if the NFL would go after a kid or fan for grabbing pics.

can you imagine the NFL taking a kid to court over a few pics?

kinda like the Recording Industry Institute of America (RIAA) taking kids to court and suing them for downloading music.