Google’s Danny Sullivan Responds To Claims That Rich Results Steal Content

A lead Google spokesperson gave a surprising response to claims that the search engine stole content from a publisher without providing any benefit to the publisher’s website. 

Google’s rich search results have been controversial since their launch, as some feel that these results simply copy information from other websites instead of sending users to that content where it was originally posted. 

The search engine has largely ignored these criticisms by saying that rich results improve the search experience and include links to the original content. 

That’s what makes it so surprising that Google Search Liaison Danny Sullivan recently publicly responded to one publisher’s complaints directly.

The Original Complaint

In several recent tweets, a representative for travel brand Travel Lemming posted:

“Google is now stealing Travel Lemming’s own brand searches (even via site search).

They take our list — INCLUDING MY ORIGINAL PHOTOS 📸 — and present it in a rich result so people don’t click through.

I am literally IN that Red Rocks photo!…”

They are doing this across all travel searches – unbranded and branded alike.

Example: “Mexico Travel Tips” – they have an AI answer & also a rich result that basically just re-creates an entire blog post, including our stolen photos.

Again, I am IN that Mexico packing photo!

Like how is it legal for Google to just essentially create entire blog posts from creators’ content and images?

I literally have a law degree from the top law school in the world, and even I can’t figure it out!

Fair use does NOT apply if you’re using the content to compete directly against the creator, which they clearly are.

I can’t sit outside a movie theatre, project the movie on a wall, earn money from it, and claim fair use.

I spent SO much time taking those photos in Denver.

It was 10+ full days worth of work for me and partner Clara, going around the city to photograph everything. $100s of money spent in attraction admission fees, gas, parking.

Now Google just gets to extract all that value?

How much does Google get to take before creators say “enough is enough”?

How hard does the water have to boil before the frog jumps?

The comments show it is a prisoner’s dilemma as long as Google has a monopoly on search …”

Google’s Response

Danny Sullivan, Google’s Search Liaison, provided a lengthy response that delves specifically into what is happening, why, and ways they are hoping to improve the situation. 

Not only does Sullivan give insight into the company’s perspective, but also their own opinions about the function. Importantly, Sullivan doesn’t disregard Travel Lemming’s complaints and is sympathetic to how rich search results impact publishers:

“Hey Nate, this got flagged to my attention. I’ll pass along the feedback to the team. Pretty sure this isn’t a new feature. Elsewhere in the thread, you talk about it being an AI answer, and I’m pretty sure that’s not the case, either. It’s a way to refine an initial query and browse into more results.

With the example you point out, when you expand the listing, your image is there with a credit. If you click, a preview with a larger view comes up, and that lets people visit the site. Personally, I’m not a fan of the preview-to-click.

I think it should click directly to the site (feedback I’ve shared internally before, and I’ll do this again). But it’s making use of how Google Images operates, where there’s a larger preview that helps people decide if an image is relevant to their search query. Your site is also listed there, too. Click on that, people get to your site.”

If you don’t want your images to appear in Google Search, this explains how to block them:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/crawling-indexing/prevent-images-on-your-page

I suspect you’d prefer an option to not have them appear as thumbnails in particular features. We don’t have that type of granular control, but I’ll also pass the feedback on. 

I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. I do. The intention overall is to make search better, which includes ensuring people do indeed continue to the open web — because we know for us to thrive, the open web needs to thrive.

But I can also appreciate that this might not seem obvious from how some of the features display.

I’m going to be sharing these concerns with the search team, because they’re important.

You and other creators that are producing good content (and when you’re ranking in the top results, that’s us saying it’s good content) should feel we are supporting you.

We need to look at how what we say and how our features operate ensure you feel that way.

I’ll be including your response as part of this.”

I doubt Sullivan is going to change many minds about Google’s rich search results, but this rare interaction is revealing to how Google sees the situation and is trying to walk a tightrope between providing a seamless search experience while sustaining the sites it relies on.