Google Slapped With Copyright Infringement Suit By Photographers
Google's protracted struggles with copyright holders continue, as the American Society of Media Photographers and other photographic artist groups and individuals banded together to file a class action copyright infringement suit against Google. ASMP, the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, the Professional Photographers of America and others allege that Google has scanned millions of books and other publications containing copyrighted images and displayed them to the public without the express permission of the visual creators. The suit was filed April 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which is where Google's Book Search settlement is being considered by Judge Denny Chin after gathering hundreds of filings, mostly from opponents. That is no coincidence. ASMP and its fellow complainants said they decided to file the suit after Chin denied their request to join text authors for the Google Book Search deal. In that settlement, Google agreed to pay $125 million to create a Digital Rights Registry to compensate book rights holders with fees Google gains from licensing their work online. There has been months of back and forth on this since it was first proposed in October 2008, with several court trips to hear Google defend the deal and Amazon.com and others challenge it. Chin is mulling the current arrangement, which, though revised, also faces opposition from the Department of Justice. Chin, who is expected to rule on Google Book Search in the coming months, is now overseeing the new suit. ASMP said the new class action covers Google's "other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists." ASMP General Counsel Victor Perlman said:
A Google spokesperson told me: "We are confident that Google Books is fully compliant with U.S. and international copyright law." Since this is a separate class action, one might be tempted to conclude this won't have a bearing on the Google Book Search deal that is wending its way through the court system. Unfortunately, many of the images are found in the very same books Google has scanned and is attempting to offer to users under the Google Book Search deal. So it seems logical to conclude Google's plan to license books now has another obstacle with which to contend, even if the suits are settled. If Chin approves the Google Book Search deal, granting Google the right to license books with the rights holders' permission, wouldn't he also have to resolve the photographers' suit? He surely can't let Google proceed in protecting text rights holders without compensating photographers for their copyrighted work. That would be insanity. I wrote last November that maybe Google should give up the Google Book Search plan. With this new lawsuit, I reaffirm my statement. It's not worth it, Google. This seems like such a losing battle. It's clear the majority of concerns, from the government to industry rivals and authors and artists, just don't want you to scan the world's books online and license them to users. At least, they want you to do it on their terms. If that's the case, forget it. |
Comments (10)
Perhaps we should all wait until Apple creates their search engine portal. They have already stated that they do not want Google to have any data posted about their iPad. Then, Apple can scan all the books in the world using Google as a way not to do it and people will not be able to get any book unless they buy from Apple.
Posted by Ron | April 7, 2010 7:49 PM
Oh save me. This is so stupid.
Everyone uses Google. Don't mess it up with these idiotic lawsuits.
Posted by me just me | April 7, 2010 7:53 PM
Class action lawsuits are just lawyers looking for a payday. The "guild" they represent will settle for a price that will 1) pay the lawyers, 2) pay the "guild" and the actual content creators will each get a $20 Starbucks gift card.
Posted by Magnus | April 7, 2010 8:04 PM
"It's not worth it, Google. . ."
You're kidding, right? They're paying $125m to settle one lawsuit; another $125m will settle the other.
Considering those sums are minuscule to Google's bottom line, no wonder they're not sweating it. And frankly, someone needs to counter Amazon's attempt to remake the book world into their own Kindle-esque image.
Posted by Cynical | April 7, 2010 8:05 PM
Infringement on their rights?
I wonder if Google can file a reverse infringement suit?
If ASMP posts any of their photographs on the Web and Google search engine finds them, will ASMP have to pay Google each time that photograph is displayed? Will ASMP have to pay every search engine that pulls up the photograph? ...they pay should for the right to display their product.
The reasoning stands.
That should send ASMP back to the shed because without the visibility the Web and Google search engine offers, ASMP would whither and die.
Iz from Dallas
Posted by Isaac | April 7, 2010 8:15 PM
Google, give it up. Quit trying to be everything to everybody and quit trying to be the slumlord of the web. Just go back to being the quiet, solid, reliable search you once were, before you push everyone away.
Posted by Radjin | April 7, 2010 8:39 PM
This is a very nasty slight of hand "the government to industry rivals and authors and artists." As if "artists and authors" are in the same category as "the government and industry rivals." Although everyone (including myself) like to get things from the internet for free it is plausible that artists and authors (like YOU!) like to be paid for your effort and creativity (excluding those of you who lack either.)
Do you think that the people at Google are working for free?!?! (leave alone "the government" or "industry rivals" who are peskily getting in the way of you getting books and picture for free). So possibly the artists and authors who are producing things that you are enjoying should get something too?
Sorry if that sounds like pre-dot.communisim. I know. New World Order and all that.
Posted by Peter Doggy | April 7, 2010 8:42 PM
I'm definitely a Google fan and I am also a longtime professional photographer. I have over 450 books in my personal collection. As a so called "content provider" these days I am fiercely guarding my work both digital and analog. I work long and hard to make great images and ultimately profit from them financially and emotionally.
As a holder of the copyright to all of my work I wish to maintain total control of how and where it is used in the public eye. While Google may have benign and even altruistic intentions, copyright is a very serious issue to artists. I suggest Google gets permission from copyright holders before any copying and public distribution is ever done. Oops, looks like that cow already left the barn.
Posted by Jeff Maloney | April 7, 2010 8:59 PM
They are about a year behind my lawsuit for exactly the same issue. I highly doubt "Gougle" still exists in three years as the search leader. My federal lawsuit in Arkansas has my objection to the Chin case and the Authors Guild. My case docket is over 120 and is getting more interesting. It is 5:09-cv-05151 and the docket is online for free. I am angry they force my pornography to be published to minors and Muslims without checking age. I have added EVERY search engine except Lycos.com and added the US and the FCC.
The judge will likely try to throw it out because a judge introduce copyrite law in the US as HR 10 that became law Mar 31, 1790. It has never included moral rights covered by the Ninth Amendment.
Posted by Curtis neeley | April 12, 2010 11:38 AM
I'm a commercial photographer and was a member of the ASMP. My work (Photo's) have been published throughout the World, on Billboards, Signs, Ads, Text Book Covers, Book Covers, AR's, Websites, you name it, my Copyright Photo's were and are to date being published around the World.
This is how I've made my living along with my Art for the past 35 years! When I'm dead and gone, my son, Jeremie will inherit the rights/Copyrights to all of my images! But while I'm alive if Google or anyone presents my Copyrighted Photo's via: cell phone, Ipod, Web, Google Goggles, or Prints my work without my express written consent, well, you better be a small Mom and Pop shop, It won't be worth the trouble to sue you! However, most, if not all Large Corporations know the consequences of using a professional photographer/artist/film/videographer/writer's work without his or her express written consent! Basicly for you Mentally challenged people out there, they will have to pay us, usually, Big Bucks to publish the above mentioned media! So in closing I'm surprized the ASMP is only filing a suit for 125M. It should be: 125B, as in Billion! For all you youngsters out there, your photo's are also worth money and should not be used without your consent! I closing I must say that some Corporations have purchased the copyrights to the images i have taken for them. They're the smart ones, and they surely have the Best Corporate Copyright Lawyers on Staff that money can buy! If you don't agree with me and would like to try and pirate some of my photo's/art you can start by going to my website: www.garacci.com . A little history: The Federal Copyright Laws were brought about years ago, after the artist who invented/created: SuperMan! He basicly got Nadda for that creation! But thanks to him and several others we Artist are now protected from having our original work stolen! Do you ever pay attention to the $250,000.00 fine or imprisonment blurp on all Movie DVD's? It's not there just for your entertainment, it's for the protection of the Creator/s of the Film/Art! Most of you reading this have been ripped off for your lack of knowledge in regards to all of the above! I welcome any and all comments if, and I'm sure, most of you will dissagree to my coments! You can post a reply or email me direct if your so inclined! benedetto@garacci.com
Posted by Benedetto Garacci | April 15, 2010 7:05 AM