• natfinn

    H’mmmmm. That could open the floodgates.

  • http://twitter.com/pswebsitedesign PS Website Design

    Yeah you’re not kidding!

  • http://www.facebook.com/the.nathaniel.bailey Nathaniel Bailey

    “Trkulja had previously won a similar case against Yahoo, which was ordered to pay about $250,000 (USD) in damages.” sounds like these guys are just out to get the search engines!

    I guess the likes of google, bing and others will have to monitor what’s include in their image searches from now on so they don’t have to pay any more fines for people getting images to rank well in the results?!

    Or maybe Trkulja should just ask the world to forget about the freedom of speech so only facts can be published on google? What if I get an image of a bank robber to rank for Trkulja, would they then sue google or even me?!

  • http://www.facebook.com/max.hoglund.13 Max Hoglund

    I agree with the previous comments. This could give the wrong people ideas.

  • Alan

    So no matter what happens freedom of speech should win out? So someones child gets murdered and those pictures appear in a search and that is fine. If Google is asked to take them down and doesn’t that is fine?

    that is an extreme case but the principle is the same. Google is allowed to do what it does and make it’s billions because it abides by a code of practice. Google is now more than ever flouting those codes of practice and this is just one more example of a company that doesn’t give a dam about the people it hurts.

    From all reports this guy isn’t the most upstanding citizen but there is another right that people have that easily trumps free speech and that is “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” Innocent until proven guilty!

  • http://www.facebook.com/the.nathaniel.bailey Nathaniel Bailey

    And google haven’t said the guy is guilty or not guilty, people have given their opinion (by the sounds of it) which is what has got this guys image ranking for the terms, which yes google has control over – in that they could remove the image – but its not their fault that people have managed to get google to associate said image’s’ with said search term’s’ so they should not be held liable IMHO.

    Google is a search engine for providing information, they don’t say that all the information provided in googles results is fact, so I don’t see why or how google (or any other search engine) should be held liable for such things?!

    By all means, if this is in fact not true, then I agree google should have the courtesy to help by removing the images from that search term by request, but expecting google to check every single search term anyone could enter – and even know what search terms people will use in the future – and remove images which could be completely wrong would be impossible for any search company to do because this is something that would have to be checked manually.

    Plus think of the floodgates that could open up! For example lets say someone don’t like a news picture of a natural disaster because it has a dead body in the background, do you think google should police that and get that image removed from its listings? No!

    Any way, running off topic a little now lol, but the gist of my argument is google can’t and shouldn’t be expected to police its image results IMO, yes if something is damaging to someone and they request google (or any other SE to remove it) they should look into it for them, but you have to consider the floodgates which could open on this and realise that it could open up a huge task for google in many ways.