Google's copyright problems

Google has been brought to court for its use of thumbnails images in its image search engine. Pandia takes a look at Google's use of thumbnails and cached versions of webpages.

(November 29 2004) Google is a search engine. In return for your search query it gives you a list of web pages that contain content that hopefully is of relevance to your needs -- it does not give you the webpage itself.

Most website owners are very happy with this arrangement. They get visitors in return for letting Google index their pages.

But what if Google decided to copy the pages and present them on their own server? Wouldn't that be like hijacking pages? Wouldn't that be in violation of international copyright law?

Well, Google does not do that, does it? The regular search engine listings will forward you to regular webpages. Hence a link to Pandia will lead to a page at www.pandia.com.

Cached files

To a certain extent this is true. However, below every search engine result there is a link named "Cached".

This link will lead to a copy of the relevant page found at www.google.com, like this copy of Pandia's home page.

This is a "snapshot" of Pandia's home page as it was Google's spiders visited it last time. Google provides this a service to web searchers, as they can use it as a kind of time machine, showing them how the page was a couple of days, weeks or months ago (all depending on how often Google revisits their pages). You can find similar features at other search engines as well.

Now, this is a more difficult legal terrain, as Google actually does make a copy of copyrighted material. We don't mind, but we certainly didn't give Google a formal permission to distribute our text and design.

By including a special NOARCHIVE metatag in your pages, you can get Google to remove the cached version of pages, but it could be argued that Google should ask website owners for permission before adding cached pages, and not the other way round.

Thumbnail images

Google also includes local copies of images in its image search index. By presenting these small thumbnail versions of webpage graphics, Google makes it easier for websearchers to see whether the relevant page has a picture of interest.

Still, these thumbnail versions of the original graphics, are copies, and Google has not asked webmasters for permission to copy this material.

Again, web site owner as ourselves accept this, as the links helps us get new visitors. Formally, however, it can be hard to defend Google's practices, especially if it can be proved that Google's use of these pictures threatens the livelihood of -- let's say -- a photographer.

In court

Last week several news articles reported that an American company has brought Google to court for copyright infringement. The company, which deals in adult pictures, argues that it is difficult to earn money if your pictures are given away for free. The company says that it has asked Google to remove the thumbnails, but that Google has not done so yet.

This sounds as a clear cut attack against Google and Yahoo's practices regarding cached files and thumbnail images.

However, a more careful reading of the case shows that the company is not so much concerned about the thumbnails as such, as the fact that the pages Google links to, contains illegal copies of pictures owned by this company. Hence, the complaint is that Google is helping other copyright violators, not that Google is violating copyright laws by itself.

This is obviously another matter altogether, as the the company seems to argue that Google should not be allowed to link to sites with copyright infringements.

In our opinion

We are not lawyers. Hence our judgement must be based on common sense and a discussion of what should be considered fair use of copyrighted material.

Thumbnails should be accepted

As regards the use of thumbnails, we would argue that the benefits this brings to the general public should count for more than the fact that Google and other search engines actually make a copy of protected pictures.

These are low resolution, low quality, thumbnails, and the searchers will have to go to the relevant web site to find the original. Indeed, if anyone would like to steal these pictures for use elsewhere, they will go to the original web site to get the best resolution and quality possible. They will not make a copy of Google's copy.

In 2002 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that search engines could display thumbnails of images, and Google is definitely not caching the full size versions of these images.

Moreover, by removing the thumbnail images, the image search engines would be more or less useless.

Cached copies OK

The cached copies of pages is a more difficult issue. Google does after all copy the whole page with all the text included. It also includes links to the original graphics of the relevant page, so what you see is a genuine copy of the page as it was the last time Google visited it. It is possible to imagine people surfing this cached version of the site, instead of the original.

On the other hand: Why would anyone want to do such a thing on a regular basis? Isn't it better to visit the original Pandia site at www.pandia.com? After all, this version contains the latest updates and the latest news.

We believe searchers use the cached version to get to older versions of pages, nothing more, nothing less. This means that they already know the original site, and -- more likely than not --they visit it regularly. Hence: the website owner is not loosing any visitors, and the general public get another useful service.

Linking to illegal websites

So what about Google linking to "illegal" sites? Well, Google is normally reluctant to remove sites based on copyright complaints from website owners. They are probably afraid that they will get involved in costly legal disputes. Moreover, any complaint must be controlled for accuracy. There could be crooks out there that could try to get their competitors banned by filing an unfounded complaint.

We once tried to get Google to remove a site that was an exact copy of Pandia's. Google did not help us, and we had to deal with the trespasser and his ISP directly instead.

We were not to happy about this. Google does, after all, not hesitate to remove spammers -- i.e. sites that blatantly tries to manipulate search engine results in their own favor -- if they are reported by competitors. It should not be too hard to remove a site that so clearly had violated our intellectual property rights.

But then again, it is also not hard to understand that Google would rather not get involved in such disputes. By indexing web pages "as they are", Google avoids any complaint of favoritism.

Hence Google, Yahoo!, Ask Jeeves and others should be allowed to use thumbnails and cached versions of pages. However, they may take another look at the principle of including copyright violators in their search engine indexes.

Webmaster World discussion

More search engine news...