Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The court held that the deep linking did not create infringement liability. The Court found that search engines are desirable as well as necessary to the function of the Internet; that it is usual that search engines provide deep links; and that businesses that offer their services on the Internet must expect that deep links will be provided to ...
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 both cases, the court exonerated the use of deep linking. In the second of these cases, the court explained (speaking of defendant Google, whom Perfect 10 had also sued) why linking is not a copyright infringement under US law:
A statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf; and; An electronic or physical signature (which may be a scanned copy) of the copyright owner. A complaint can be submitted by: Sending a letter to our registered copyright agent.
Inline linking (also known as hotlinking, piggy-backing, direct linking, offsite image grabs, bandwidth theft, [1] and leeching) 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.
Restoring the removed allegedly infringing material in compliance with this process does not cause liability of the OSP for copyright infringement of the material. [20] There is a common practice of providing a link to legal notices at the bottom of the main web page of a site. [21]
The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights ...
A federal judge has allowed parts of a $250 million copyright lawsuit to proceed against Elon Musk’s X, handing the social media company a blow as it faces allegations that it helped some people ...