3 ms·

If the judge can find the image in Google, that's not going to end well.

• SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  DMCA take-down orders are regularly made on flimsier grounds, despite this being technically perjury. Also, google image search and tineye still seem to be surprisingly specialist skills. Average computer users don't know them. Judges ... even less so.
• pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  The prosecution would have to show that the defendant could have found that image at the time they searched and that they were negligent (ie not diligent) in the search they performed. For example a diligent search could be considered to be using a specific service, Tineye say, but another similar service was the only one that had the image. Do you have to use all services to be diligent? That would be great for the service providers as they could charge a lot and the court would be enforcing the use. How would the prosecution demonstrate that image was available to you? On Google search is personalised - do I need to check all the results returned or just the first 100? Google's dates are notoriously unreliable too; they're certainly not at the level of accuracy needed for a court conviction. Then there's DMCA ... couldn't you use the DMCA to have the images taken down, then when a prosecutor checks later they won't find them? Or at least they're down long enough that you can get a search notarised in which the images are absent.