

Wikipedia reveals Google 'forgotten' search links - cmsefton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28672121

======
falcor84
"... the monkey had taken the photo, and was therefore the real copyright
owner." The fact that non-human primates can now supposedly hold copyrights is
my big take-away from this.

~~~
ghaff
What totally floors me about this one is that I can barely but not really see
an argument for public domain; i.e. no one took the photo. But would this be
any different from using automatic triggers and the like? No, not really, if
the monkey isn't a person.

But, assuming for purposes of argument, that something neither a person nor a
legal entity can somehow copyright a photo, I'm willing to bet that said
monkey didn't release that photo under an appropriate license for Wikimedia to
use. So if the monkey does own the copyright, Wikimedia still doesn't have the
right to use it.

~~~
breadbox
It differs from an automatic trigger in that the photographer is still the one
exercising the decision to take a photograph. In the case under consideration,
the monkeys stole the camera while the photographer was distracted.

(Perhaps it's also worth noting that the monkeys weren't "taking selfies" per
se; they were simply fiddling with the camera and noticed that pressing a
button made a sound.)

It's really a fascinating corner case. On the one hand, I agree that the photo
almost has to be considered to be in the public domain. On the other hand, the
photographer did exercise effort and choice in retrieving his camera, finding
the one (hilariously adorable) image in the several that the monkeys
inadvertently took, and making it available as a photograph. (Not to mention
cropping and rotating the raw photo to properly frame the monkey. But one
could ignore that by focusing on the original image, which isn't shown in the
article but is floating around the web.)

I suspect that if this exact situation had happened forty years, back when
photos still had to be chemically developed, nobody would think for a second
that the photographer didn't have full copyright ownership. He may not have
exercised intent, but without his efforts there would be no photograph. It's
only now, when the process of turning a camera's image into a viewable
artifact has become relatively transparent, that it becomes less clear what
the human photographer has contributed.

~~~
ghaff
It _is_ an interesting corner case. We'll increasingly have the ability to
setup cameras that can be algorithmically controlled, perhaps using machine
learning approaches to take photos based on autonomous evaluation carried by
robotic vehicles. I think most would argue that the deployer of the camera is
still the photographer.

However, how is that really different if--in this case--the photographer had
deliberately given a bunch of monkeys cameras that they could fool around with
and take pictures of each other or whatnot? In both cases, you're essentially
creating the opportunity for autonomous entities to take photos under only
somewhat understood conditions. And how different is that really from this
case?

Levels of abstraction and indirection in the creative process. Do you draw a
line somewhere?

(Mind you, in this case, IMO there's a pretty clear presumption that the human
photographer owns the copyright and Wikimedia is playing with fiddly legalisms
that aren't appropriate in this context.)

------
DanBC
There's clearly a niche in the market for reputation management. I know it
exists, but perhaps something that can be used by the 90,000 people send
requests to Google would generate a bit of income?

The photograph example
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.j...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom_Carstairs_In_Concert.jpg#filelinks)
is odd. The photographer took the picture, and has released it to the public
domain. There is clearly confusion between photographers and venues / bands
about what the laws actually are, and what reasonable behaviour is. I'd be
interested to know why the musician wants this very low quality photo taken
down?

Here's evidence of confusion over legal status of photographs:
[http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/24/cant-
photographers...](http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/04/24/cant-
photographers-musicians-get-along/)

~~~
anigbrowl
You don't have an automatic right to take pictures in private venues. If the
ticket or signage states /photography is not allowed' then your copyright
claim is invalid, and the material is not yours to give away. Rather a stingy
policy for a venue to have, of course, but then nobody is forced to attend a
concert or similar event if they don't like the conditions of attendance.

~~~
slucidi
You certainly don't lose copyright protection of a photo you took because you
were told not to do so. You just risk being thrown out of the venue or other
legal trouble.

~~~
anigbrowl
The musical performance is itself copyrighted, by definition. Reproducing part
of it without permission is an infringement.

~~~
slucidi
No part of the music being performed is reproduced in a photograph.

~~~
anigbrowl
A music performance in front of an audience is audiovisual. You would be right
if we were talking about a photograph of a radio taken while the performance
was broadcast, but we're not. Indeed, when people mention they attended a
concert, they say things like 'I went to see my favorite band last week,' as
opposed to saying they went to listen to them.

~~~
anigbrowl
HN shoots the messenger again, I see. I don't make the law, I just tell you
about it:

[http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/summary_rome.html](http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/rome/summary_rome.html)

wikimedia itself observes that shoting without a permit may put you in breach
of a contract you signed when you purchased the ticket, as I alluded to above:

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Concert_photography)

...which is why publishers won't buy photographs without a signed release,
such as this one:

[http://images.tbd.com/entertainment/gaga-
release.pdf](http://images.tbd.com/entertainment/gaga-release.pdf)

------
MasterScrat
Middle-clicking any external link on this page opens it... in the same tab.
Are they actively trying to get rid of their visitors?!

