pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Images' new layout - how this impacts photographers and webmasters  (Read 25921 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: February 05, 2013, 12:30 »
0
Is it feasible to form some kind of alliance, in which "dues" are used to make public service announcements educating the public that using images found in the Google searches may be illegal? Maybe we can't stop Google, but we can expose what they're doing for what it is.
There have been a couple of decent blog articles by repentant bloggers coming clean about using Google images and being caught. Warning others to make sure they license images correctly. I think stuff like that really helps.

Perhaps incorporating things like that into a more aggressive educational campaign would gain some traction. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. But, you have to pick up the fork.


« Reply #51 on: February 05, 2013, 12:39 »
-1
The problem is that Google is not hosting the content.  The person hosting the content is probably legally using it.  It would only harm them to attempt to tell Google to block it.  It is the nature of the software itself, not individual stolen images, which is the problem.

So is it feasible to send a request to Google to cease and desist using the software to access our copyrighted images? If so, would it be beneficial to have a standard request letter drawn up by a willing attorney and those who want to use it can each pay the attorney a small fee (to license the letter, I guess).

Please, explain to me, how can Google ...using the software to access our copyrighted images...? They can only link to thumbnails on DT web page, not to source files in computers!
I made small experiment with my "bestseller": googled  electronic-door-lock-dreamstime and find my image on first page as 3-d. "View original image" was linked to DT thumbnail, no problems!  Repeating this in DT search, i find my image on 9-th place, approximately the same results. It look, after some time buyers will search images only on Google and site admins will loss benefits manipulate with search engine!

rubyroo

« Reply #52 on: February 05, 2013, 12:44 »
+4
Here's a thought.  Maybe a stupid thought... but nevertheless...

I suppose the crux of the problem is people are posting images on the Web in dimensions that exceed the licensing agreement.  If they weren't there, Google wouldn't find them.

What if some clever programmer out there developed a program that agencies could use to:

1)  image match all the images they've sold with occurrences on the Web
2)  capture the dimensions of the images
3)  proactively chase offenders and tell them to downsize or be in breach of agreement

Would that work, and is it possible?

If so, surely some clever person could make some money selling such a program to the agencies.

Forgive me if that's a stupid idea.  I'm probably grasping at straws, but like Lisa, I can't take much more of this without throwing in the towel.  If there's even a grain of viability in there somewhere, perhaps someone can put it to good use.

farbled

« Reply #53 on: February 05, 2013, 12:46 »
0
That does nothing since these images are not coming from "my site".

That does nothing for you specifically, however others have noted they sell images on their own sites or have hi-res images on their sites. So it is relevant to them.

« Reply #54 on: February 05, 2013, 13:01 »
0
This story has been submitted to Slashdot, which has a very large readership that is generally quite interested in stories related to changes in the technology world.  However, the story is not yet published; that is up to the votes of Slashdot users.  If you would like to see this story get coverage there, vote it (and any other interesting stories) up higher on this page.

« Reply #55 on: February 05, 2013, 13:08 »
+1
That does nothing since these images are not coming from "my site".

That does nothing for you specifically, however others have noted they sell images on their own sites or have hi-res images on their sites. So it is relevant to them.

If you're selling on your own site, your hi-res images should be in a folder that's invisible to search in the first place. Only thumbs and watermarked preview files should be visible to search engines...

« Reply #56 on: February 05, 2013, 13:11 »
+2
The problem is that Google is not hosting the content.  The person hosting the content is probably legally using it.  It would only harm them to attempt to tell Google to block it.  It is the nature of the software itself, not individual stolen images, which is the problem.

So is it feasible to send a request to Google to cease and desist using the software to access our copyrighted images? If so, would it be beneficial to have a standard request letter drawn up by a willing attorney and those who want to use it can each pay the attorney a small fee (to license the letter, I guess).

Please, explain to me, how can Google ...using the software to access our copyrighted images...? They can only link to thumbnails on DT web page, not to source files in computers!
I made small experiment with my "bestseller": googled  electronic-door-lock-dreamstime and find my image on first page as 3-d. "View original image" was linked to DT thumbnail, no problems!  Repeating this in DT search, i find my image on 9-th place, approximately the same results. It look, after some time buyers will search images only on Google and site admins will loss benefits manipulate with search engine!

You're completely missing the point because you're searching for your own images and - luckily for you - that image isn't being used in a large size by a legitimate buyer whose web site has the image visible to Google's search

Do a google image search for dreamstime - nothing else. Look at the huge sizes of unwatermarked images that are available (a) without visiting the hosting web site, which is loosing visitors and (b) for free download

Be thankful none of those images are yours, but be somewhat empathetic that a lot of other people's best selling images are caught up in this mess.

