I've gotta say, it's a little far-fetched. But where does the law lie here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4035257.stm
You know, if I am Mr.Nada, I go after those sites posting the images. Google is not hosting those images, only providing thumbnails of such. Google cannot be responsible for copyright between two websites. They could (and should) ban those offending sites after Mr.Nada files the complaint and G has had time to review it. I wonder how much business he would lose if (when) Google bans his site from their database for this frivolous lawsuit....
Think about it, even if the case is dismissed, the guy took his shot and got worldwide attention for his site. How many hits do you think he will get now? You can bet he did not get that many from his site being in Google anyway, but to use the lawsuit as a publicity stunt will gain him much more attention. This is the entire motive behind the suit.
It's not fair because Google never gave me a username and password. At least you don't need a username and password to sift through the magazine.
Sure they do, these were thumbnails from the home page, this guy is doing this just for attention (the lawsuit), he will not get anywhere with this crap. The court will know it is just a publicity stunt just like everyone else does.
The guy has every right to proceed against G, and I hope he follows through. 30 letters is fair notice by anyones standards. I hope they're forced to pay up in no short form, regardless of remedy.
Fair enough about Google should have responded but Google doesn't hack, it crawls and what were they doing letting it crawl near stuff like that. I love the hats, I want one! I'm just imagining walking down the street and seeing revolting old men wearing them though and thinking "eeeeuw, I know where you've been"
He could also actually be trying to win as well, he might think he stands a chance in court and wants to make some money out of big G.