Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon. Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Google’s image search engine “substantially assists websites to distribute their infringing copies” of copyrighted images, and thus constitutes a' material contribution, even though “Google’s assistance is available to all websites, not just infringing ones”
• holding that copyright holders who challenged Google's creation of a thumbnail version of their copyrighted images, which the user had not specifically requested be made, had made out a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement
• holding that a search engine’s publication of low‐resolution, thumbnail copies of copyrighted images was “highly transformative” because the thumbnails were “incorporate[ed] . . . into a new work, namely, an electronic reference tool”
• holding that automatic copying of images in browser \cache\ constituted fair use
• explaining that “intent may be imputed” based on “a service provider’s knowing failure to prevent infringing actions.”
• holding that contributory “liability that may be imposed for intentionally encouraging infringement through specific acts,” “intent may be imputed,” and that “a service provider’s knowing failure to prevent infringing actions could be the basis for imposing contributory liability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).