Author Topic: Google Images' new layout - how this impacts photographers and webmasters (Read 34436 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #75 on:** February 05, 2013, 17:34 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on February 05, 2013, 17:05

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

The majority are logged Google (some are Google Images), but I'm skeptical of how they report them. It seems to have changed a lot over the last several years from looking at my blog stats. I guess that is speculation though.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #76 on:** February 05, 2013, 19:17 »

I just did a search for one of my bestsellers - it's mind-boggling how many unlicensed uses already.... It's being offered as "free wallpaper" on many sites (with no copyright or contact info of course). Ability to easily find those is not necessarily a bad thing - I could hire a "copyright troll" company and make sure all these are taken down or the right license purchased. Copyright trolls usually work for percentage of the gain, I don't think you have to pay them upfront. Maybe this is where all the latest developments are heading, with Getty and Google and such. They'll make the content easily obtainable and then they'd go after the infringements since it's also very easy to do. Smells a bit like entrapment but not really illegal. Adding transparency to the internet is not a bad thing but one needs to adapt to changing rules.
About "less traffic - less sales" - sure there will be less traffic from people looking for freebies, but that will affect *all* stock sites, so really the overall positioning shouldn't change. Search results for someone looking for a "stock photo" will be the same.

cthoman · « **Reply #77 on:** February 05, 2013, 19:46 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on February 05, 2013, 19:17

I just did a search for one of my bestsellers - it's mind-boggling how many unlicensed uses already.... It's being offered as "free wallpaper" on many sites (with no copyright or contact info of course). Ability to easily find those is not necessarily a bad thing - I could hire a "copyright troll" company and make sure all these are taken down or the right license purchased. Copyright trolls usually work for percentage of the gain, I don't think you have to pay them upfront. Maybe this is where all the latest developments are heading, with Getty and Google and such. They'll make the content easily obtainable and then they'd go after the infringements since it's also very easy to do. Smells a bit like entrapment but not really illegal. Adding transparency to the internet is not a bad thing but one needs to adapt to changing rules.
About "less traffic - less sales" - sure there will be less traffic from people looking for freebies, but that will affect *all* stock sites, so really the overall positioning shouldn't change. Search results for someone looking for a "stock photo" will be the same.

LOL. I've often wondered if there was more money in lawsuits than making the artwork and selling it. I guess I could always switch my focus.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #78 on:** February 05, 2013, 19:54 »

Quote from: cthoman on February 05, 2013, 19:46

Quote from: Elenathewise on February 05, 2013, 19:17
I just did a search for one of my bestsellers - it's mind-boggling how many unlicensed uses already.... It's being offered as "free wallpaper" on many sites (with no copyright or contact info of course). Ability to easily find those is not necessarily a bad thing - I could hire a "copyright troll" company and make sure all these are taken down or the right license purchased. Copyright trolls usually work for percentage of the gain, I don't think you have to pay them upfront. Maybe this is where all the latest developments are heading, with Getty and Google and such. They'll make the content easily obtainable and then they'd go after the infringements since it's also very easy to do. Smells a bit like entrapment but not really illegal. Adding transparency to the internet is not a bad thing but one needs to adapt to changing rules.
About "less traffic - less sales" - sure there will be less traffic from people looking for freebies, but that will affect *all* stock sites, so really the overall positioning shouldn't change. Search results for someone looking for a "stock photo" will be the same.

LOL. I've often wondered if there was more money in lawsuits than making the artwork and selling it. I guess I could always switch my focus.

I suspect there is more money in lawsuits... <mock shock

> Now imagine how Getty can increase their revenue if they go that way.. which they're already doing, Google "deal" and the new image search just makes things way easier.

elvinstar · « **Reply #79 on:** February 05, 2013, 23:08 »

I just realized that Wordpress is probably one of the worst offenders. I can't count the number of times that I'm looking at website built on Wordpress and saw an image loading really slowly so I open it in a new tab to see the pixel dimensions. One that I looked at yesterday was 12MP!!

When your average blogger or small business owner uploads an image to their Wordpress site, they don't resize it first and Wordpress doesn't resize it for them. Bingo! Giant, unwatermarked, (hopefully!) paid images available in a Google Image search.

We need to educate the whole world!

jbryson · « **Reply #80 on:** February 05, 2013, 23:30 »

Quote from: elvinstar on February 05, 2013, 23:08

I just realized that Wordpress is probably one of the worst offenders. I can't count the number of times that I'm looking at website built on Wordpress and saw an image loading really slowly so I open it in a new tab to see the pixel dimensions. One that I looked at yesterday was 12MP!!

When your average blogger or small business owner uploads an image to their Wordpress site, they don't resize it first and Wordpress doesn't resize it for them. Bingo! Giant, unwatermarked, (hopefully!) paid images available in a Google Image search.

We need to educate the whole world!

I can't help but wonder why a Wordpress blogger would license a 12MP image.....very suspicious as I would imagine not many bloggers go the subscription route.

elvinstar · « **Reply #81 on:** February 06, 2013, 00:26 »

Quote from: jbryson on February 05, 2013, 23:30

I can't help but wonder why a Wordpress blogger would license a 12MP image.....very suspicious as I would imagine not many bloggers go the subscription route.

I would think that perhaps it's more small business owners who have had someone create the site for them.

cypher · « **Reply #82 on:** February 06, 2013, 00:54 »

The story made it to Slashdot. Here's the direct link:

http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/02/05/2254256/google-redesigns-image-search-raises-copyright-and-hosting-concerns

There are some interesting comments being made from lots of different viewpoints.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #83 on:** February 06, 2013, 01:39 »

Quote from: cypher on February 06, 2013, 00:54

The story made it to Slashdot. Here's the direct link:

http://search.slashdot.org/story/13/02/05/2254256/google-redesigns-image-search-raises-copyright-and-hosting-concerns

There are some interesting comments being made from lots of different viewpoints.

Wow! That is one ugly slug-fest in the comments! Doesn't seem like there's much discussion of the big issues, just a bunch of dismissive rants by people who don't appear to have looked at the issue in detail.

brmonico · « **Reply #84 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:37 »

Quote from: MicrostockExp on February 05, 2013, 00:10

Try to do a google image search by typing Shutterstock you will find lot of high res pictures for free when you click original image!
I hope stock agencies will fight this battle for us as clearly they will loose money with this new google image feature

Yes , but you will find that all images are not placed in SS site. Probably are images that was leagaly bought from SS , have SS mark in IPTC and appear in search. The problem of free high resolution images is that many , many, many people buy images every day to use in their blogs but they not protect their images nd the images are indexed without watermark. What we need is something educational program to teach people how to use images on web.

Is also a big problem because people buy images to use without watermark..... They can do their own watermark but is a big problem. If the millions of images sold last year starting to appear in blogs using resolution superior that 800px stock is finish.

People don´t read he licenses agreements , only click in accept! Is not allow the web use with resolutions superior to 800px but images appear in 2000px, etc.....

So in my point of view the solution is all blog providers must be forced to protect their servers and must work with flash galleries or provide watermark skills .... something like that....to avoid copyright content to be share and indexed for free.

thesentinel · « **Reply #85 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:46 »

Quote from: elvinstar on February 05, 2013, 23:08

I just realized that Wordpress is probably one of the worst offenders. I can't count the number of times that I'm looking at website built on Wordpress and saw an image loading really slowly so I open it in a new tab to see the pixel dimensions. One that I looked at yesterday was 12MP!!

When your average blogger or small business owner uploads an image to their Wordpress site, they don't resize it first and Wordpress doesn't resize it for them. Bingo! Giant, unwatermarked, (hopefully!) paid images available in a Google Image search.

We need to educate the whole world!

In Joomla content managed sites the automatically generated robots.txt file that is created on installation includes a disallow rule for the images directory, instructing the search engines not to search or index your images folder. Wordpress could also do this but don't. They don't because many "web-masters" don't want it as the default so their images CAN be searched for. ...... for whatever reason, good or bad.

In general it is lazyness and ignorance that lets designers and self taught users upload full size images to be resized on the fly, however with increasing screen resolutions - as far down the device chain to tablets - the existing licence rules for a max of 800px wide for example are being superseded by technological requirements. The shear volume of disregard of this requirement surely make it impossible to police.

sharpshot · « **Reply #86 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:49 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on February 05, 2013, 19:54

Quote from: cthoman on February 05, 2013, 19:46
Quote from: Elenathewise on February 05, 2013, 19:17
I just did a search for one of my bestsellers - it's mind-boggling how many unlicensed uses already.... It's being offered as "free wallpaper" on many sites (with no copyright or contact info of course). Ability to easily find those is not necessarily a bad thing - I could hire a "copyright troll" company and make sure all these are taken down or the right license purchased. Copyright trolls usually work for percentage of the gain, I don't think you have to pay them upfront. Maybe this is where all the latest developments are heading, with Getty and Google and such. They'll make the content easily obtainable and then they'd go after the infringements since it's also very easy to do. Smells a bit like entrapment but not really illegal. Adding transparency to the internet is not a bad thing but one needs to adapt to changing rules.
About "less traffic - less sales" - sure there will be less traffic from people looking for freebies, but that will affect *all* stock sites, so really the overall positioning shouldn't change. Search results for someone looking for a "stock photo" will be the same.

LOL. I've often wondered if there was more money in lawsuits than making the artwork and selling it. I guess I could always switch my focus.

I suspect there is more money in lawsuits... <mock shock > Now imagine how Getty can increase their revenue if they go that way.. which they're already doing, Google "deal" and the new image search just makes things way easier.

If there was money to be made, wouldn't we have lots of copyright lawyers here offering their services to us? I can't think why the sites wouldn't go after people that have used their watermarked images if it paid well.

brmonico · « **Reply #87 on:** February 06, 2013, 05:26 »

Yes , but is 98% impossible to prove that an image s stollen. Unless exclusive content

aspp · « **Reply #88 on:** February 06, 2013, 07:14 »

Quote from: thesentinel on February 06, 2013, 04:46

In general it is lazyness and ignorance that lets designers and self taught users upload full size images to be resized on the fly

There would be fewer full sized images to find on Google if photographers were to limit the size of pictures which they allow to be sold on subscription sites.

Or the subscription sites could take a lead by introducing less expensive plans specifically aimed at bloggers and limited to typical web sizes.

cathyslife · « **Reply #89 on:** February 06, 2013, 07:38 »

Quote from: aspp on February 06, 2013, 07:14

Quote from: thesentinel on February 06, 2013, 04:46
In general it is lazyness and ignorance that lets designers and self taught users upload full size images to be resized on the fly

There would be fewer full sized images to find on Google if photographers were to limit the size of pictures which they allow to be sold on subscription sites.

Or the subscription sites could take a lead by introducing less expensive plans specifically aimed at bloggers and limited to typical web sizes.

SS is a subscription site and yet I sell a good amount of pay as you go and ELs. I wouldn't want to jeopardize those sales by only uploading small-sized images. But I do agree that more could be done to educate and push blogger plans. That would certainly help.

aspp · « **Reply #90 on:** February 06, 2013, 07:57 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 06, 2013, 07:38

more could be done to educate and push blogger plans. That would certainly help.

I do not believe that educating people will make any difference. Most will not be interested. From the blogger perspective everything is fine. Why confuse them ?

The way to get them to change would be to make it less expensive for them to download web sized content. Less expensive subscription plans specifically aimed at web users would make a difference IMO. Also - it makes sense. Why wouldn't people pay less for subscriptions offering only smaller versions?

As the leading subscription site, Shutterstock is in a great position to take an industry lead. PAYG downloads already to some extent discourage customers from paying for larger sizes than they need. Though the medium sized versions are still bigger than most blogger needs.

brmonico · « **Reply #91 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:23 »

Quote from: aspp on February 06, 2013, 07:14

Quote from: thesentinel on February 06, 2013, 04:46
In general it is lazyness and ignorance that lets designers and self taught users upload full size images to be resized on the fly

There would be fewer full sized images to find on Google if photographers were to limit the size of pictures which they allow to be sold on subscription sites.

Or the subscription sites could take a lead by introducing less expensive plans specifically aimed at bloggers and limited to typical web sizes.

You can´t upload less than 4mp to SS..........all starts here! 4mp in web is a huge size. Using programs to upgrade files size any print made in a plotter like a "Rolland" extend this to 1 meter or more with full quality.

Problems with copyright always have one way to start . If the problem is not in sellers is in buyers.

Buyer spend money , upload a big file (without resize) and without watermark . Loose the file on web. Will think twice next time. Buy again or copy one? Off course this is valid only for personal blogs.

- No one likes to spend money unnecessary . I believe stock agencies can do a program or offer free downloads of generic watermarks to their clients.

- law most enforce web providers like Facebook, HI5, windows live, wordpress, Blogger and others to legally protect all files with possible copyright value. Facebook already do this with videos. They don´t allow videos with copyright music. Is so difficult turn this to images?

Google and others only grab the the fruit...free fruit ! If the fruit is a 100k file or 10mb file , with or without mark, is not their problem.

I will do this in my little site. I will provide free download of watermarks and a free tuturial teaching how to use them. This little step can be very important if all of us in our sites and agencies too do the same. A Web Image Educational Program (WIEP)

. Is not good to buyers see their files stollen to...many of them probably don´t know how to protect them .

jbryson · « **Reply #92 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:55 »

Quote from: elvinstar on February 06, 2013, 00:26

Quote from: jbryson on February 05, 2013, 23:30
I can't help but wonder why a Wordpress blogger would license a 12MP image.....very suspicious as I would imagine not many bloggers go the subscription route.

I would think that perhaps it's more small business owners who have had someone create the site for them.

You can usually tell that from the content. If the content is regular blogging, then likely not. And, if that is the case, I would make the assumption that the large size image was not properly licensed. A blogger is simply not going to pay for a full sized image when it's not needed. I think looking at the clues in each instance will help you deduce how the image was obtained.

elvinstar · « **Reply #93 on:** February 06, 2013, 10:00 »

I wasn't specifically looking for large images. I just happened to run across some and it made me think of this thread.

tickstock · « **Reply #94 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:51 »

cathyslife · « **Reply #95 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:11 »

Quote from: aspp on February 06, 2013, 07:57

Quote from: cclapper on February 06, 2013, 07:38
more could be done to educate and push blogger plans. That would certainly help.

I do not believe that educating people will make any difference. Most will not be interested. From the blogger perspective everything is fine. Why confuse them ?

The way to get them to change would be to make it less expensive for them to download web sized content. Less expensive subscription plans specifically aimed at web users would make a difference IMO. Also - it makes sense. Why wouldn't people pay less for subscriptions offering only smaller versions?

As the leading subscription site, Shutterstock is in a great position to take an industry lead. PAYG downloads already to some extent discourage customers from paying for larger sizes than they need. Though the medium sized versions are still bigger than most blogger needs.

I guess you missed the part where I said more blogger plans.

And right now, small sizes ARE less money than large sizes, and yet they are still buying large sizes. That's where the education comes in...tell them they can save money and I'm pretty sure education will make a difference. The average blogger likely doesn't know that they only NEED small sizes for the web...they know nothing about resolution, nor care, as you say. Talk money and maybe it would make a difference. Then again, some people really don't care about that, because maybe the cost isn't coming out of their pocket, but their client's. Also, if the blog is part of an overall marketing plan, they may buy the large size for other print applications and just use one size for all. I think it was mentioned earlier...laziness. Too lazy to downsize correctly for the blog. That's what happened when Bill Gates put a computer on every desktop. Everybody is a graphic and web designer.

aspp · « **Reply #96 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:14 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 06, 2013, 11:51

Quote from: aspp on February 06, 2013, 07:14
Quote from: thesentinel on February 06, 2013, 04:46
In general it is lazyness and ignorance that lets designers and self taught users upload full size images to be resized on the fly

There would be fewer full sized images to find on Google if photographers were to limit the size of pictures which they allow to be sold on subscription sites.

Or the subscription sites could take a lead by introducing less expensive plans specifically aimed at bloggers and limited to typical web sizes.
Shutterstock TOS

"a) On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;"

And ... ?

The thing is that blogging platforms and other web publishing services do often constrain images such that they appear (ie are displayed) at sizes which are within the TOS. The problem is that the images are not actually resized.

For example - even in old fashioned html the img tag has attributes which determine what size an image is displayed. eg <img src="image.jpg" width="300" height="200">. The image is not actually resized. Current content management sites have better ways of doing this - but from the user perspective it is the same. As long as the image appears on their page at the right size they are probably satisfied that they are within the TOS. If they even care. And it would be complicated and rather pointless to argue with them.

This is why I am suggesting that subscription sites like Shutterstock have the opportunity to take a lead in this by offering less pricey subscriptions for web sized content only aimed specifically at bloggers and other web users. This is not nearly such a big issue with PAYG and other non subscription sales since these buyers are discouraged by pricing from using larger versions than they need.

aspp · « **Reply #97 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:21 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 06, 2013, 12:11

small sizes ARE less money than large sizes, and yet they are still buying large sizes

Not on subscription which is how regular pro and semi pro bloggers are most likely buying. On subscription you do not get more if you go smaller. So the incentive points people towards using the largest. Only on PAYG are smaller sizes less expensive. And no bonus for only downloading the smallest sizes. You get just as many whether you choose small or medium.

tickstock · « **Reply #98 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:24 »

Elenathewise · « **Reply #99 on:** February 06, 2013, 12:33 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 06, 2013, 04:49

If there was money to be made, wouldn't we have lots of copyright lawyers here offering their services to us? I can't think why the sites wouldn't go after people that have used their watermarked images if it paid well.

Most photographers here don't have big enough portfolios. Copyright "trolling" for lack of better word works with large numbers - they usually intimidate people to pay up and very rarely go to court. For enough people that would get intimidated and pay you have to have quite large number of people to go after. Apart from Getty which already is involved in this I know a number of other smaller agencies that also work with "copyright protection" companies. It doesn't matter if the image is exclusive or not - if the person actually purchased the image, they can provide a proof of purchase and that's would be the end of it. If the image is stolen, then the unpaid royalties are up for taking by whatever agency (or their copyright lawyers) found the infringement. There is an opinion right now that you can brush off "copyright trolls" since they won't take you to court - it's too expensive - but this is changing, small copyright claims will become cheaper and easier, at least in US: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/2013/01/copyright_and_113th_congress#.UQjd9R2E2nO

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google Images' new layout - how this impacts photographers and webmasters (Read 34436 times)

cthoman

Elenathewise

cthoman

Elenathewise

elvinstar

jbryson

elvinstar

cypher

Jo Ann Snover

brmonico

thesentinel

sharpshot

brmonico

aspp

cathyslife

aspp

brmonico

jbryson

elvinstar

tickstock

cathyslife

aspp

aspp

tickstock

Elenathewise

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors