Things haven’t gone well for Perfect 10 in its copyright infringement case against Google, and this is what Perfect 10’s Norm Zada has to say about that. Zada, quoted by www.xbiz.com says the rights of copyright holders and celebrities have been substantially impaired.

In the decision, the court granted the majority of Google’s motions for summary judgment under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The court also denied Perfect 10’s second motion for preliminary injunction which was intended to stop Google from copying and displaying Perfect 10 images including placing Google ads around the images and misusing the names and images of Perfect 10 models for Google’s commercial purposes.

The net result, according to Zada is that Google can continue to abuse Perfect 10’s intellectual property on a massive scale for its own commercial benefit without paying him a dime.

“And there is very little we can do about it,” said Zada who contends that
Google is doing the same thing to movie studios, recording companies, magazines and news reporting organizations.

According to Zada, the rulings are confusing in how copyright holders can protect their property, but he believes that Google can now disregard most notices sent to it by rights holders and can continue to place ads around celebrity images without paying the celebrity.

Also according to Zada, Google can disregard any notice regarding infringement on paysites that are Google advertisers and from which Google receives payment for promoting those websites.

Thusly Google can continue to receive promotional payments from websites that it knows steal and sell massive quantities of movies, software, songs and other intellectual property, according to Zada.

“In short, my interpretation of these recent rulings is that Google can massively exploit other people’s property for its own commercial gain, publish whatever confidential information it chooses, and there is not much anyone can do about it,” Zada added.

Background: Adult entertainment publisher Perfect 10 sued Google’s Image Search service, arguing that Google violates copyright law by indexing Perfect 10 photos posted on unauthorized websites, then making and delivering thumbnail images of those photos in its search results. Perfect 10 also contends that Google should be held liable for any copyright infringement that occurs on sites that Google links to.

In February 2006, the district court ruled in favor of Google on several grounds, but ruled against Google for its creation of thumbnails. EFF filed an amicus brief for itself and several library associations, supporting Google.

Both sides subsequently appealed, and EFF filed an amicus brief on behalf of itself and library associations supporting Google. On May 16, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals handed Internet innovators and users of all stripes a major victory in Perfect 10 v. Google (the opinion was subsequently amended on December 3, 2007). While it leaves some questions open, the bottom line is that the Court upheld important policies of fair use and freedom online and resisted Perfect 10’s plea to put copyright owners completely in charge of how and when search engines and other online intermediaries can provide their users with links to images.