Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Last updated

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case name Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and A9.com Inc. and Google Inc.
ArguedNovember 15, 2006
DecidedMay 16, 2007
Citation508 F.3d 1146
Case history
Prior historyGrant of partial injunctive relief: Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
Holding
The use of thumbnail versions of copyright images for search engine purposes is transformative use, and falls within the fair use provisions of United States copyright law.
Court membership
Judges sitting Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Sandra S. Ikuta
Case opinions
MajorityIkuta, joined by Hall, Hawkins
Laws applied
17 U.S.C. § 107

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir., 2007) was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images. [1]

Contents

The case originated as a suit against Google, [2] with Amazon being added as another defendant at the Circuit Court hearings, because Amazon used thumbnail images that had been obtained from Google. [3]

Background

Perfect 10 was an adult entertainment magazine that featured sexually provocative images of women. It also operated a subscription-only website featuring such images and leased some of these images to other businesses. A number of independent, third-party website publishers placed images obtained from Perfect 10's subscription-only area on their own websites, violating Perfect 10's terms of service and copyright. [3]

Google crawls, indexes, and caches websites on its internal servers so they can be accessed quickly. The sites crawled included many of the third-party sites containing Perfect 10's copyrighted images. As part of its image search service, Google also provides thumbnail copies of the images that are being searched for, so the user may see them before accessing the website. Furthermore, when a user selects an image from a Google search, a new page is accessed that includes the original website as well as a frame that contains information about the image and the thumbnail version of the image. [4] Google did not store or physically transmit the full images, only their thumbnails.

Perfect 10 believed the linking constituted secondary copyright infringement, and the caching and thumbnails constituted direct infringement. Beginning in May 2001, Perfect 10 sent notices to Google informing it of specific links to infringing images in its general Web search and requesting their removal. In May 2004, it began sending similar notices for Google's new image search functionality. Google stated that it complied with the notices where it could find the infringement and determine that it was in fact an infringement, removing the images from Google Search. [3]

However, Google noted that it was unable to do this in many cases due to deficiencies in the requests. Perfect 10 sent Google infringement notifications for nearly four years, eventually filing suit against both Google and Amazon for similar activities. Perfect 10 requested injunctions against Google and Amazon from linking to websites displaying Perfect 10's images and, in the case of Google, displaying the thumbnail images. [1] [3]

District Court opinion

Perfect 10 filed suit against Google in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2004, asserting various copyright and trademark infringement claims, including direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement. After settlement discussions lasting several months, Perfect 10 filed for a preliminary injunction that would require Google to stop linking to and distributing its images. The district court granted partial injunctive relief in favor of Perfect 10. Specifically, it ruled that Google's thumbnail images of the copyrighted content were likely to be found infringing, while the hyperlinks to sites hosting the copyrighted content were not likely to be found infringing in and of themselves. Google subsequently appealed the injunction against displaying the thumbnail images while Perfect 10 appealed the district court's decision on the hyperlinks. [1] [3]

Direct infringement

Perfect 10 made two claims of direct infringement:

First, Perfect 10 argued that Google's framing of infringing websites constituted direct infringement, and requested that Google be enjoined from continuing this practice. [2] The district court found that Google would infringe the distribution and display rights by framing others' content only if it hosted and physically transmitted the content itself (the "server test"). The court rejected Perfect 10's argument that the relevant question should be whether the content is visually incorporated into the site (the "incorporation test"). Since Google only provided an instruction for the user's computer to fetch the infringing pages from servers not under its control, rather than hosting or transmitting the content itself, the court found that Perfect 10 was unlikely to succeed on this point, and so denied its request for an injunction. [2]

Second, Perfect 10 argued that Google's creation and distribution of thumbnail images was direct infringement, and requested that Google be enjoined from creating and distributing thumbnails of its images. [2] Google did not dispute that it displayed and distributed protected derivative works of the plaintiff's images. However, it argued that the use of the works in such thumbnails was protected under the copyright doctrine of fair use. The district court found that Google's use of the images was commercial and partially transformative (intended to serve a fundamentally different purpose than the originals). The court found Google's use highly commercial, more so than in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (which was prevailing precedent), due mainly to its AdSense program, which a number of the infringing sites used. Also distinguishing the case from Kelly, the court noted that in 2005 Perfect 10 leased the right to distribute reduced-size versions of its images for use on cell phones to Fonestarz Media Limited, putting it in direct competition with Google's thumbnails. Therefore, the court ruled that this factor "weigh[ed] slightly in favor" of Perfect 10. [2]

