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.'"

11 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 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 __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. 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
  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.)