Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by cxr on Sunday January 07, 2024 @11:21AM
(#38902446)
It's possible that you misunderstood and/or are oversimplifying. Failing that,
you should be surprised—anyone saying something like that really ought not be in a position where someone looks to them for counsel. This has been litigated, and precedent is in favor of search engines, not against them. It does depend on the nature of what exactly we're talking about, though. (Again: it's possible that the question they answered doesn't match what you understood them to be saying.)
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The New York Times Launches a Strong Case Against Microso...
by 6gvONxR4sf7o on Sunday January 07, 2024 @01:11PM
(#38903535)
Oh yeah, I'm definitely simplifying a ton of discussion with legal, but that's any discussion with them, lol. It was part of a broader discussion about IP liability regarding user image content, specifically referencing google images in this case, not snippets, so in this case works were reproduced in full. But the gist of my point, and my understanding of their point is that the often said "google serves other people's content like this, so my not-quite-the-same idea must be legal" isn't nearly so simple.