Perfect 10 Shot Down Again; Will It Finally Realize That Search Engines Aren't Liable For Photos?
from the it's-time-to-give-it-up dept
Porn magazine publisher Perfect 10 has spent tons of money on a long series of fruitless lawsuits against the operators of search engines. The issue is that people with access to Perfect 10 photos had put them online, and (of course) search engines indexed these and included them in their image search features. Perfect 10 insisted that, since these search engines showed thumbnails of the images, the search engines were liable for the infringement. Except that courts keep throwing these cases out. But, that hasn’t stopped Perfect 10. However, all it has to show for it is another loss. In its lawsuit against Amazon, for Amazon’s A9 search subsidiary, the court has tossed out the lawsuit, pointing out that the DMCA safe harbors clearly protect Amazon, while also highlighting a bunch of pretty basic mistakes that Perfect 10 made in filing the lawsuit (you would think, having filed so many similar lawsuits, that it would get the specifics right). At some point, the company needs to realize that these lawsuits aren’t getting it very far.
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, safe harbors, thumbnails
Companies: amazon, perfect 10
Comments on “Perfect 10 Shot Down Again; Will It Finally Realize That Search Engines Aren't Liable For Photos?”
The issue is that people with access to Perfect 10 photos had put them online.
am I missing something here? clearly Perfect10 only had to contact the host(s) and send them a take down notice.
or is perfect10 complaining about “the way back machine”
Ahhh
Porn, one of the few recession-proof industries.
Perfect 10’s girls must not be so perfect, or you’d think if a few photo’s got out, they wouldn’t care as it might generate more traffic to their sites or clubs or whatever they run to see the rest of their girls.
Yeah!
Almost every other story is about a lawsuit,
everybody is suing somebody else.
Now I want to become a Defense Attorney 🙂
Why is there not a fine associated with the continued waste of the courts time and resources?
Re: Why is there not a fine ?
There is – it’s called paying the other side’s costs when you lose.
Not quite...
“At some point, the company needs to realize that these lawsuits aren’t getting it very far.”
It’s getting them publicity. Perhaps one should argue that people ripping off their photos is just a good business plan – like ripping music?
On a side note...
I’ve never slept with a perfect 10, but I nailed five 2’s (God bless George Carlin)
RE: On a side note
lmao
Loved that guys comedy…
you guys need critical reading skills:
>
ending on technicality that Amazon and A9 are not specifically linked in a way that a takedown notice to Amazon would automatically inform A9. Nothing more.
once again mike fails to truly understand a story.
Re: Re:
I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Re: Re:
did someone say something, all I see is an idiot hiding behind “Anon Cow”
Re: Re:
ending on technicality that Amazon and A9 are not specifically linked in a way that a takedown notice to Amazon would automatically inform A9. Nothing more.
Hence: “highlighting a bunch of pretty basic mistakes that Perfect 10 made in filing the lawsuit”
once again mike fails to truly understand a story.
Actually, I’d argue the reverse.
Re: Re: Re:
Litigating copyright matters is not for the faint of heart because the law is quite complex and requires an attorney who actually knows what it says and how to adhere to its requirements.
That said, it is an unfortunate fact of life that far too many lawyers hold themselves out to the public as “copyright lawyers”, when in fact this is far from the case. Hence you get suits filed against the wrong party, procedures that have not been followed appropriately, ignorance of safe harbor provisions, etc, etc…the list goes on. Personally, in my view if truly competent counsel was retained in these cases the number of lawsuits would decrease, the issues would be more accurately defined, and court decisions would be more predictable.
As much as I detest those little weasels who make what are clearly unauthorized downloads and share them with the world, I do have to agree that this conduct will continue no matter what content providers do. More laws with more draconian penalties will simply not be able to keep up with those who have the ability and capacity to bypass these laws and technical protection measures.
While I realize that new people are coming up with new business approaches that capitalize on the above truism, I also realize that an entire industry built around the provisions of copyright law are not going to go away overnight and will eventually have to adapt to the present reality. What I do wonder, though, is if there might be a way to expedite the transition by some form of a business arrangement between the “content provider industry” and the “P2P industry”? I am fairly sure of your answer, but am curious if you might see a way forward that might reasonably balance these competing interests? Right now they are locked in battle. Is there a way for them to each raise a white flag and arrive at a mutual consensus of temporary duration that could hasten the transition?
This is not a rant or criticism of your views, but a question that is being asked in all sincerity.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While I realize that new people are coming up with new business approaches that capitalize on the above truism, I also realize that an entire industry built around the provisions of copyright law are not going to go away overnight and will eventually have to adapt to the present reality. What I do wonder, though, is if there might be a way to expedite the transition by some form of a business arrangement between the “content provider industry” and the “P2P industry”? I am fairly sure of your answer, but am curious if you might see a way forward that might reasonably balance these competing interests? Right now they are locked in battle. Is there a way for them to each raise a white flag and arrive at a mutual consensus of temporary duration that could hasten the transition?
To be honest, I used to think that would be a great solution — and in the late 90s/early 00s there was a real opportunity to do that. I can’t see it happening at all today. The interests are just way to divergent.
So… possible solution? Sure. In fact, it’s a very Coasian view. I just think it’s culturally massively unlikely. I’m afraid that any “balance” between these competing interests quickly turns into tug o’ war to try to collect as much as possible of the pie rather than easing a transition.
From yet another AC, (Wow, too afraid to even use the same FAKE name whenever he posts!)
“once again mike fails to truly understand a story.”
What part of having lost every single suit that has been brought using those failed legal theories don’t you get?
There is someone here not understanding all right, however, it’s not Mike.
Crap!
The ” lost every single suit” post above was me
So much for proofreading!
Ok Now I'M just stupid....
It seems the name has to go in the NAME field and not the URL field.
(hangs head in shame…)
And yet for their whining, I still can’t seem to find any nude photos of Carla, the Perfect 10 girl who used to be on The X Show…
no it is a failure for us to understand what you wish the story was about. the reality the case is tossed only because the notices went to the wrong place and the judge agreed at a9 and amazon are not the same when it comes to notices. nothing removed liability here, just that perfect10 knocked on the wrong door in the right building. they sent the notices to A9 in november, and we will see what happens from there, it is likely a9 removed the offending content.
it isnt a good story like this I know mike, but sometimes things arent as bad as you make them out to be. it must be tough to be morally outraged all day.
Re: Re:
no it is a failure for us to understand what you wish the story was about.
So because you failed to understand something, it’s my fault? Ok… I guess there’s somethings I can’t help.
it isnt a good story like this I know mike, but sometimes things arent as bad as you make them out to be. it must be tough to be morally outraged all day.
How is this not “as bad” as I made it out to be? Who said anything about it being “bad”? Actually, this story seemed pretty good.
And, uh, I’m not outraged, morally or otherwise, but it’s nice to hear you’re concerned about my welfare.
People, who need people
Reverse Streisand Effect. I never heard of Perfect 10 until you wrote about them.
Its about trying to set a precedent...
Its the same reason states keep trying to pass these video game bans that are eventually ruled unconstitutional. The hope is that at some point, somewhere, in some state, someone will manage to get and keep a ban on the books. That person would be hailed as a hero for that first successfully defended ban will be the one that the other 49 states will trip over themselves to follow and they can point to that first state as “proof” that it is constitutional.
Perfect 10 is throwing a pot of spagetti noodles at the wall and hoping that at least a few of them stick.
(BTW I’m not the same Danny as comment 18.)
when will search engines learn that it isn't legal to profit from the intellectual property of others?
Having actually READ Perfect 10’s complaints against the search engines, and the Court Order to which the above-article is referring (and seeing clearly that the author of the article has NOT), I have respect for Perfect 10 for continually pouring funds and making such profound efforts to protect intellectual property. Their claims are fair.
Copyrighted works (Perfect 10’s as well as any copyright owner, including artists, movie studios, music industry) were (and are) legitimately stolen by search engines and other. Look at the damage to the music, movie, art industries because of theft… Search engines, without doubt, not only contribute to this damage, but also directly profit from it. How is it fair that they shouldn’t be held liable?
It seems to me that instead of cooperating with copyright owners, search engines have instead chosen to do nothing, or give the run around, when a copyright owner tries to prevent their work from being stored on unauthorized servers and/or being shown without permission.
I think Perfect 10 is attempting to keep alive the ability to profit from intellectual property (the arts), and I don’t believe that’s something worth giving up on.
I have a simple request from Mike Masnick: learn the facts before reporting. Journalists, writers, bloggers, anyone who earns a living (or just enjoys) making/creating their copyright-protected work should appreciate what Perfect 10 is doing. Mr. Masnick, if you make a living by your writing, I hope nobody steals it and then profits from it, but if they do, Perfect 10 is working hard to protect your right to defend yourself.
when will search engines learn that it isn't legal to profit from the intellectual property of others?
It’s been seven years. Perfect 10 has done absolutely shit job, and is paying the price for its failure.
If you’ve been putting your stock in Perfect 10, congratulations on your brand new fuck all.