Press publishers may be responsible for confusing small texts in search engines such as Google, even if the entire article is correct. The Cologne Regional Court decided this with the 22 January verdict, which is now known (AZ: 28 o 252/24). The judges argued that such a small summary of messages such as headlines should be treated on the front page of a newspaper. When it comes to displaying in a kiosk, it should also be easy to understand and correct them, as many readers only experience the title and did not go deep: “Many users of the Internet search engine will not all signal and not note them.”
Advertisement
In this case that Cologne Media Chancellori Brost Clost from Lawyer Zourn Clran InformedIt was about a snipet for an article on bild.de. In this, the “picture” related to the axle springer refers to the results of regular control of food monitoring in two franchise branches of a snack chain. So the operators faced allegations such as dirt, fake meat and hygiene deficiencies. According to the court, the snippet for advertising in the list of results of search engines was deliberately incomplete in the perspective of a press -lava, writing a clin. The readers were not informed that it was a franchise system and the allegations were against only two franchises.
Google has not changed the snipet
In view of the lack of information, the notion may arise in the recipients that complaints are applied to all branches, it is said. The fact that the “regional” article “was published in the” regional “section, it has also changed. With the expected misunderstanding, the snipet violates corporate rectangular rights of a franchise who complains, resulting in prohibitory relief relief. The court responsible to the publisher to the fact that Google literally captured the Meta Day of the article he created. The controversial text is directly responsible for the publisher, causing direct responsibility. According to the Clan, it would have been different if Google had independently changed the permissible meta details from the content providers and a violation snipyt was only born. Then the search engine operator will be directly responsible or responsible as the interferur.
The design of the article summary by auxiliary copyright is challenging. In EU Urleber Law Directive, it is regulated that only “personal term or a lesson contributor” can be displayed as a snipet of the search engine without license and payment. In this country, the mention of the “smallest text fraction” should usually be only eight words after the border. In the legislative process, Google wasted in the legislative process that titles and snippets should be excluded from the length of 200 characters from the conservation area. The publishers wanted the associations to “don’t wanted more than three words”, free from license. The court also found that the delay of about three weeks could not be considered unfair between the publisher’s response and submission of applications for prohibition. The decision is not yet final and will also appoint a high regional court.
(Nen)
