Pronet Advertising

What the Google Decision Means for Social Media

A Belgian court ruled yesterday that it was illegal for Google to reproduce extracts from various Belgian newspapers on its Google News website. As worrisome as the decision may be for Google, it could potentially have far reaching implications for socially driven media in general.

The Official Google Blog provides a good summary of the situation and what Google plans to do about it. One particular thing that stood out as I was looking at the post was the argument used by Google to assert the legality and legitimacy of its service:

It is important to remember that both Google Web Search and Google News only ever show a few snippets of text. If people want to read the entire story they have to click through to the web publisher's site where the information resides.

What they mean by that is that their service displays extracts from outside sources in the following manner, and to obtain complete information, the traffic is ultimately diverted to the original content producer/publisher.

Looking at the situation in that context brings to light the striking consequences the judgment could have for all socially driven media. Sites like Digg, Netscape, and Reddit, all function in a very similar way. Content is displayed with a title and an article summary and readers click through to the content producer's site.

Reproduction of such extracts is generally considered acceptable under Fair Use principles. However, if following the judgment of the Belgian court, other European countries also start declaring these extracts as illegal, it could spell the end of socially driven media, at least in Europe. Although Margaret Boribon, secretary-general of Copiepresse did mention the ridiculous idea of allowing Google to display these 'extracts' for a fee.

Chris, February 14, 2007

Great point! I do not see socially driven media a target as of yet because of their size, but if they were to grow into large corporations I could see them being targeted by this.

Lee, February 14, 2007

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it (and am not interested enough to research it) but what is the problem with Google publishing snippets in News? There is no suggestion that the content is from Google or that Google is laying any copyright claims to it. So why would you NOT want to get the links from Google (or any other search engine)? I've found interesting websites that I now regularly visit because I clicked through from Google News. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? I mean - why bother to have a website if you don't want people to find you?

grasshopper, February 14, 2007

@Lee - the basic beef that Copiepresse had was that Google was republishing their content (even in a small amount) without permission, and more importantly, without compensation. they want money up front from Google for the "privilege" of featuring their content in Google News, which is consistent with an old-media publishing model. they weren't looking at it from a traffic perspective (which is pretty short-sighted, IMO).

Social Dude, February 14, 2007

Well the difference here is that when you submit a item to Digg, Netscape etc.. you are writing the title and description and linking to the source. I am not sure how copyright is handled in Europe but in the USA, that all falls well under what is considered fair use I would think.

I think the problem with the Europe site was that Goog was indexing the news items and the site that generated the content did not want to be included.

So, I am no lawyer but I would think the possibility of someone trying to sue a social media company is highly likely to happen, but not to succeed.

Kevin Davis, February 14, 2007

I think there are two issues to consider in this situation, both resulting in contrasting rulings which leave me to no direct conclusion.

The first is International and foreign law. By having a global presence through the internet, doesn't subjugate a corporation to the laws of another country. Obscure laws in a foreign land shouldn't force google to change its policies, and even given a ruling by a foreign court... the ability to enforce the action is mostly on the part of google's willingness to comply.

The grandfathering of content. It seems that the most pertinent issue of contention is that while corporations that distribute content such as the publisher at hand are fairly fine with the initial relaying of their content... they want to have control on when it becomes accessible and for how long. When standard practice for profit sustainability has changed to limited free access and paid accessed to archived information, the consideration of those who relay content should default to the content provider. Granted it's my personal opinion that once data enters the public domain, it's there to stay regardless of how the originator would like to limit it. However, given copyright protections and other facets of intellectual property law and the need for corporations to be able to selectively archive content for pay based access, I think the ruling is legitimate and should be enforced honorably by google. This doesn't just affect news sites abroad, but also organizations like the Union Tribune in San Diego or the New York Times, who provide free access to news stories that are current, but choose to charge for access at a later date.

Orson, February 15, 2007

The ruling is concise and legitimate and in this situation Google should comply. Why? Refer to the comment above.

My views on the ruling having a transcending effect on social media sites is..it depends.

"Well the difference here is that when you submit a item to Digg, Netscape etc.. you are writing the title and description and linking to the source."

This isn't entirely true since I have seen practices of merely copying the heading and a snippet of the article, to initiate faster content submitting; so it can cause some concern. Thus.. it depends, just as I think suing Google was impractical ( exposure and offline readership), I extend those same sentiments for Social media sites.But why thread in potentially dangerous water?

A solution The concept is simple, the social media sites should revisit their policies on user posting and have it mandatory for the submitting heading to be of changed title and description. This of course is easy for me to say. Implementation would certainly be a task, but it can be done.

My perception

Mika Tuupola, February 15, 2007

I think more interesting question is can Belgian newspapers afford to loose all traffic coming from Google and sites such as Digg. Any media getting a court order to remove themselves from Google and social media sites are shooting themselves into foot.

Chris, February 15, 2007

Now this could become interesting. Microsoft has created a new social news site in Norway and Belgium. We may find out very soon if social media falls into the category with Google News if Microsoft sets up shop there.