…by a Web publisher who claimed that Google was not permitted to index his Usenet postings. And in the Nevada case, the plaintiff was an attorney who intentionally chose not to use Google's opt-out process and then sued.
In addition, lawyers duelling over copyright arcana can be tempted to squeeze a slew of arguments into a brief — even weaker ones — just in case.
"They like to take pokes at us saying it's an adult magazine although the pictures were pretty tame," said Russell Frackman, a partner at Mitchell Silberberg and Knupp who is representing Perfect 10 in its lawsuit against Google.
"In one sense it's not surprising because I'm sure Google would like to have everything out there in the public domain — except its own indexes and search results — because that would make its life a lot easier. But it doesn't work that way," said Frackman, who was also lead counsel in the lawsuit that shut down the original Napster.
Old alliances are reforming in the Perfect 10 case, which yielded the adult publisher a limited injunction against Google's image search and is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Digital rights advocate Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology lobby groups are siding with Google. The Motion Picture Association of America and the American Society of Media Photographers are filing friend-of-the-court briefs aligning themselves with Perfect 10. Oral arguments are expected early next year.
Frackman, Perfect 10's attorney, said that one of the obstacles he faces is convincing judges that not everything search engines do is innocent. "One of the challenges is 'This is Google. What would the world be without Google?' We don't want the world without Google. We want the world without Google infringing our copyrights," he said.
Headlines: Free for the taking?
Some news organisations have also found themselves at odds with Google. Agence France-Presse's lawsuit, which claims the search company unlawfully incorporated AFP photographs, headlines and excerpts from the beginning of articles, is in the preliminary stages before a federal judge in Washington, DC.
In a brief, Google's attorneys claim that journalists cannot enjoy copyright protection in their headlines, even though it may take a considerable time for an editor to craft a compelling one.
"AFP headlines are terse factual phrases, that are forbidden to exceed one line on a computer, or approximately 10 words, and usually are shorter than that," Google's brief said. "Thus, their brevity precludes protection."
Many lawyers would agree. A US Copyright Office ruling says that "titles of works" are not copyrightable. But the US Congress has never enacted a law one way or another.
"Nobody has actually sued the Copyright Office to try to get it to register a title or short phrase, so it hasn't been tested in the court," said Litman, the law professor.
Joshua Kaufman, partner at Venable in Washington, DC, who is representing AFP, says: "We think that some headlines are protectable, that some story leads are protectable. It's a real skill and it's original work. A story lead is the most creative part of the story — it's what most people read."
"I think Google probably takes a position that there's such a large universe of things out there that they'll always have enough (to index) so even if it hurts the newspapers and wire services, that's enough for them," Kaufman said. He added that if Google offered an "appropriate amount" to settle the lawsuit, AFP would be delighted to drop the lawsuit tomorrow.
Macgillivray said that Google views itself as complementary to copyright holders' own interests.
"Without them," he said, "there would be no great (reason) to search all of the great content that's out there on the Web."
