$200,000 Judgement Against Google In Mokbel Shots Case 140
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.'"
Due to legal requirements (Score:5, Interesting)
We at Google have had to ban all of Australia from google images. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Thank you,
Google.
Re:Due to legal requirements (Score:4, 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
Re:Due to legal requirements (Score:4, Funny)
I second that.
-- Barbara Streisand
Ridiculous (Score:1)
This makes me want to find the photo and blanket the internet....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You should do that. You don't have to worry about his mob connections, because they're not true.
Re: (Score:1)
I hope they do appeal and don't let this sit as precedence, although it will likely cost them more than $200K just to try to fix this.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Google pretty much has to appeal this decision:
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.)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the plaintiff should up his notorious activity to push the crime lord off the first page.
Re: (Score:2)
Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is it just another judge taking glee out of fining wealthy companies for the sake of it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:5, 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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like arresting the mailman instead of the Unabomber.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean ordering him to get it back and defuse it after it's already exploded.
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, counter-intuitively you can defame people with the truth.
Lets say Barack Obama has serious Asthma (I dont know, I'm just making this up as an innocuous example). Well, lets say he uses an asthma puffer quite regularly, in fact a bit more than the doctor recomends, he's a busy man and easier to huff a puffer than follow a full prevention plan after all. Ventolin is also a drug that the more you use the more dependent you can become of it, despite the fact its also utterly essential for wardi
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are any different as far as common sense goes. Often cases start out winning in the lower courts and are overturned the higher up the case travels. This is far from over.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
A supreme court is not the high court. Supreme courts are the highest courts in each state, the high court is the court of appeal for them. Though it's not that likely they'd grant special leave to appeal this particular case.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was actually expecting someone to try to make that point, and yes, our Superior Court is probably the equivalent to their Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that Google creates and keeps their association data, linking the gang name to his picture. That data wasn't created anywhere else, Google made the association through their algorithms, and stored it long after the original postings were deleted or corrected. Which means you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While Australia is an American ally, and Australia is also a first world country, it should be noted that the two facts are not in any way linked.
America is allies with several countries which are not first world countries, and several first world countries are not listed as American allies.
Re: (Score:1)
it should be noted that the two facts are not in any way linked
Except by the definition of "first world country" [wikipedia.org]. Other than that, absolutely nothing.
Re:Effing Oz (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
I have mod points, and I looked for the option to mark this as "Logic Troll", but couldn't find it. What gives?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
TFS doesn't really paint a good picture:
from TFA:
"Google search results also linked to a page on a now defunct website, Melbourne Crime, which had published photos labelled with his name.
Mr Trkulja said he had never initially intended to sue Google but had been galvanised into action after his request for the content to be removed from its searches in 2009 was not granted.
Supreme Court Justice David Beach this morning said in awarding the damages that the case was about ‘‘vindication and ‘
Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
The American courts are not predicated on justice or fairness. They are predicated on the placement of blame.
Dig a little deeper... (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.
Re:Dig a little deeper... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems kinda reasonable to me.
No, it's not. It's bullshit. I expect unfiltered results when searching.
Re:Dig a little deeper... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you find a search engine that does that, let us know!
Re: (Score:1)
You're right. It won't happen unless I run my own crawler myself. Eh, maybe when I get a spare machine... However, if we all step up the demand, we might get what we need.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone posts a article that accidentally mentions your name in relation to a scandal (say child-pornography for example. It was supposed to be a different name, but the person got it wrong.
Someone else goes to your LinkedIn Profile (or something) and grabs a photo, which gets linked to the article.
Google caches the search and the result.
The original poster fixes the problem and pulls the content; Google refuses to.
Then you go for a job, the potential employer goes to your LinkedIn profile and grabs the pho
Re: (Score:2)
I shall refer you to this [slashdot.org]:
The only way is for false accusations not to matter. That means no vigilantes; it means the law deals seriously with people who are dangerous paedophiles (so people have confidence that they don't need to intervene themselves) and it means people who cause harm to the falsely accused, for example by firing them from work, should be forced to fully and completely compensate them for that harm. - (emphasis mine)
They find a result for the photo and your name linked to a defunct article on child-pornography.
Don't expect a call.
When people act in bad faith, which is what that would be, then they sho
Re: (Score:2)
Now, let's consider the real world of employment, shall we?
