4 ms·
When I worked on something related-enough a few jobs ago, I was surprised when our legal dept said that google (and pinterest) generally doesn't have a legal le
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
When I worked on something related-enough a few jobs ago, I was surprised when our legal dept said that google (and pinterest) generally doesn't have a legal leg to stand on with regards to that kind of thing, but since they link to the thing they're quoting/copying, they have a relatively symbiotic relationship. If you sue google into delisting you, you end up with less traffic, so you don't sue.
- cxr 3y agoIt's possible that you misunderstood and/or are oversimplifying. Failing that, you should be surprised—anyone saying something like that really ought not be in a position where someone looks to them for counsel. This has been litigated, and precedent is in favor of search engines, not against them. It does depend on the nature of what exactly we're talking about, though. (Again: it's possible that the question they answered doesn't match what you understood them to be saying.)
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y agoOh yeah, I'm definitely simplifying a ton of discussion with legal, but that's any discussion with them, lol. It was part of a broader discussion about IP liability regarding user image content, specifically referencing google images in this case, not snippets, so in this case works were reproduced in full. But the gist of my point, and my understanding of their point is that the often said "google serves other people's content like this, so my not-quite-the-same idea must be legal" isn't nearly so simple.