Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$200,000 Judgement Against Google In Mokbel Shots Case

Posted by Unknown on from the spoons-made-me-fat dept.

niftydude writes with news of damages awarded in a case over Google image search results "Should Google be held liable for images that appear in its search results? An Australian court has said yes. 'A Melbourne man who won a defamation case against search engine giant Google has been awarded $200,000 in damages. Milorad Trkulja, also known as Michael, sued the multinational over images of him alongside a well-known underworld figure that appeared in its search results. A six-person Supreme Court jury found last month that Mr Trkulja had been defamed by the images, which he first contacted Google about removing in 2009.'"

21 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Due to legal requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We at Google have had to ban all of Australia from google images. We apologize for the inconvenience.

    Thank you,

    Google.

    1. Re:Due to legal requirements by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      We here at Internet Tubes And Things had to point out that due to the nature of the internet and the world wide web, banning all of Australia, or even most of the world, wouldn't accomplish anything. Suing google likewise does nothing, and in fact, nuclear weapons are also ineffective. You see, at Internet Tubes And Things, we believe in infinite redundancy and endless replication of data, especially data that's trying to be banned, censored, or access-controlled. Whenever someone tries to remove that product feature, we like to return it to the user in question about a thousand times more.

      Thank You,

      Internet Tubes And Things

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Due to legal requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I second that.
        -- Barbara Streisand

  2. Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by tbird81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or is it just another judge taking glee out of fining wealthy companies for the sake of it?

    1. Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by pokoteng · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, unlike American courts, Australian courts take these things seriously. They probably sat there pondering for a long time with whole list of evidence and whatnot, and came to conclusion that indeed, the person is owed $200k worth of damages for defamation. $200k AUD is, assuming $50k salary (relatively low income), only some 4 years worth of salary. It's not a massive jackpot of any means, and most of it probably goes to the lawyer fees. You'll barely afford half a suburban flat with it here. Evidence must have stacked that the image results search for him has made him suffer some level of financial and other damages, but not as great as people seem to think. I don't know the exact court details, but some poor judge sat there and added up the sums for this.

      --
      the game
    2. Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, unlike American courts, Australian courts take these things seriously. They probably sat there pondering for a long time with whole list of evidence and whatnot, and came to conclusion that indeed, the person is owed $200k worth of damages for defamation. $200k AUD is, assuming $50k salary (relatively low income), only some 4 years worth of salary. It's not a massive jackpot of any means, and most of it probably goes to the lawyer fees. You'll barely afford half a suburban flat with it here. Evidence must have stacked that the image results search for him has made him suffer some level of financial and other damages, but not as great as people seem to think. I don't know the exact court details, but some poor judge sat there and added up the sums for this.

      In America, truth of the information stated is an affirmative defense against libel and slander. So if you happen to be standing next to a total douche when I snap a picture, that's your tough luck. The information is true so it's not slanderous or libelous. If I photoshop one or the other of you into the picture to make a false association, that could be libelous.

      And the information isn't really defamatory. Two people standing in the same place at the same time is no big deal. I've stood next to THOUSANDS of people I don't know and who the hell cares?

    3. Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by SirAdelaide · · Score: 3, Informative

      The issue was that after the shooting incident, his photo was wrongly associated with the name of a violent gang. He might have been shot by that gang, but wasn't part of it. A website wrongly used his photo with the wrong name, and after indexing that site, Google showed his photo when people searched for a particular criminal. He asked for Google to block that photo when those search terms were used, and they didn't. That is when his lawyers said he had a case.

      --
      I'm a fruit pirate. I bought a watermelon once, and spat the seeds in the back yard. They grew into another watermelon,
    4. Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      He did and the content was removed from their site, but google images kept the association, he asked google to remove it but they refused...

    5. Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think anyone is accusing Australian government agencies of exercising common sense at this point. The UK is like USA Part 2: The Less Rights Version, and Australia is like UK Part 2: Even Less Rights.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  3. Dig a little deeper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Conveniently omitted by the original poster;

    "However, the jury found Google’s defence of the images broke down because it did not take any steps to remove the images from its searches once Mr Trkulja’s lawyers contacted the company."

    He asked Google to do something about it, and they refused. Hence the suing. Seems kinda reasonable to me.

    1. Re:Dig a little deeper... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems kinda reasonable to me.

      No, it's not. It's bullshit. I expect unfiltered results when searching.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Dig a little deeper... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you find a search engine that does that, let us know!

  4. If it was my company by msheekhah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would stop doing business in countries that don't seem to understand the difference between a search engine that indexes the internet and the original site that hosted the material. Screw them.

    --
    Mark Anthony Collins
    1. Re:If it was my company by TFAFalcon · · Score: 3, Informative

      From what I understand the problem was that they didn't update their information once the original website stopped linking the picture with the plaintiffs name.

  5. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    You should do that. You don't have to worry about his mob connections, because they're not true.

  6. Dig even deeper.. by cyssero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Mr Trkulja had incorrectly filled out a form for reporting offensive material by not including the URL of the content to which he objected."

    Hello, Google? Yes, you know that image, I want it taken down as it defames me. Just do it and don't ask me these frivolous questions

    1. Re:Dig even deeper.. by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Mr Trkulja had incorrectly filled out a form for reporting offensive material by not including the URL of the content to which he objected."

      Hello, Google? Yes, you know that image, I want it taken down as it defames me. Just do it and don't ask me these frivolous questions

      He probably expected them to Google it on Bing or something.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  7. Oh Streissand effect... how I love you... by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of people just like me have been googling this guy's name.

    Of interest, I found this image:

    http://ozsoapbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/michael-trkulja-original-herald-sun-hitman-article-2007.jpg

    This guy is clearly one of "those people." Sorry, but I just don't have respect for them. I'm not going to bother defining for anyone what I mean by "those people" but I will say that "those people" tend to somehow think they can control information and by extension opinions and even thought. I'm sorry, but we live in a world with "an internet" now. Information is inherently free and free-flowing. He's a media person. He hasn't accepted that information... data... media...content... it's all out there and it cannot be controlled without pulling the plug on it. And humanity will not stand for it.

  8. Re:How is it defamation if it's true? by bug1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Its not true that he is an underworld figure, yet his image (not the underworld figure) and accompaying story stated that he was.

    The summary didnt mention that someone hired a hitman to kill him due to the mistaken identity, he was shot but survived.

    Still, its debatable how much responsiblity google should shoulder for further promoting the defemation.

  9. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google pretty much has to appeal this decision:

    "Google Inc is like the newsagent that sells a newspaper containing a defamatory article," Beach said in his judgement.

    "While there might be no specific intention to publish defamatory material, there is a relevant intention by the newsagent to publish the newspaper for the purposes of the law of defamation." Beach said the jury was "entitled to conclude that Google Inc intended to publish the material that its automated systems produced, because that was what they were designed to do upon a search request".

    By that logic, Google and other search engines are liable for every piece of defamatory information which can be found on the web. That's a precedent Google can't afford to let stand, not unless they want to pull out of Australia entirely (which would serve Australia right.)

  10. Re:Effing Oz by green1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You could at least read the article you linked to. Your definition is more than two decades out of date.

    After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the term "First World" took on a new meaning that was more applicable to the times. Since its original definition, the term First World has come to be largely synonymous with developed countries or highly developed countries (depending on which definition is being used).

    First World countries in general have very advanced economies and very high Human Development Indexes. On the other hand, the United Nations defined the First World on the wealth of the nation's gross national product (GNP). The definition of First World is now less concrete than during the Cold War.