« Reply #57 on: February 05, 2013, 14:20 »
-2

Please, explain to me, how can Google ...using the software to access our copyrighted images...? They can only link to thumbnails on DT web page, not to source files in computers!
I made small experiment with my "bestseller": googled  electronic-door-lock-dreamstime and find my image on first page as 3-d. "View original image" was linked to DT thumbnail, no problems!  Repeating this in DT search, i find my image on 9-th place, approximately the same results. It look, after some time buyers will search images only on Google and site admins will loss benefits manipulate with search engine!

You're completely missing the point because you're searching for your own images and - luckily for you - that image isn't being used in a large size by a legitimate buyer whose web site has the image visible to Google's search

Do a google image search for dreamstime - nothing else. Look at the huge sizes of unwatermarked images that are available (a) without visiting the hosting web site, which is loosing visitors and (b) for free download

Be thankful none of those images are yours, but be somewhat empathetic that a lot of other people's best selling images are caught up in this mess.

I understand - if somebody was so stupid, bought my image on DT for money, later placed it on his web page in full size, yes, image become accessible for everybody. With mp3 files is the same - one person bought song, hosted on her site and millions can download it for free. But where is fault of Google search? In petition you can read: ...4. It will be difficult for users to find the images they are looking for. ... Petition authors think, it will be more difficult, not more easy to stole our images?!
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 14:38 by Grandpa »

Microbius

« Reply #58 on: February 05, 2013, 14:22 »
0
Just a thought, I wonder if this is something to do with the new pay per view models coming online (the Getty API thing, the way ads on Youtube compensate the copyright holders-- all that stuff)

If people never actually access the page with the ads, but only the search results page (the way Google's image search now encourages) the people who's images are getting used don't get compensated right? They only get paid when their images are viewed on a page also containing Ads.

« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2013, 14:35 »
-2
Just a thought, I wonder if this is something to do with the new pay per view models coming online (the Getty API thing, the way ads on Youtube compensate the copyright holders-- all that stuff)

If people never actually access the page with the ads, but only the search results page (the way Google's image search now encourages) the people who's images are getting used don't get compensated right? They only get paid when their images are viewed on a page also containing Ads.

Seriously, i think, nobody never will get any compensation from Google, may be only from hosting site owner, but it is a long, long way... People, purchased full size image on DT may not resell it, but is it forbidden to give it away for free, without money?

Microbius

« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2013, 14:41 »
0
Maybe I should have said royalties, not compensation as you are confused about my meaning

and yes forbidden to give it away for free.

« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2013, 14:48 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:41 by tickstock »

« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2013, 14:57 »
0
@ Microbius & tickstock -

Thank you both, all is clear! Do not become angry, i am disputing more for fun!

« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2013, 15:18 »
-1
We should take advantage of the new format. If you look closely at shutterstocks images, they have a hidden bottom section containing their URL and the images file number.

Everyone automatically thinks the world is coming to end in the stock business whenever anything changes even slightly.... sheesh. Learn to think in new ways people.

Sure the agency's watermark and URLs are there, but Google is offering larger, unwatermarked images right next to the agency image.

As an example, I searched for a Sean Locke image. I clicked the "More Sizes" link and this is what I got (see link). Which one would a user click on? The larger, unwatermarked free image taken from a blog or the same iStock image that they have to buy? I don't think anyone should embrace this new format.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sean+locke&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3uMQUbeIOMSarAGql4HYBA&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1353&bih=1199#q=sean%20locke&hl=en&sa=X&tbo=d&tbm=isch&tbs=simg%3ACAQSEgnAt61eXeliTyGEAY11oKv3Gg&ei=9OMQUZS8KcOs2QWw7oDQAQ&ved=0CAYQhxw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.aWc&fp=b1bf9ac9bca5da94&biw=1353&bih=1199

This feature has been available for years... nothing new.

« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2013, 15:34 »
0
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.

Just because the older layout might lead to more visits, it doesn't necessarily mean it's quality traffic that will purchase anything. I was discussing some options to spread around shots I have represented at a traditional agency. They let me move forward but gave me the same advice, quantity and quality traffic are totally different things.

There's a reason why I stopped making certain types of blog posts for my website. I get a ton of traffic everyday, even after being inactive for over a year. The QUALITY of my traffic however was all wrong. I want art directors visiting my site and reading my blog... not other photographers who won't hire me.

A simple solution to this "problem" - if you really think it IS a problem: targeted direct marketing... or, like I posted earlier, take advantage of the new layout. People can see a big shot in the search results? Awesome, just add some sales copy to make'em click on threw. Under the old design, this wouldn't be very feasible.

It would awesome if they made a way for us to introduce image map html into the high res previews. We could make specific URL links they can click on to go directly to the point of sales with their image all loaded up ready to be purchased.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 15:38 by cardmaverick »

« Reply #65 on: February 05, 2013, 15:45 »
0
The Yahoo image search with Getty's connect built in produces just horrible results - courtesy, I think, of the Getty CV. I wrote a blog post about it with some image examples.

This is what a search for Maine produced from Yahoo image search (click for full size and see the Google and Bing comparisons in the blog post)


I'm not sure I can untangle the Google/Getty/Yahoo tangle, but I'm very wary - would be delighted to be surprised to find it's a great new revenue source for contributors

« Reply #66 on: February 05, 2013, 15:56 »
0
The Yahoo image search with Getty's connect built in produces just horrible results - courtesy, I think, of the Getty CV. I wrote a blog post about it with some image examples.

This is what a search for Maine produced from Yahoo image search (click for full size and see the Google and Bing comparisons in the blog post)


I'm not sure I can untangle the Google/Getty/Yahoo tangle, but I'm very wary - would be delighted to be surprised to find it's a great new revenue source for contributors


Maine is both a US state and a French area/ former province so looks like the images are all relevant

« Reply #67 on: February 05, 2013, 15:59 »
0
It's not a question of it being wrong, but look at the other search engines to see what they do. Much more helpful and Getty is much less helpful

Instead of having to specify I want Maine in the US, they give me that by default - possibly because I'm coming from a computer in the USA

And it's about making intelligent guesses and putting them in the right order - of course I can narrow things down if I type in many search terms.

« Reply #68 on: February 05, 2013, 16:06 »
+1
I understand - if somebody was so stupid, bought my image on DT for money, later placed it on his web page in full size, yes, image become accessible for everybody. With mp3 files is the same - one person bought song, hosted on her site and millions can download it for free. But where is fault of Google search? In petition you can read: ...4. It will be difficult for users to find the images they are looking for. ... Petition authors think, it will be more difficult, not more easy to stole our images?!

Sorry.  The problem has been explicitly described.  You're just going to have to re-read it until you understand.

lisafx

« Reply #69 on: February 05, 2013, 16:17 »
+2
@ Microbius & tickstock -

Thank you both, all is clear! Do not become angry, i am disputing more for fun!

Oh good.  Glad you are having fun with this. 

« Reply #70 on: February 05, 2013, 16:52 »
0
This story has been submitted to Slashdot, which has a very large readership that is generally quite interested in stories related to changes in the technology world.  However, the story is not yet published; that is up to the votes of Slashdot users.  If you would like to see this story get coverage there, vote it (and any other interesting stories) up higher on this page.


As more stories are added, it's getting harder to find this one.  It's listed for today (Feb 5) at 12:00 CST (that's 9:00 PM GMT - convert as needed to your timezone). 

« Reply #71 on: February 05, 2013, 17:01 »
0
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.

While I agree with you for the most part, the majority of my walk-in traffic and new buyers are from Google. I would suspect most agencies would probably say the same. So, it definitely has the potential to be damaging. Whether it is or not is hard to say right now.

« Reply #72 on: February 05, 2013, 17:05 »
-1
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.

While I agree with you for the most part, the majority of my walk-in traffic and new buyers are from Google. I would suspect most agencies would probably say the same. So, it definitely has the potential to be damaging. Whether it is or not is hard to say right now.

I can understand coming from a google web search... but how many actually come from google image searches?

« Reply #73 on: February 05, 2013, 17:27 »
+2
Here's an interesting thought.... if someone actually intends to license an image, why on earth would they go to google images instead of just going directly to an agency. I think a lot of people here are getting all cheesed off over a non-existent problem.

While I agree with you for the most part, the majority of my walk-in traffic and new buyers are from Google. I would suspect most agencies would probably say the same. So, it definitely has the potential to be damaging. Whether it is or not is hard to say right now.

I can understand coming from a google web search... but how many actually come from google image searches?

I have several websites that are not photography related.  Even so, a fair number of my visitors find some of the sites through Google images.  I would expect that websites specifically for images would get even more of their traffic from image searches.  It would make sense that some buyers would use the Google image search as a way of searching multiple agencies at the same time.  In my opinion, Google actually has a much better search algorithm than some of the microstock sites and provides much more relevant results.

« Reply #74 on: February 05, 2013, 17:29 »
+1
I can understand coming from a google web search... but how many actually come from google image searches?


The better Google image search gets - the more appealing it is to use - the more that will be the entrance point for legitimate licensers IMO.

Look at the experimental image search SS did recently - it's beautiful to look at and looks a lot like a color coordinated version of Google Image search. I'd much rather use something like that than most of the existing agency searches (if the matches to keywords would work, which it doesn't much with SS's color search.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
5848 Views
Last post March 21, 2007, 15:55
by a.k.a.-tom
21 Replies
7027 Views
Last post March 12, 2012, 22:55
by RacePhoto
64 Replies
18028 Views
Last post September 03, 2013, 13:37
by cascoly
16 Replies
3150 Views
Last post June 11, 2020, 03:54
by Pauws99
1 Replies
2141 Views
Last post July 01, 2020, 06:08
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle