Re: Re: more trouble with thumbnail images?

From: David Dailey <david.dailey[_at_]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:30:30 -0500

At 05:10 PM 2/24/2006, Terry Carroll wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Feb 2006, David Dailey wrote:
> > At 05:05 PM 2/22/2006, David Alan Bozak wrote:
> >
> > >Judge Issues Injunction Against Google Over Photos
> > >[...snip...]
> > >
> > >
> > >-dab
> >
> > What?! Hasn't the judge heard of Kelly v Arriba.
>Since he cited it and distinguished it, I think it's a good bet that he

Yeah, so I see. The ruling is just intensely frustrating to those of us involved in writing software to provide access to information.

The effect of the ruling on any project involving public access to automated summaries, be they textual, visual, auditory or multimedia, is chilling to my way of thinking. To render as illegal all acts of summarizing might seem a wee bit oppressive.

Why should human-generated summaries be more legal than machine-generated summaries? Is fair use somehow fairer if there is a cerebrum involved? Or is it just that visual summaries should be illegal? What is a visual summary if it is not a thumbnail image? What is a summary if one does not have access to the original work?

Might I license all official summaries of my work to one exclusive agent and then sue everyone else who seeks to summarize me? It seems in this case the two summaries (the Google one and the licensed one were not identical just very similar).

A couple of questions for those who know how to read these cases (I'm obviously not among them),

  1. Does the judge's ruling seem well-reasoned? (I grant that it may be even though I don't like it. I can see that he uses legal jargon and cites precedents, but that doesn't mean its well-reasoned.)
  2. I gather this is some sort of preliminary ruling and that a real trial will follow?
  3. The ruling seems to make a big deal about consumptive versus transformative use. The exclusive deal that the plaintiffs entered into for selling their mock-thumbnails was apparently entered into after they sued Google. Doesn't that seem a bit like trying to invent a reason to complain after the complaint has already been made?
  4. How does one file an amicus brief?

David Dailey Received on Tue Feb 28 2006 - 04:30:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:56 GMT