I'm not sure about that. A low-res photo to illustrate a dead person seems like a good example of fair use: displaying a thumbnail in a search engine has already been ruled transformative by US courts; a low-res image does not significantly affect the original's market value; and since the person is dead (in Google's opinion), obtaining a photo under other licensing terms may well be impossible. So Google could decide to challenge the DMCA takedown.
"A search for “Rachel Abrams” revealed that Google had mashed my picture from The New York Times’s website with the Wikipedia entry for a better-known writer with the same name, who died in 2013."
I don't know what Google thinks of you, but I think less of you because of your click-bait. You lie purposefully on your headline, and admit it in the first paragraph, to get more attention.
I once wanted to correct a simple error in Google Maps (a library in my city was mixed up with a stadium, they were on the wrong sides of a road, facing each other).
I sent via Google Maps a correction which was rejected "after review". WTF, I told myself and fought back. They said then that it was "personnaly reviewed by someone", to what I replied that I "personally bike there everyday". I then sent a screenshot of their own Streetview and selfies of mine.
After a few months they magically approved the change.
It is sad to see such reactions when they (also) rely on user-provided information.
OpenStreetMap took me a few moments to update (and actually put these entities there, the canvas was already available)
7 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 31.1 ms ] thread(Biases: I work at Google, I've done the same to suggest better photos)
"A search for “Rachel Abrams” revealed that Google had mashed my picture from The New York Times’s website with the Wikipedia entry for a better-known writer with the same name, who died in 2013."
I don't know what Google thinks of you, but I think less of you because of your click-bait. You lie purposefully on your headline, and admit it in the first paragraph, to get more attention.
I sent via Google Maps a correction which was rejected "after review". WTF, I told myself and fought back. They said then that it was "personnaly reviewed by someone", to what I replied that I "personally bike there everyday". I then sent a screenshot of their own Streetview and selfies of mine.
After a few months they magically approved the change.
It is sad to see such reactions when they (also) rely on user-provided information.
OpenStreetMap took me a few moments to update (and actually put these entities there, the canvas was already available)