Excellent discussion of how Google's creation of marketable thumbnails infringes, and how Google directly and indirectly profits from that and related image copying, rather than acting merely as a search engine and transmitter. For the thoughtful reader, the article and decision linked to, give a real insight into the sleaziness of Google's business model(s) and why Google's claim of being "merely a search engine and public service" are not only specious, but verge on perjury. The following also has links to the detailed court decision.
The following is an article about an infringement case in Australia. While this case involves music as opposed to images, the defendant -- now officially ruled a "crook," used many practices analogous to Google's business model and indeed, tried to defend himself by saying that he is doing the same thing as Google ("If I am a crook, why isn't Google a crook?") The discussion and links discuss some of the issues of Google's business practices, which some learned participants at this board consider "thievery." Here's the URL: