Class action suit against Google?

[clist]

Just curious.

Is this something that has been discussed / executed before?

The way I see it (and I'm sure I'm not alone here) Google is (and possibly the other search engines) kinda helping to facilitate a lot of these alleged "infringements".

Although I'm aware that there is a great deal of people who just take whatever they want from the web, there';s equally a good amount of people who specifically look for "free to use" images and ultimately fall victim to these extortion / infringement traps.

Thoughts?

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

not going to happen, every image search result has the subject to copyright disclaimer, and google is not "hosting" the images, simply linking to them.. People need to realize there is no free, and at the very least learn to read license agreements, yes most of these wallpaper sites are full of jacked images, many of them do state, that images are "free" to download for "personal use" as in a screen saver, desktop background..that's not the same as using them for commercial purposes.

[clist]

Ok.

So are you saying that because they have a disclaimer 100% of the liability should fall on the downloader even if the image is clearly labeled for reuse?

To me that doesn't seem right.

While I do agree that the downloader has some responsibility, I also feel that sites that facilitate the distribution of (mislabeled) images should foot some of the bill if one is accused of infringing.

It seems like a lot of sites skate by with their disclaimers.

Take for example sites like Pixabay that offer images "for free" and have very clear language that states you can use the images. 

Upon further examination users will be shocked to find out that any one of those images could be uploaded with the intent of snaring victims in these extortion schemes.

 

Such a dirty game...

On a side note: (correct me if I'm wrong here) mislead innocent infringers can rest easy knowing that if they ever do make into a courtroom and can successfully prove that they were mislead into believing they were allowed to use the image(s) they can walk away only paying $200 for an "innocent infringement".

Is it $200 or $750?

Either way, its a lot less than what most of these lawyers are trying to extract...

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

What I'm saying is that a class action against google, wouldn't ever happen, they just serve up search results in the form of links, what a user does with that information is not on googles shoulders. Free image sites are a different scenario, as those images are actually uploaded to those sites, I think sites such as pixabay should bear some responsibility as they themselves are likely infringing and supporting the infringing by others, problem is most of those sites are not hosted within the US and therefore don't fall under our copyright laws, so how does one enforce it?? Pixabay is located in Germany, US copyright law does not apply, so there is a huge loophole, and you wil also notice in their terms, they clearly state the following:

You also agree to indemnify and hold harmless Pixabay from and against any and all claims brought by third parties arising out of your use of the Website.

so your on your own for all intents and purposes.. the copyright trolling will continue, until folks realize they have to their homework BEFOREHAND, which is how many get ensnared..

to the side note a US Federal judge at his discretion, could lower the awarded amount to 200.00, which is another reason many of these case never go that far, it's a losing proposition for the trolls, they just want fast, easy money, from people that are uneducated and paralyzed with fear.