The employer is not trying to be fair to all applicants. The employer is trying to hire a person for a role. In most cases, there are many people who would do well in that role, and if the economy gets strained, there may be many qualified applicants. The employer has a legal duty to be fair to certain protected classes (in the US; I know this is an Australian case, but I'm far more familiar with US employment law), and if the employer conside
Re: (Score:1)
Knowing that it's full of false, obsolete information/propaganda, you don't Google the applicants. In fact, it's best to pretend the internet doesn't exist. To use it is nothing more than taking the cheap, convenient way out. And I would say that people who do use it for this are acting in bad faith by default. Outside private networks and personal/business solicited emailings, the internet should only be used strictly for entertainment purposes only. Going beyond that should be discouraged, to say the leas
Re: (Score:2)
Except that taking the cheap, convenient way out is precisely what businesses want to do, and for good reasons. They have no desire nor incentive to spend more or do more work without a good chance of a significantly better result. Businesses that do it are acting in their best interests. You call it "acting in bad faith", but I don't see any reason other than that you don't like it.
Re: (Score:1)
Using gossip to check on people is acting in bad faith, no different than going to the National Inquirer or Star Magazine. Acting in one's interests does not change that. There is no good reason not to verify what you see and hear before acting on an accusation. It's not a matter of me liking it or not. Obviously you're not getting the message here, and seem to think this kind of thing is justifiable. That makes you part of the problem, worse than than the accuser himself. The punishment should come out of
Re: (Score:2)
I do too, but that isn't the problem.
Google search results also linked to a page on a now defunct website, Melbourne Crime, which had published photos labelled with his name.
The site took down the pictures, but Google still served up the result. Google lost the case because the original was retracted, but Google didn't retract theirs. The lesson here is for Google: If you are going to index something, you have to keep that index up to date.
Re: (Score:3)
The search engine is not incorrect - there are indeed pages that mention both "Trkulja" and "criminal". Mr Trkulja is incorrect to believe that Google is "tagging" him in any way. Google is merely presenting the results of a keyword search, not offering some value judgement.
Mr Trkulja's name *is* in the context of criminals - he is the victim of a criminal attack. That does not make him a criminal himself.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Google did it's job and found sites that contained his name and his image from a website and reported that result to the searcher. It was the website that he had a problem with so he should have dealt with that website. Suing Google and Yahoo for doing their jobs is just wrong. Google and yahoo did not create the content, they just provided results that link to the content. I do not want Google, Yahoo, or another other search engine to omit results. I do not want to see something like the Chinese censorship
Re: (Score:3)
What error? Google isn't claiming that Trkulja may or may not be a gangster. They're claiming that there are pages that mention Trkjula in the context of gangsters, and here are the URLs.
Re: (Score:2)
I share my name with a basketball player. Search for my name and the results page is full of him.
And I've looked at his stats and he's shit. Probably the worst player to ever draw a wage from the game.
Why should I have my name associated with a shit sports player? Where's my money? Where's my money bitches?
Dig even deeper.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Dig even deeper.. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:1)
Google was right not remove the tag on the image then because the form was filled out incorrectly. However, when the guy's lawyer contacted Google with the correct information, they should have honored it. Google clearly recognizes that their search engine and indexing algorithms aren't perfect and people can be mistakenly associated with negative tags that could harm reputations. They also have a vested interest of making sure that their search results are as accurate as possible. That's why they have a fo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Google didn't place them there. Also, if Google were to take everything down they'd be overwhelmed by the work. Besides asking an entity like Google to remove something is a form of censorship. I'm sure Google doesn't like to always cave to censorship requests. What defies common sense is that now everyone gets to sue because they don't like what the search index says, and they get to sue the wrong entity. I'm sure the information is in Bing and other search engines too, so how did
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone can hire a lawyer and have the lawyer draw up a cease and desist order for a company, in general doesn't have any teeth unless there is a court order behind it. There are many celebrities that have lawyers who do this sort of thing as a matter of SOP. What's missing here is a court order acknowledging that the images should be taken down because the plaintiff was able to prove to the court that it was defamatory in nature.
How does he show that he was financially harmed by this? Did he lose any emp
Easy as 1,2,3 (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Upload
3. ???
4. Profit!
If it was my company (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I'm quite sure the court did perfectly understand the difference. But Google makes lots of money from its search engine, so the court expected Google to use some of that money to remove search results that pointed to websites defaming this man. The court didn't even expect Google to actively search and remove such search results, just to remove them when requested by the plaintiff's lawyer.
Re: (Score:1)
don't seem to understand the difference between a search engine that indexes the internet and the original site that hosted the material.
Slippery slope, though. Google decided they want to add the ability to censor content. For one example, back when they wanted to do business in china, google.cn was able to spin results the way that government wants ( http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2009-06-04-n13.html [blogoscoped.com] )). No doubt they do similar censorship for other regionally outlawed content too.
