ATTENTION JOURNALISTS, AND BUSINESS EXECUTIVES OF COMPANIES WHO PRODUCE OR RELY UPON COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL TO DO YOUR JOB ... OR TO COMMUNICATE AND INTERACT WITH OTHERS

Before you read this article, please note that I love "image search" and have researched it thoroughly on ALL major search engine companies for the past six months. There are ways to keep this valuable public service alive and make it both legal and ethical as well. But only if we can stop widespread copyright infringement using the service and curtail the greed of the giant search engine companies, and their investment bankers and market makers, for just a brief moment in time. Easier said than done.

Image Search ... The Unknown Crisis with "Chilling Effects"

"Image Search", the cool feature Google and others added to their textual search capabilities a few years back, is the single most dangerous threat to legitimate copyright owners of digital graphic arts content in this country (no, I should say around the world).

The major image search engine companies (Google - Nasdaq: GOOG, Yahoo - Nasdaq: YHOO, Microsoft - Nasdaq: MSFT, IAC/Ask.com - Nasdaq: IACI, AOL - NYSE: TWX, Baidu - Nasdaq: BIDU, Rediff - Nasdaq: REDF, and others) need to make significant modifications to their "image search" function immediately or face massive lawsuits now in the research and development stage. I know. My small graphic arts company (Imageline,. Inc.- www.imageline2.com) is one of the primary potential Plaintiffs ... and one who has suffered millions and millions of dollars of irreparable damages as a result of these unlawful business practices.

Microsoft doesn't agree with me. I have spoken with their senior executives and outside copyright counsel about this matter and they have taken the position that the Perfect 10 case in California confirms the legality of their "image search" features and functions. Microsoft is wrong. Not only are they wrong, they are hypocritical (surprise, surprise, surprise) about the whole thing. When I showed them that their own intellectual property (they own one of the largest libraries of digital graphic arts content themselves) was being infringed by these "image search" capabilities, they turned a blind eye to the topic. You'll see me refer to "willful blindness" throughout this article, and other writings I prepare on this vital subject as well.

" ... if we can pretend we didn't know better, or turn the other way when someone is trying to bring it to our attention, then we can claim in court ... and to the public ... we were innocent infringers and probably not have to pay anyone a dime." ... Willful Blindness.

Google could care less. I have notified Eric Schmidt personally about the serious consequences of the Google "image" and "universal" search functions several times over the past three months and have not heard a word back in reply. Google takes the same approach to this copyright infringement claim as they do to all of the others. Billions and billions of dollars of "Legal" and "Public Relations" funds will get you EVERYWHERE according to what appears to be Google's philosophy. Just look at the YouTube and book publisher fiascoes if you need more support for that argument.

Image search is so widespread that many of the friends, and copyright protection advocates, we have dealt with for many, many years here at Imageline, don't believe this one. I admit, it does sound absolutely outlandish to consider that this much commerce passes through these gates and yet this issue has not yet been addressed, and eliminated, through our civil justice system (or even more so, through the "tougher" copyright laws we profess to now have on the criminal side of the house).

Realizing this doubt, I have taken the time to explain what I mean by direct and willful copyright infringement in this article. Bear with me on this one. It requires a bit of real estate to assure the story is properly told.

You need to read it, however, if for no other reason than the fact that every single one of your readers or customers who perform this kind of "image search" function have potential liability for copyright infringement as well. These search engine companies not only hurt themselves, they place hundreds of millions of their end user customers in jeopardy as well ... all unknowingly. It is truly a national disgrace and a crying shame in my view.

We'll take the smallest infringer from the above list and go from there. Rediff (www.rediff.com) is an Internet portal and search engine company with offices in India and in New York City. They are listed on NASDAQ as REDF). They target the growing Indian Internet population, with a particular emphasis on Indian people who live abroad. The site is well done, and appears to be very useful in the information it provides. Traffic has increased steadily over the past twelve months. Rumors had both Google and Yahoo watching this company closely not that long ago.

Are you ready to be convinced?

Go to www.Rediff.com and perform an "image search" on the term "Yankees clipart". Once there, choose the image of the "Yankee Fans" (an illustration of a group of diehard Yankee fans who believe this race with Boston is far from over). Since your company is holding a contest and giving away a pair of tickets to this year's World Series in October (and happens to be a group of Yankee fans as well), click on the Yankee fans image from the Rediff "catalog" page to take a closer look.

