The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Googles image search is illegal

Corny

Corny

panegyric
JUB Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Posts
36,095
Reaction score
61
Points
0
Location
Germany!
Well in Germany .. for now ](*,)

An artist sued them because his pictures from HIS website were showing up in it. The judge ruled that resizing the picture was an unauthorized "rework" of the original picture, and bedding them in their website to present the search result is an unauthorized re-use. Google would do better to provide a textual description of the picture. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Seriously I demand he is never allowed to work as a judge again, or someone should fire his superior to let handle a guy like that who obviously has NO clue at all such a case #-o

Google of course is now in appeal, so they don't have to stop image search for now. A spokesperson said something about "a judgement from the stoneage". And many websites mentioned if the "artist" never heard about robots.txt - unfortunately I couldn't find anything about whether robots.txt was mentioned in court at all.
 
You'd think this would happen in the US over Germany, but never-the-less, still hilarious. Of course, Google is gonna win this one, but talk about a good laugh.
 
The real idiot is the artist. Giving everyone in the world access to view his art must really be a blow for him...:confused::confused:
 
Here, just for you.

Further more - ever tried to read a website from a search result :confused:. I'd say 99% of the people click the link of the result, which means they visit your website.
 
bw92116 said:
I side with the artist. I'm very resentful that Google has taken everything off my web site and put it on their servers, so people can just read it there without ever having to go to my site. Google tramples all over copyright law.
Click to expand...
Google is usually responsible for driving people to your website. Without google, you probably wouldn't get half the hits that you do. Although, I have no idea what your site is about.

Without search engines, the internet wouldn't be as effective or as popular as it is right now.

Thats why copyright laws don't really apply to search engine companies. They are nothing more than a hub to the information on the internet.
 
Perhaps the artist should have considered either a private blog or a password protected site if it was intended for a select viewing audience only. I hope when the case goes to appeal, he has to pay all costs!!!
 
what a stupid case, this should be thrown out of court. the defense this guy is using is so whiny-baby and flimsy.
 
OrionFyre said:
He wasn't using "defense" he was accusing google of copyright infringement and etc. Google was the one that had the piss poor defense.

](*,) basic comprehension is all we ask.
Click to expand...
:rotflmao: Google have a piss poor defense. What a ludicrous statement. They had a dumbass judge who had no idea what was being presented to him. Thats why the judgement probably won't last.
 
Wow...seriously?! I think that artist is just trying to get some quick cash. And that judge is certainly an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top