In August
2005, Google was served
with a subpoena from the U.
S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
demanding disclosure of two
full months’ worth of search
queries that Google received
from its users, as well as
all the URLs in
Google’s index. Google
objected to the subpoena,
which started a set of legal
procedures that put the
issue before the Federal
courts (see:
1984 is now! Google fights
US Government). Google's response to
the Department of Justice's
motion to the court to force
the search engine to comply
with the subpoena, can be
found
here.
The ACLU urged the U.S.
District Court for the
Northern District of
California to rule in favor
of Google’s effort to block
the government’s subpoena
for information about its
customers’ online behavior.
“The government is not
entitled to go on a fishing
expedition through millions
of Google searches any time
it wants, just because it
claims that it needs that
information,” said ACLU
staff attorney Aden Fine.
“Anyone asking a court to
approve such an intrusive,
burdensome request must
explain why the information
is needed and for what
purpose. The government has
refused to make its purpose
known to the public or to
the Court, and Google has
rightly denied the
government’s demand for this
information.” See
Plaintiffs' Response to
Motion to Compel Google
In a declaration the Justice
Department rejected Google's
privacy concerns, noting
that the government
specifically requested that
Google remove any
identifying information from
the search requests. The
paper also stated that the
nature and depth of the
requested information would
do little to threaten
Google's closely guarded
trade secrets. Nonetheless,
government attorneys greatly
reduced the scope of their
request to only 50,000 Web
addresses and 5,000 search
terms.
After 90 minutes
spent hearing the DOJ and Google arguments on March 12, Judge Ware said, “It is
my intent to grant some relief to the government.” And so he did a few days
later: According to the ruling Google has to hand over 50,000 Web addresses
from its search index, but has not to reveal terms its
users had been searching for. In a
21-page ruling, Judge James Ware said the privacy
considerations of Google users led him to deny part of
the Justice Department's request.
"What his ruling means is that
neither the Government nor anyone else has carte blanche
when demanding data from internet companies," Nicole
Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said in a
statement on the company's website. The full comment is
at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/.
March 19, 2006:
Ruling in Google case a win
for privacy?, CNet:
"A federal judge's ruling Friday afternoon that Google
has to give the U.S. government a limited amount of
information it's seeking--but not search queries--was
immediately heralded by many bloggers as a victory not
just for the search giant, but for overall privacy
rights."
March 18, 2006:
Google Ordered to Submit Data for Child Pornography
Study, New York Times: "As expected, a federal judge ruled on
Friday that Google, the Internet search engine, must
turn over some search data including 50,000 Web
addresses to the government for a study of child
pornography online."
March 18, 2006:
Judge: Google must give feds limited access to records,
CNet: "In a move that alleviates some privacy concerns, a
federal judge granted part of a Justice Department
request for Google search data but said users' search
queries were off-limits."
March 18, 2006:
Gericht: Google muss keine Benutzerdaten aushändigen,
Heise: "Richter James Ware vom US-Bezirksgericht in San Jose hat entschieden:
Google muss dem Justizministerium eine Zufallsstichprobe von 50.000 im
Volltextindex der Suchmaschinen verzeichneten Adressen aushändigen."
March 15, 2006: Rötzer,
Florian,
Keiner gewinnt, der Datenschutz verliert, Telepolis: "Im Prozess, bei dem das US-Justizministerium Daten von Google fordert, hat
sich der Richter für einen schlechten Kompromiss entschieden."
March 15, 2006:
US-Regierung schränkt Datenanforderung an Google ein,
Heise: "Richter James Ware vom US-Bezirksgericht in San Jose hat gestern nach einer
anderthalbstündigen ersten Anhörung im Verfahren US-Justizministerium gegen
Google angedeutet, er werde die Herausgabe von einigen
Suchanfragendatensätzen anordnen."
A
study conducted by the
University of Connecticut
showed that "only 13% of the
public feel “extremely” or
“very” confident that the
search behavior collected by
Internet companies will
remain private."
2.
Creation of Thumbnails can
be a copyright infringement
in the USA
According to a
preliminary ruling in a US
Federal Court thumbnail images displayed
in Google Image Search
breached Perfect 10
copyright. The court did not
follow Google's argument
that its creation and
display of thumbnails is
fair use under 17 U.S.C. §
107. Decisive arguments:
... If third-party websites
that contain infringing copies of P10 photographs are also AdSense partners,
Google will serve advertisements on those sites and split the revenue
generated from users who click on the Google-served advertisements...Google
has a strong incentive to link to as many third-party websites as possible—including
those that host AdSense advertisements. (does not seem very convincing to me...)
...In early 2005 P10 entered
into a licensing agreement with Fonestarz Media Limited for the sale and
distribution of P10 reduced-size images for download to and use on cell
phones. Google’s use of thumbnails does supersede this use of P10’s images,
because mobile users can download and save the thumbnails displayed by
Google Image Search onto their phones (very convincing, but the argument is
limited to this case, so Google's picture search as such is not in jepardy)
US District Court Judge
Howard Matz also held that Google was
not responsible if surfers
clicked on thumbnails that
directed them to full size
porno images hosted on third
party websites, taken
without permission from the
official Perfect 10 site.
This is big news: The court
held that Google is not
secondarily liable under the
doctrines of contributory or
vicarious infringement for
linking to infringing
content! Bringing visitors
to the linked-to-websites is
not enough to establish
material contribution. So in
theory, Google could stop
removing websites with
infringinging content from
their search results. Google
no longer depends on the
safe harbour provision (17
U.S.C. § 512 (d)).
