$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.'"
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:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How was he defamed? (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 image with those of underworld felons, Google have slandered him. Note that Yahoo were also found guilt of the same offemce.
So he ends up with a bit over AUD $425k (USD $441) for his trouble.
Of course the elephant in the room for all this is why a gunman chose to enter a St Albans restaurant and shoot him in the first place? Or for that matter, knowing St Albans, where you would find a restaurant there worth dining in ;-)
Re:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (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:Did this cause $200,000 worth of damages? (Score:0, Informative)
Except that google does not host content whatsoever, and just directs people to find the images. So only an idiot would think google is responsible for the image. So yes, Only in Australian courts is where you find people who take things seriously, but at the same time, you're all just as stupid if not dumber, so the effect is just the same
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: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:How is it defamation if it's true? (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.
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.