Why are the Myspace template sites not being banned?

Most all of them have backgrounds and templates of copywritten and trademarked material, like for movies and musicians. Using copywritten material without the owners permission (and you know these two bit little webmasters people aren't getting permission for major record labels and movie studios to use them) is against Google's TOS.

Why are they not being banned?

 

Does anyone know?

 

Its not googles job to inforce copywrite law. All they do is index the web. If you report the site to google it may get banned but the can't go and hand review all the sites in their index.

 

I'm talking about banned from Adsense, not the SERPs.

Google bans people left and right, why are they not banning these people?

 

How can google be sure the sites don't have authorisation to use the material?

 

It's just like youtube.
Its not a copy right if its not more than 10 mins or something.
Probly a loop hole. lol.

 

They assume they don't (which everyone knows they don't).

Google doesn't need to prove anything. They ban without warning, reason, or forgiveness on a limp to protect the quality of their ad network.

 

The record labels love this kind of publicity.

 

Uhhh, stealing a logo, copywritten image, or similar and profiting from it is 100% against the law and against Google's TOS. That's not even up for debate.

How can you have less than "10 minutes" of an image? Seriously? I've never heard of anything dumber.

You can sue someone if they make something that even "RESEMBLES" something you did, ie "stealing likeness."

It's hands down, without a doubt, not even up for debate, against the law and against Google's TOS.

 

But Google might not know that. And they will act on the assumption that the copyright violation is not "welcome." They do not have time to ask every record label and every movie studio about every movie and every artist, "do you want people to use this image, etc?"

 

Jacob obviously doesn't mean 10 minutes of an image, he's talking about video/audio, but there must be an equivalent for images. Maybe, it's because if you use google search you can find copyrighted images from sites which don't have authorization, should google ban them as well? It's like someone trying to sue google because they can find torrents through google search.

 

There is no equivalent for stealing a logo or copywritten photo and profiting from it.

And if those sites the images were found on were using Adsense, yes, ban their Adsense accounts.

I'm not talking about being banned from the SERPS, just from Adsense.

 

Simple, IMO: google doesn't play online police, unless it harms their own income. Things like clickfraud get advertisers upset. Why would copyright-theft hurt the advertisers?

 

how is google supposed to detect copyrighted images? how do they know who has permission to use the image and who doesnt

 

I assumed because Google is absolutely nuts about some of it's TOS violations (ad positioning, other click fraud, etc), I assumed they would be equally ruthless about other TOS violations.

If what you say is true, it will be interesting to see how long until some large company forces Google to bring out the ban stick because images are being stolen.

 

Just turn it in.

 

google doesnt monitor those type of things and it takes proof. i dont think any of the major companys are worried about our sites yet. who knows.

 

I assume that the TOS helps them when they do want to crack down on a site, for instance because 'some large company forces google' into it.

But do note that the TOS viollations you mention above are precisely the ones that directly affect advertisers - by causing too many clicks that do not convert into sales. Myspace pages that use copyrighted material are probably only going to get into trouble when the copyright owner feels threatened by them. And why would they anyhow: great free advertisement for their brand.

 

The sites aren't profiting from the stolen logos, as they aren't selling them.

 

Dumbest post of the day.