Howard Matz ordered Google
and Perfect 10 to develop a
preliminary injunction that
reflects both factors. The
order could effectively bar
Google from featuring
thumbnail pictures. So no
surprise:
Google
said
that it
plans to
appeal
the
injunction!
February 22, 2006: Leyden,
John,
Google Perfect 10 thumbnails
'breach copyright', The
Register: "Google has been held liable
for infringing the copyright
of images purloined by
others from adult website
Perfect 10."
February 22, 2006:
US-Richter erwägt Verfügung gegen Googles Thumbnail-Funktion, Heise:
"Google verstößt mit seiner Funktion, miniaturisierte Kopien vom Angebot des Online-Aktfoto-Anbieters Perfect 10 anzuzeigen, möglicherweise gegen Copyright-Gesetze."
February 22, 2006:
No Googling Perfect 10's
Nudes, Wired: "Google's
image
search
service
violates
the
copyrights
of
Perfect
10,
an adult
magazine
and
web
publisher,
by
displaying
thumbnail-sized
photographs,
a
federal
judge
has
ruled."
3.
Google settles suit over click fraud
Last year, a
consortium of advertisers
(led by Lane's Collectibles)has filed a class action suit in
Arkansas against Yahoo, Google and 9
other search engines, accusing the search companies of knowingly charging
for fraudulent clicks.
In March, Google agreed to pay
up to $90 million in legal fees and compensation in the form of credits for
further advertising to companies who believe they have been affected by click
fraud, to settle its part of the lawsuit. If approved by the judge in the
case, the agreement will cover all advertisers who claim to have been charged
but not compensated for invalid clicks as far back as 2002 when the pay per
click programme was introduced.
A spokeswoman for Yahoo said her
company was prepared to continue to defend itself against the legal action.
March 9, 2006:
Google Settles Suit Over Ad Referrals, New York Times:
"Google has agreed to pay $90 million to settle a lawsuit contending it
overcharged thousands of advertisers who paid for bogus sales referrals
generated through a ruse known as click fraud."
March 9, 2006,
Putting a price on click fraud, CNet:
"Google is prepared to pay $90 million to settle a lawsuit over click fraud,
the company said Wednesday."
The
premiership footballer Ashley Cole is involved in legal action against the News
of the World and The Sun over stories alleging bisexuality among Premiership
players. And Google is doing its best to attract more people to the story:
Typing "ashley cole" into the search engine generates "See results for: ashley
cole gay"! Cole’s solicitors want to know when and what prompted
the process.
Cole said: "I am keen to find out whether the decision to automatically include
the term ‘gay’ to the keyword ‘Ashley Cole’ was an editorial decision or one
made by a computer based on the volume of searches for ‘Ashley Cole’ linked to
the word ‘gay’."
5. Google Video: Posting of a
copyright protected video
Filed under the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a subpoena issued Feb. 21 demands that Google
and video-sharing site YouTube reveal the name of the person who posted a
portion of one of American Airline's training videos on their Web sites.
6. Google's web search
systems no copyright infringement
Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that
Google Inc.'s Web search systems infringe on a publisher's copyright. The judge
in that case affirmed Google's "fair use" right to cache and found that Google
was not responsible for anonymous Web postings attacking the plaintiff in Usenet
newsgroups that Google archives on its computers. Google enjoys projection under
an exemption to the Communications Decency Act.
March 17, 2006:
Google wins Usenet copyright case, The Register:
"Google has won a legal action brought over a Usenet posting that the search
giant archived and partially displayed in search results."
March 17, 2006:
Usenet-Teilnehmer verliert vor Gericht gegen Google, Heise:
"Richter R. Barclay Surrick vom Bezirksgericht des Eastern District of
Pennsylvania hat eine Zivilklage des Kleinverlegers Gordon Roy Parker aus
Philadelphia gegen den Suchmaschinenhersteller Google und "50.000
Unbekannte" abgewiesen."
7. Right to be listed in
search engines? - KinderStart.com v. Google
A
civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by
KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the
owners of all Websites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading search
engine since January 2001. KinderStart, a Norwalk-based Web site devoted to information about
children, says it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without warning.
KinderStart said its traffic plunged by 70 percent after Google dropped it. The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches,
of violating KinderStart’s constitutional right to free speech by blocking
search engine results showing Web site content and other communications. KinderStart contends that once a company has been penalized, it is
difficult to contact Google to regain good standing and impossible to get a
report on whether or why the search leader took such action.
Krog, The Norwegian "Napster
case" - Do hyperlinks constitute the "making available to the public" as a
main or accessory act?, Computer Law & Security Report 2006, 73-77
Köster, Oliver / Jürgens,
Uwe, Die Haftung von Suchmaschinen für Suchergebnislisten, K&R 2006, 108-112
Search Engine Archiving of
Web pages Is not Copyright Infringement if Door is Open, Electronic Commerce
& Law Report 2006, 123
Google Likely Infringes by
Displaying Thumbnail Versions of Copyrightes Photos, Electronic Commerce &
Law Report 2006, 241-243
MPAA Files Seven Copyright
Suits Aimed For First Time at Newsgroups, Indexing Sites, Electronic
Commerce & Law Report 2006, 244-245
Google Fights DOJ Subpoena
Seeking Random Internet Searches, Electronic Commerce & Law Report 2006, 99
Newsarchive
The Links & Law
website is updated regularily,
so check back for updated
information and resources about
search engine and linking issues.