Every example I've seen includes a link to the source, so that's your attribution and "fair use.",
The question being discussed in this thread is "Google Experimenting with Specific Answers Without Any Search Results" and where this is going in the future. e.g A snippet from my website answers the query of a user on Google's website, so Google.com publishes the answer on their website, without a license to use this content, with or without a link (i.e. attribution) back to my website. Or voice search as it exists now since in most cases (on Google Home) the user can't click a link to visit the website.
Attribution does nothing to prevent copyright violation, it's to prevent plagiarism and it's also used in creative commons licenses which most website owners would never consider using.
Why is Google bothering with attribution in voice search? One obvious reason is so they don't get blamed if the answer is wrong. But, it also a throwing a bone to webmasters whose content they are using without license. But, attribution does nothing in regards to any violation of copyright.
Fair Use [
copyright.gov ] is the only time when copyright material may be used legally. Fair use is the legal reason why a website like google.com has always been allowed to publish a website's content without license and publish a
small snippet on Google.com.
if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely.
If in the future, a snippet is published on Google.com and no link is included (
the topic of this thread!) it seems to me that fair use stops and copyright violation starts. Because now the use is harming the owner of the content.
Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
Even right now, when Google is publishing infinite Related Questions to the point where a entire web page could theoretically be published they are pushing the boundaries of what is legal and that's why they rollbacked this "experiment", it's heading into an area that they would prefer to avoid as long as possible
And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
