A judge in the USA has ruled that Google’s search services breaches copyright by displaying thumbnail photographs, in a case brought by porn magazine.
"Google’s display of thumbnails in image search results pages would not be likely to fall within a “fair use” exception to copyright law,", Judge Howard Matz ruled.
"Google’s display of thumbnails in image search results pages would not be likely to fall within a “fair use” exception to copyright law,", Judge Howard Matz ruled.
The ruling against google has very worrying implications. Fair use exceptions to copyright law were obviously conceived before search engines (or indeed the concept of the internet or computers) were invented. Search engines copy, store and index entire copyrighted websites in order to perform search queries. This means that they are always breaching copyright unless they somehow fall into one of the fair use exceptions.
After all this time it is reasonable to assume that this issue must have already been dealt with before in relation to copyrighted text held by google so it is surprising that this case relating to images should be considered substantially different.
In his ruling, the judge said the he'd reached his conclusion "despite the enormous public benefit that search engines such as Google provide."
Well, that's the point and the spirit of fair use - there are exceptions to copyright because it would be hugely damaging if there were not. For example, academia would collapse if it were unable to quote passages from copyrighted texts but 'fair use' says it can. Surely search engines should be considered in a similar way?
The judge was obviously mindful of the issues but failed to take the initiative, “Although the court is reluctant to issue a ruling that might impede the advance of internet technology, and although it is appropriate for courts to consider the immense value to the public of such technologies, existing judicial precedents do not allow such considerations to trump a reasoned analysis of the four fair-use factors.”
While the ruling is likely to have a knock-on effect on other search engines producing thumbnail images, the implications are far wider. The search companies are already under fire from the World Association of Newspapers, which is seeking to “challenge the exploitation of content” because of the way they aggregate news content without paying for it. Agence France Presse has filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the search company offers its photos and stories without permission.
After all this time it is reasonable to assume that this issue must have already been dealt with before in relation to copyrighted text held by google so it is surprising that this case relating to images should be considered substantially different.
In his ruling, the judge said the he'd reached his conclusion "despite the enormous public benefit that search engines such as Google provide."
Well, that's the point and the spirit of fair use - there are exceptions to copyright because it would be hugely damaging if there were not. For example, academia would collapse if it were unable to quote passages from copyrighted texts but 'fair use' says it can. Surely search engines should be considered in a similar way?
The judge was obviously mindful of the issues but failed to take the initiative, “Although the court is reluctant to issue a ruling that might impede the advance of internet technology, and although it is appropriate for courts to consider the immense value to the public of such technologies, existing judicial precedents do not allow such considerations to trump a reasoned analysis of the four fair-use factors.”
While the ruling is likely to have a knock-on effect on other search engines producing thumbnail images, the implications are far wider. The search companies are already under fire from the World Association of Newspapers, which is seeking to “challenge the exploitation of content” because of the way they aggregate news content without paying for it. Agence France Presse has filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the search company offers its photos and stories without permission.
Homepage:
