Talk:Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc. was copied or moved into Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. with this edit on 2015-11-18. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Untitled[edit]

This page is being revised over the next week as part of the IP WikiProject. Metromoxie (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome?[edit]

The article frequently refers to "the court" without saying which court or when. Also, I've read the article and feel none the wiser as to what the final outcome was. --kingboyk (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- I think a large part of the confusion was that the citation at the start of the article was to the appellate decision but the analysis described in the body was the district court's. I changed the citation back to the district court. perhaps the fact that the decision was reversed on two grounds merits greater prominence somehow? It's there in the second paragraph but maybe that's not enough. 76.99.61.20 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- The real problem is that the court of appeals opinion so undermines this article that a total rewrite is needed. Some of the considerations that someone rewriting this article might find relevant can be found in the discussion of Perfect 10 found in the article on Transformativeness.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed in response to Court of Appeals decision[edit]

A rewrite is needed, the current article deals primarily with the district court (trial court) decision, which is superseeded by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Because the trial court was overruled, I think their analysis can be deleted. It is accurate, but only of historical interest. The ultimate outcome of the case is more important. 129.98.228.225 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirect[edit]

As pointed out in several pages, the district court case was almost completely reversed. As the appeals court case is referred to as Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., I have been updating the appeals court case there. I propose that we merge the relevant district court case information there and redirect this page to Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.. Metromoxie (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it further, I tend to think you are correct. I've rewritten the intro to make it more clear that the article analyzes a reversed opinion, but the two articles should probably be merged. Kgorman-ucb (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there appears to be long-standing consensus on this, I'm going to try to merge this page into Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. now.PacificWonderland (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me know if you need a hand (I don't want to cause accidental editconflicts so I'll stay out while you're actively working.) I'm the person posting above as kgorman-ucb. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]