~~~
egeozcan
Probably they are trying to track clicks and do not have logic in place to
simulate middle-clicks.

Dear fellow web developers, please stop overriding essential browser
functionality like scrolling, clicking on external links, right clicks and
touch events. Especially on a web page with static content. Trust me, it will
break.

~~~
coldpie
NoScript is a good solution while browser vendors are taking their time
getting their shit together.

------
wubbfindel
>>> The judges involved decided that citizens had the right to have links to
"irrelevant" and outdated data erased from search engine results.

I wonder, are Google doing this to make the 'forgotten' content "relevant"
again, because of recent news articles covering the move. Then they can start
linking to it again?

~~~
wmf
Google is removing tens of thousands of links; the media will cover only a
tiny fraction of those.

~~~
wubbfindel
Good point. I just like the conspiracy angle...

------
nraynaud
Nice mob mentality, let's all pick up on the awkward guy who wants his brush
with the law or crazy hairstyles removed from the internet so he can try to
get job a after a long depression.

~~~
davidgerard
The "right to be forgotten" law is for the rich and powerful to conceal their
past bad behaviour from the public record; it's certainly not for the benefit
of the likes of you and me.

------
Tossrock
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streissand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streissand_effect)
in action

------
laurent123456
Has anyone started some work to find out the complete list of "forgotten"
links? It shouldn't be hard to create a bot to parse the Wikipedia "People"
categories, then run searches for each person on Google UK. If the article
doesn't show up in the results, it means it's a forgotten link.

Then all these links could be listed in a website. Maybe the simple fact that
each "forgotten" link is automatically listed there will prevent people from
using this right to be forgotten, and make the law obsolete.

~~~
comex
I think Google is sending sites notice for all removed links, so the list
linked from the article [1] should be complete for Wikimedia. Of course, that
doesn't apply to the entire rest of the web..

[1]
[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_s...](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines)

------
xux
I don't get it. Couldn't you already stop Google from indexing your page by
using robot.txt?

~~~
sp332
This is people asking Google to stop surfacing old content about them from
other web sites, not their own web site.

------
callesgg
Most stuff will go away eventually, when sites die or are renewed. It just
takes more time than what people like.

------
happyscrappy
>While the links do not appear on Google.co.uk and other versions of the
search engine created for specific EU countries, they do still appear on
Google.com, which can be accessed in Europe.

Even a great firewall of Europe would not make this kind of censorship work.

~~~
jahnu
Many people in the EU, including myself, don't bother with the localised
versions of Google since the results can be annoying. Having said that it
really is frustrating not to be able to easily restrict a search all the EU
ccTLDs.

~~~
weinzierl
Except for local search (shops and restaurants for me) I never use the German
version of Google, it's so much worse. Sometimes I use the German version
accidentally and it feels like Google is broken somehow.

The most annoying thing is, that when you type google.com (instead of
google.de for example) you still get the localized version. I don't keep
Google cookies for long, so
[http://www.google.com/ncr](http://www.google.com/ncr) is in my muscle memory.

------
dzhiurgis
Nice one. Perhaps they should start uploading DMCA protected content too?

O wait, corporations using their legal leverage to remove content is perfectly
ok.

~~~
schoen
They do post the DMCA takedown requests that they comply with.

[https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:DMCA](https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Category:DMCA)

I wouldn't assume that the Foundation or the Wikipedia community would think
that the existence of the DMCA safe harbor is a good idea or that it's OK that
people invoke it against Wikipedia. Certainly the Foundation is very actively
involved in pushing back against takedowns; notice that that page "does not
include the numerous requests that were found to be invalid or otherwise
inappropriate where no content was removed" \-- presumably through the hard
work of Foundation lawyers resisting those takedowns.

~~~
davidgerard
Note also that whereas Google gets _millions_ of DMCA takedowns, Wikimedia
gets _hundreds_. That's because the editors - the volunteers who do all the
actual work - are zealous (sometimes ridiculously so) about copyright.

Wikimedia is the only web 2.0 site that gives a hoot about copyright.

