> The footage was licensed for internal use, and Google has presumably paid for that. That's a pretty far fetched interpretation in my opinion. I'm 99.99% sur

> The footage was licensed for internal use, and Google has presumably paid for that. That's a pretty far fetched interpretation in my opinion. I'm 99.99% sure the article says/means "other people/companies have licensed footage for internal use from the appropriate online stock-footage agents, but Google has not".