Once they add such censorship features, they're not really a content-neutral search engine anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
What incorrect information? That there was a page that mentioned both search terms? Seems like that was correct.
Seems that you want everyone to be able to force their own ideas of correctness on everyone else. To you, and others like you, which appears to be the Australian Courts, I say... SUCK IT.
Re:If it was my company (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing business in Australia would cost Google money.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Some site had misleading info labeling an innocent as criminal.
Said innocent succeeded in getting the site to remove respective material.
Google still delivered incriminating material through its search results.
Complaining to Google didn't help. (As far as it's reported, it seems that represseive dictatorships like China hav no problem complaining to Google and get a reaction; but that course ain't available for a private person.)
Successfully suing Google mi
How is it defamation if it's true? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In England, truth is not an absolute defense against defamation like it is in the USA. Maybe the same is true in Australia?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, in Australia if the alleged defamatory statement is substantially true then that is a complete defence.
Justification: It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true.Substantial truth means that provided the justification meets the substance of the imputation, minor inaccuracy will not exclude the defence. The publisher’s motive is irrelevant, if the publisher can show that the imputation is true then it does not matter that he/she was motivated by malice. http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html [uts.edu.au]
I don't see how publishing an unfaked photograph of two people together can be defamatory: every police or court official caught in a photo with a criminal would have a defamation case. However, I can see it is as defamatory of the caption you associate with the published picture says, "Bloggs is bosom buddies with a gangland boss." if that statement is not true. I could also see a technical argument
Re: (Score:2)
" it was launched at the biggest cash cow not the sanest target."
I dunno, targeting the biggest cash-cow sounds quite sane to me. Not particularly fair, possibly unreasonable, but definitely sane.
Re:How is it defamation if it's true? (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.
Re: (Score:1)
+1 to this please!
In short, a google search linked this man to the underworld and subsequently he was shot in the head, but survived.
I'm all for people taking responsibility for their own doings but this guy was SHOT IN THE HEAD as a result of being portrayed (by Google) as an underworld figure.
What I find interesting is that google has developed algorithms that have automatically generated these links and the subsequent content delivered in the search result on this person. In this case the links and conte
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The summary didnt mention that someone hired a hitman to kill him due to the mistaken identity, he was shot but survived.
That's because the above statement is completely false.
The article linked mentions that the shooting occurred years before but does not establish the importance of the shooting.
Another article (http://dsm-publishing.com/australian-man-wins-landmark-case-against-google/) explains the significance of the shooting: his picture was put on the Melbourne Crime website when he was shot in Melbourne. The criminal figure Tony Mokbel was invovled in crime in Melbourne. Get it? Melbourne. Crime.
How was he defamed? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My understanding was that when you typed in his name, Google found images of him from various websites as well as images from other websites of known underworld felons and put the thumb nails of these images side by side. The inference being that he was associated with these underworld felons.
Its seems he then asked Google to modify its searches to dissassociate him with these underworld figures and they refused.
Legal proceeding followed and the courts found that by their search engine associating his
Re: (Score:1)
So he ends up with a bit over AUD $425k (USD $441) for his trouble.
I find the lack of "k" in the USD humorous.. completely untrue, but humorous.
Oh Streissand effect... how I love you... (Score:4, 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 [ozsoapbox.com]
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, duh. He's a criminal or hitman or something. Google it.
Clearly he thinks he can strong-arm the legal process as he does with everyone else in his life.
Deep-link bounce: how I fixed it... (Score:2)
Hot-links, inline linking, bandwidth stealing, etc (Score:2)
.
This problem i
Re: (Score:2)
Middle-clicking (open link in new tab) in Firefox worked fine. I'm using NoScript, but not sure if that has something to do with it, or if FF doesn't send a referer[sic] tag at all.
Can't be arsed to mess with it to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. I have tried this link from other networks and other computers. I do not see this. It's not stealing. It's linking. Are you as confused as the rest of the media who still don't understand the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Milorad Trkulja should sue himself (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, winning 200000 dollars is a really stupid move. And winning a similar amount from Yahoo is also really stupid. I mean this man, being able to get a nice amount of money and get some search engines to stop associating his name with crime, is totally retarded. Any sensible person would have said, "yeah, I'm being associated with criminals when people search for my name, nothing wrong with that, and who needs money anyway?". Right?
Re: (Score:1)
What would be really interesting (Score:1)
manipulating search results (Score:2)
Where do I go to sue Australia (Score:2)
Glass (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)