The court rejected Google's argument that the images were uncreative; however, since the works in question were all published, it ruled that this factor too weighed only slightly in favor of Perfect 10. The court also ruled that Google's infringement meant "[c]ommonsense dictates that [cell phone] users will be less likely to purchase the downloadable P10 content licensed to Fonestarz", and that this factor weighed against Google. [2]

On Google's claim for the fair use defense, the court analyzed the four factors of fair use and concluded:

The first, second, and fourth fair use factors weigh slightly in favor of P10 [Perfect 10]. The third weighs in neither party’s favor. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Google’s creation of thumbnails of P10’s copyrighted full-size images, and the subsequent display of those thumbnails as Google Image Search results, likely do not fall within the fair use exception. The Court reaches this conclusion despite the enormous public benefit that search engines such as Google provide. 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.

Therefore, the court ruled that Perfect 10 was entitled to injunctive relief for Google's use of thumbnail images. [2]

Contributory infringement

There are two types of secondary copyright infringement: contributory and vicarious. Contributory copyright infringement occurs if someone intentionally encourages direct infringement. Vicarious infringement occurs if a party: (1) could stop or limit the direct infringement but does not, and (2) profits from the direct infringement.

Perfect 10 alleged both forms of secondary liability for infringement: first, that Google committed contributory infringement by encouraging users to visit infringing sites; and second, that it committed vicarious infringement by profiting from infringement. As summarized by MGM v. Grokster , "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement... and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it." [5]

According to Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., secondary liability could not be found "based on presuming or imputing intent to cause infringement solely from the design or distribution of a product capable of substantial lawful use, which the distributor knows is in fact used for infringement." [6] The court ruled that Google did not, in any case, facilitate infringement, essentially because "[infringing] websites existed long before Google Image Search was developed and would continue to exist were Google Image Search shut down". Therefore, the court found that Perfect 10 did not demonstrate its likelihood to succeed in a contributory infringement claim, and consequently denied injunctive relief. [2]

With respect to vicarious infringement, the court held that Google derived direct financial benefit from infringement of Perfect 10's copyright (in the form of AdWords and AdSense profits), but that it had no power to stop the infringements even if it knew of them. Therefore, the court found Perfect 10 unlikely to succeed in a vicarious infringement claim, and consequently denied injunctive relief. [2]

Ninth Circuit opinion

Perfect 10 appealed the district court decision, at which point Amazon was added to the proceedings because Perfect 10 learned that Amazon was displaying thumbnail images obtained from Google. [3] In its appeal brief, Perfect 10 argued that the district court had "failed to even cite the broad definition of 'display' in the Copyright Act. Instead the Court substituted its own policy determination and novel 'server' test, requiring that a defendant violate the reproduction right (by copying images onto its own server) as a necessary condition to finding the display right violated. This 'bright line' test is without precedent and erroneously conflates the act of copying and storing images with displaying them." [7]

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's "server test" and its decision that the hyperlinks did not infringe on Perfect 10's copyright. It agreed with the district court's assessment that infringing websites existed before Google and would continue to exist without Google, thus it was not a contributory infringer. Furthermore, Google had no control over infringing sites and could not shut them down, so any profits it may or may not extract from users visiting those sites did not constitute vicarious infringement. [3] The court also agreed that including an inline link is not the same as hosting the material itself. So in the case of framing, while it may "appear" that Google was hosting infringing material, it was only hosting a link to the material which the browser interpreted should appear in a certain way. [4]

The Ninth Circuit did, however, overturn the district court's decision that Google's thumbnail images were unauthorized and infringing copies of Perfect 10's original images. Google claimed that these images constituted fair use, and the circuit court agreed. This was because they were "highly transformative." The court did not define what size a thumbnail should be but the examples the court cited was only 3% of the size of the original images. Most other major sites use a size not longer than 150 pixels on the long side. Specifically, the court ruled that Google transformed the images from a use of entertainment and artistic expression to one of retrieving information, citing the precedent Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation . The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that Perfect 10 was attempting to market thumbnail images for cell phones, with the court quipping that the "potential harm to Perfect 10's market remains hypothetical." [3]

