General principles of copyright law apply to the Internet. So, for example, the unauthorized copying of a copyright-protected work for use on the Internet will be an infringement. This is true even if the infringement is difficult to find or the infringing party is elusive when sought in the physical world. Nonetheless, the application of general principles by copyright creators, attorneys and judges can require careful pouring of the old wine of copyright into the new bottles of the Internet. This article reviews some of the key cases that explore this evolving area where copyright and the Internet overlap.

THUMBNAILS AS APPROPRIATION
Digital databases and the Internet create new tensions with respect to appropriation of copyrighted works. One common problem is created by search engines such as Google, which offer thumbnails of images on the Internet through their “image search” feature. The idea of using low-resolution “thumbnail” samples to display the contents of an image catalog is nothing new, but the widespread adoption of “thumbnail” previewing by major Internet search engines raises new questions about appropriation of copyrighted works. By copying images displayed elsewhere, downsizing them, and presenting them to any curious Internet user, do Google, Yahoo! or Bing infringe copyright? 
 
Two recent cases address the thumbnailing problem in favor of Internet search companies. The first was Kelly v. Arriba Soft (336 F.3d 811). In that case, photographer Leslie Kelly claimed that Arriba Soft’s Ditto.com search engine was infringing copyright in his photographs of the American West. Arriba Soft’s product would, in a manner familiar to anyone using modern search engines, display downsized “thumbnails” of Kelly’s photographs when they were relevant to an Internet user’s search request. The court held that such thumbnailing was a fair use, since the search engine’s purpose for copying and transforming was not to displace Kelly or otherwise profit at his expense. Rather, the search engine sought to increase the efficiency by which Internet users could find and access online content.

The second case concerned the online search giant Google, and was brought by Perfect 10, an adult entertainment company. The ultimate holding was similar to the result in Kelly v. Arriba Soft. Most Web-enabled artists are familiar with Google’s nearly ubiquitous “image search” feature, which responds to user-submitted keyword searches by seeking out images scattered all over the World Wide Web. In visually organizing the search results, Google displays shrunken thumbnails of each image it finds, allowing a user to click on that image to access the full size image as it appears on the Internet. Perfect 10 argued that this presentation of its images infringed its copyrights. While the court agreed that Google trammeled upon Perfect 10’s distribution rights, it ultimately found that Google’s display of the images was a fair use. In so doing, the court noted that the downsizing process, accompanied by the attached link--through to the full size image--transformed the nature and purpose for which Google was displaying the images. While Perfect 10 sought to profit from its full size images, Google’s compressed thumbnails were designed to allow Internet users to more easily find those images. Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007).
  
What do these cases mean for artists who display their work on the World Wide Web? The Perfect 10 and Kelly cases present an interesting study on how exercising a creator’s rights may actually hinder his or her ability to disseminate their work. Most artists look to the modern Web as a way to enhance their visibility. Search engines like Google facilitate that by connecting Internet searchers with an artist’s content. Hence, most creators would probably not share Perfect 10’s or Kelly’s insistence upon licensing fees, since profits earned would be offset by the fact that Google’s “image search” would become impossibly expensive to operate. The disappearance of effective image searching may end up costing an artist more than he or she would earn in licensing fees.

Clearly, the court was also uncomfortable with Perfect 10’s position, believing that it threatened to diminish a search engine’s ability to improve access to information on the Internet. Thus, it protected first Arriba Soft’s, and later Google’s thumbnailing as a “fair use.” The decision is one that most artists would likely applaud, given the power of search engines to increase their ability to market themselves before a large international audience.

FRAMES, LINKING AND OTHER POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENTS
The world of Web design has given rise to a number of particular problems that have often led to copyright litigation. Such problems typically arise when one site refers to another Web site, or links users to infringing content. It is important for Web designers to understand how these practices can get them or their clients into trouble. In the landmark decision, Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster, the Supreme Court held a peer-to-peer file sharing service liable for copyright infringement, since it induced users to seek out and download unlawfully copied media content (545 U.S. 913). This very important case will be discussed further in the section on indirect infringement, but needless to say this kind of secondary liability might easily ensnare Web designers who too casually link potential Web surfers to infringing content elsewhere on the Internet. Hence, some common yet controversial "linking" practices are discussed in this section.

One apparently unresolved but controversial area is the practice of linking in “frames.” Framing is a process by which a portal Web site links to another Web site's content, but displays the linked content within a “frame.” The edges of the frame typically contain information or advertisements that promote or otherwise benefit the portal. Courts appear to be quite suspicious of this practice, and portal operators facing infringement suits usually elect to disable such frames, or attempt to show that their practices do not amount to “framing.” In one case, TotalNEWS, Inc. established a portal site that linked to several primary sources of news. One of these primary sources, the Washington Post, sued TotalNEWS, alleging that the defendant’s practice of “framing” the primary source with TotalNEWS content infringed the Post’s copyright. The case ultimately settled, with TotalNEWS agreeing to link without the frames. The issue of frames also came up in the Kelly v. Arriba Soft case, with the court initially holding that the framing did infringe the defendant's copyright (280 F.3d 934). However, a subsequent decision from the same appeals court reversed this finding, and remanded the issue to a lower court, where it was never conclusively resolved.