vincevincevince - 12:06 am on Oct 14, 2008 (gmt 0)

Pretty much every time I open a book- that's the meaning behind that little copyright notice.

Why is it people are able to accept a copyright notice in a physical book as valid but if I place a copyright notice on a website it is assumed insufficient? It is well within the ability of Google, even if it is not possible for smaller engines, to parse a copyright notice - just drop by codesearch.google.com and you will see they even categorise entries there by copyright license.

Thumbnails aren't copies: they cannot substitute for copies, because they can't serve the same purpose.

I disagree with that. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has looked up an item in Google Images and found the thumbnail to be entirely sufficient to tell me what the item is. For fine art, a thumbnail probably isn't sufficient, but for a cartoon character it often is - just look at the tiny unclear images which were well tolerated in handheld game consoles a few years ago.

The whole issue rests upon reasonable effort; whether Google makes a reasonable effort to ensure permission before doing this. I don't think it is reasonable to require Google to have explicit permission in every case, but it is reasonable to require Google to try to send an automated email to a listed contact address with a simple statement of intention and links to reply 'yes' or 'no'.