The court pointed out that Google made available to the public the new and highly beneficial function of "improving access to [pictorial] information on the Internet." [1] [3] This had the effect of recognizing that "search engine technology provides an astoundingly valuable public benefit, which should not be jeopardized just because it might be used in a way that could affect somebody's sales." [8]

Google also raised a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor defense in respect to the issue of hyperlinks, which Perfect 10 contested. However, the court did not reach an opinion on this matter as it found that Perfect 10 was unlikely to succeed on the matters of contributory and vicarious liability because of the other arguments. [1]

Subsequent judicial split

The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its Perfect 10 "server test" in Hunley v. Instagram, LLC, (2023). [9] However, the precedent has been disputed by another federal court. In Nicklen v. Mashable Inc. et al. (2021), Judge Jed Rakoff of the District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the server test, agreeing with the argument presented by Perfect 10 that the server rule is "contrary to the text and legislative history of the Copyright Act," which "defines 'to display' as 'to show a copy of' a work, not 'to make and then show a copy of the copyrighted work'." [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the context of the World Wide Web, deep linking is the use of a hyperlink that links to a specific, generally searchable or indexed, piece of web content on a website, rather than the website's home page. The URL contains all the information needed to point to a particular item. Deep linking is different from mobile deep linking, which refers to directly linking to in-app content using a non-HTTP URI.

Inline linking is the use of a linked object, often an image, on one site by a web page belonging to a second site. One site is said to have an inline link to the other site where the object is located.

Perfect 10 was a monthly men's magazine, and adult website that featured high resolution topless or nude photographs of women who had not had cosmetic surgery. Perfect 10 also promoted and filmed boxing matches between a number of their models, which were called Perfect 10: Model Boxing on the Showtime and HDNet cable channels. The last print edition of the magazine was published in the summer of 2007, after which it switched to a subscription-based website-only presentation.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive.

<i>Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.</i>

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 280 F.3d 934 withdrawn, re-filed at 336 F.3d 811, is a U.S. court case between a commercial photographer and a search engine company. During the case, ownership of Arriba Soft changed to Sorceron, the operator of the Internet search engine Ditto.com. The court found that US search engines may use thumbnails of images, though the issue of inline linking to full size images instead of going to the original site was not resolved.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

In copyright law, the legal status of hyperlinking and that of framing concern how courts address two different but related Web technologies. In large part, the legal issues concern use of these technologies to create or facilitate public access to proprietary media content — such as portions of commercial websites. When hyperlinking and framing have the effect of distributing, and creating routes for the distribution of content (information) that does not come from the proprietors of the Web pages affected by these practices, the proprietors often seek the aid of courts to suppress the conduct, particularly when the effect of the conduct is to disrupt or circumvent the proprietors' mechanisms for receiving financial compensation.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n is a court case in which the pornography magazine Perfect 10 filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard for copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC</i>

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, is a U.S. court case between a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the webhosting, connectivity, and payment service companies. The plaintiff Perfect 10 asserted that defendants CCBill and CWIE violated copyright, trademark, and state law violation of right of publicity laws, unfair competition, false and misleading advertising by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website. Defendants sought to invoke statutory safe harbor exemptions from copyright infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512, and from liability for state law unfair competition, false advertising claims and right of publicity based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for distinguishing the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i> American copyright case law

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i> US District Court case concerning copyright infringement

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorizes another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Samson, Martin. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. , Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 828 (C.D. Cal., 2006).
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
  4. 1 2 Schultz, Jason. P10 v. Google: Public Interest Prevails in Digital Copyright Showdown , Electronic Frontier Foundation: Deeplinks Blog (May 16, 2007).
  5. ↑ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 US 913 (2005).
  6. ↑ Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
  7. ↑ Frackman, Russell J.; Goldman, Jeffrey D.; Mausner, Jeffrey N.; Cooper, Daniel J. (May 31, 2006). "First Brief on Cross-Appeal of Plaintiff - Appellant/Cross-Appellee Perfect 10, Inc". Westlaw. 2006 WL 3096732.
  8. ↑ Falzone, Anthony. The Two Faces Of Perfect 10 v. Google , The Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School (May 16, 2007).
  9. ↑ Moss, Aaron. "Ninth Circuit Affirms Server Test in Instagram Embedding Case". copyrightlately.com. Copyright Lately. Retrieved August 1, 2024.
  10. ↑ Brittain, Blake. "Manhattan judge rejects 'server test' for internet copyright infringement". www.reuters.com. Reuters. Retrieved August 1, 2024.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.