Now you have the "Yankees" image stored on the Rediff servers and pointing (theoretically) to the image from the original web site publisher who pirated the image from Imageline in the first place. Wait just a second. Imageline has already notified this particular web site publisher and the "Yankee fans" image was removed. We verified this four weeks ago. No problem. Rediff still displays the image for your use on its servers. The notion that these image search engine companies only "index" the image for reference on other web sites is a complete fabrication of the truth. It goes beyond my lay understanding how the four judges in Northern California got this one wrong in Perfect 10. Of course, when you read what Google's legal team told them, you might not be all that surprised. Completely untrue. Google even claimed it didn't make any money through its AdSense programs with its image search partners and advertisers. How about some swampland down in Florida?

Back to the World Series. So, now that you are looking at the Yankees image you want to use on your own web site, and perhaps in some printed materials as well, you right click on the image and save it to your hard drive for further use whenever and wherever you want. Rediff, like other image search engine companies, does not restrict your usage of the copyrighted material in any way. And this continued usage has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, to do with the original web site from which Rediff copied the image. Remember, that web site publisher removed the "Yankee Fans" image long before we began this exercise.

Wait a second. Wouldn't it be nice to see what your five primary advertisers thought of the image before posting it and moving forward? You don't have to use "right click" to copy the stolen image. Look back at the image as displayed from the Rediff servers. There is a shortcut feature that sounds interesting. "Send this image to a friend". Click on that link up in the header just to right of the actual Yankee Fans image.

Wow ... that's convenient. Now you can send the image, exactly as it is copyrighted and registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, to up to five friends or business associates, without even leaving the page you are on. And without paying the owner a dime. Thanks Rediff!

Your friends and customers, of course, can decide to use the image in any way they want as well. Even Redsox, Indians, and Angels fans can alter the image in many less than flattering ways. It seems that someone has committed this artwork to the "public domain" without bothering to notify, let alone get permission from, the owner. How can that not be "direct" and "willful" copyright infringement? And for those of you short on mathematical skills, this "cascading affect" can go on indefinitely since the Internet lets anyone around the globe make unlimited quantities of perfect digital copies of illustrated artwork and distribute the copies anywhere around the world almost instantaneously. Wonder if they have any "Yankee Fans" in India?

By the way, if one of your friends decides to use the Yankee Fans image in one of their fantasy baseball leagues, be sure to tell them that they can also retrieve and use any Major League Baseball (MLB) logo, individual team logo, or mascot image they choose by following the exact same procedures through their "image search" engine of choice. Wonder if these are "public domain" images as well? Type in "MLB logo" or "Yankees Logo" into your image search engine and see what you get. This problem is not limited to Imageline, alone.

The Image Search crisis. What you have read above is happening millions and millions of times each day all around the world. Electronic Graphic Arts Content (clip art illustrations, design templates, logos, and animations) are the largest culprit since entire copyrighted works are copied and delivered each time (not simply "snippets" or a few "indexing" sentences to whet the readers appetite for the "real thing", as Google and others claim). Image search is contributing to a rapid decline in the employment, and opportunity to make a decent living and/or profit, let alone the incentive to produce more copyrighted material, of one of most distinguished and creative communities this country has known. Its artists, designers, illustrators, digitizers, painters, graphics programmers, cartoonists, and personal computer-based animators. We need your help!

The "image search" engine companies (led by Google) are the biggest contributors to widespread global copyright infringement on this planet. They have turned Web 2.0 into "The Pirate's Web". How do we/they expect to stop piracy in China, Russia, Brazil, India, and other countries when these powerful publicly funded technology companies in our own country violate our copyright laws to this extent? Won't happen. And trying to throw a dozen or so college students in jail, so that the blame can be passed downward to the rebellious or the unprotected, won't work either. Been there ... done that.

We need moral and business ethics reform in this technology industry ... not just copyright law reform. The copyright laws (both civil and criminal) are already on the books. Our country (including our federal judges and politicians) just have to have the guts and determination to enforce them. We won't make a dent in international piracy rates until we do. Believe me, I know. I have been tracking these Internet piracy issues in detail for the past 10 years or so.

New organizations are bringing copyright holders together to lead this charge. The Google's of this world will not follow these laws without putting up a strong fight. We have recently been invited to join the Copyright Alliance (www.copyrightalliance.org) in Washington, D.C., who's membership includes 40 or so of the most distinguished and successful copyright producing companies in this country. We intend to represent the smaller 400,000 individual and small company graphic arts developers with as much zest as we can muster. Wish us some luck.

Thanks for taking the time to study this issue in more detail. I think you'll be glad you did ... unless, of course, you work for one of the image search engine companies we have exposed.

Please share your comments with me.

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com