MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Images' new layout - how this impacts photographers and webmasters  (Read 25860 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 16:58 »
+1
I haven't read the blog and I don't intend to, but assuming he's talking about how google is not protecting contributors works, I find it funny, coming from the agency who partners with Pinterest.  >:(

« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 17:00 »
+5
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:30 by tickstock »

tab62

« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 17:02 »
+2
"When Dreamstime is leading the fight for contributors we have a big problem."

Sort of like going to war with someone that forgot to bring the bullets...

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 19:00 »
+11
When Dreamstime is leading the fight for contributors we have a big problem.


Sorry, I disagree.  I understand the cynicism here, and I share it generally.  But I am not about to complain when one of the agencies actually steps up and takes a stand against the free download of our work.  I am very pleased that Dreamstime has done so and hope other agencies will follow suit. 

Here's the link from the blog post on where to comment on google's new design.  So far it looks like only a couple of us have commented amid all the "thanks for making it so easy google" posts. 

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ro/2013/01/faster-image-search.html

Thanks for posting this Luis.

PS - anyone else around her starting to feel a bit like Don Quixote? 

« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 20:44 »
+9
Even if Dreamstime isn't perfect, having someone go to bat with Google on contributors' behalf is a good thing, IMO. We aren't exactly spoiled for choice in terms of agencies rushing to our aid, and I think that old expression about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good times to mind.

Of the three agencies I contacted about this, Dreamstime was the only one to even respond to my support ticket so far (although they said they weren't sure what could be done). I don't expect anything from iStock because they're trying to get in bed with Google and won't likely want to upset that apple cart.

I did make a post on that blog this afternoon:

"I love how your new image search looks, but you're not respecting the sources of copyrighted content - images and the pages that host them - in effectively encouraging users to bypass the web site and ignore the copyright. Stay with Google and download what you need - but what about the owners of that content?

If you don't consider the rights of the copyright holders, in time there won't be content for you to index and provide search results to - photographers and web site developers need to be compensated for their work, not just have it hijacked by a spiffy new search tool"


« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 21:26 »
+1
All dreamstime had to do was provide an opt out from pinterest, but he refused. And now he's expecting google to step up? This is all about contributors having the right to say where and when they want their material to appear. Dreamstime isnt willing to give that courtesy to contributors. Sorry, but i dont trust them to represent my interests any more than i do istockgetty.

« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 21:59 »
+1
Heres what i wrote on the google blog:


Quote
The search is great, but as a content owner, i object to you allowing multiple redistributions of my high resolution images. This is known as copyright infringement and you are stealing my source of income away from me and other image providers who make their living at this.

« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 23:02 »
+16
Google Images is hurting all stock agencies!

As Dreamstime stated today, the new Google Images format is not only infringing on copyright but is also blocking potential buyers from reaching stock agency sites. We are all experiencing HUGE drops in traffic since the launch of the new format.

Quote from Dreamstime:
This new search result layout not only affects photographers and agencies (licensors), but also websites and webmasters (licensees and/or SEO). This new search result layout has and will continue to drastically diminish traffic to the website who published the image.

Since buyers can now download/copy the image (watermarked or not) right from Google, there is no reason for the buyer to click the Visit Page link which would take them to the image purchase page. This block is preventing proper image licensing and possible new customer conversion. The math is pretty easy: lower traffic = lower sales.

Google has taken the Pinterest model to a whole new level. These images are not theirs to solicit whether it be on a stock site or a personal blog. Contributors rely on agencies to represent their images and generate sales. How are we to do that when the worlds largest search engine bully is preventing us from doing our job for you?

Google has entered into the stock image industry as an unwanted middleman and needs to be stopped. Please help spread the word in the contributor community. Commenting on the webmaster article is a start and may help reverse/rectify the situation. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ro/2013/01/faster-image-search.html

« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 05:28 by [email protected] »

« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2013, 00:10 »
0
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

« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2013, 00:11 »
0
Its bad indeed, but what can we do, seems like not matter how much awareness we create about the problems, we never really reach a point that matters. This is truly depressing times to be a microstocker  :'(

« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2013, 00:38 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 22:30 by tickstock »

« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2013, 00:46 »
0
Its bad indeed, but what can we do, seems like not matter how much awareness we create about the problems, we never really reach a point that matters. This is truly depressing times to be a microstocker  :'(
I went through my top 100 best selling images and reported any being hosted at too large a size.  At least there won't be any full size images of mine out there for free.

Are you going to repeat the process to see how many you will find after x amount of time, it just seems like a story with no end to me. But you are right it seems to be the only thing we can do.

« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2013, 01:30 »
+4
I commented on the google blog post. I'm thinking I should send a takedown notice but without my images being searchable on google, I'll never make sales from my website. This sucks. A world-wide monopoly - what a nightmare. The publishing industry fought them for years and ended up with very few concessions.

I'll be interested to see how this is handled. Glad Serban is speaking out.

And dreamstime is the only agency that has sent out a takedown notice on my behalf in the past when I found one of my images being used with their logo on it. Another microstock agency which had some of my images exclusively ignored it when I sent them info - so I say kudos to Serban for taking a stand.

« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2013, 01:35 »
+2
Blog on the subject of Google's inconsistencies in having/apply a policy on linking to copyrighted content:

http://www.onthewingphotography.com/wings/2013/02/04/is-googles-new-image-search-violating-their-own-policies-the-law/

« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2013, 03:39 »
-5
Google Images is hurting all stock agencies!
If you found your images on a site that you did not contribute to, you would legally react in some manner to have them removed. How is Google any different? Do you have a contributor agreement with them? They are acting as an agency except they have no regard for your images ownership or copyright. Google wants everything to be FREE for their users just like the images in Google Drive!

Just block google from crawling your website if you don't like it.

« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2013, 03:45 »
-5
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.

We should make this stuff much larger than it was before, really big in fact, so as to show up in high res searches - but go further than a URL and file number. We should include prices and bit of marketing text to provoke people to click threw to the site.

123RF sorta does this...  they have super sized their thumbs (look like garbage full res) but seem to downsize them on their site to make them look better than they are.

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.

« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2013, 06:00 »
+2
I wonder if RM is going to make a comeback?  The problem with microstock RF is that the sites don't police their buyers.  They've let them break their rules by posting full size images on their websites and blogs.  Google shouldn't include these in their image search but I'd rather the sites stopped buyers doing this in the first place.

I've thought for a long time that the sites need to work together to fight against copyright abuse and buyers that don't purchase an EL when its required or break rules about image use.

Would people be allowed to upload all their MP3 music files on to their websites and for Google to index them?  Perhaps some do but the music industry seems to police it and do something about it.

« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2013, 06:05 »
+3
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



fujiko

« Reply #19 on: February 05, 2013, 07:13 »
+3
Google should pay for showing images just like it pays in France for showing news.

rubyroo

« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2013, 08:05 »
+2

« Reply #21 on: February 05, 2013, 08:14 »
+2
IMO, due to dropping traffic*, it is a prudent business move for microstock distributors/agencies to unite and take an aggressive stand against this.

That being said, I do wonder if Getty was duped into silence about this new Image Search functionality when it made its own "deal with the devil" just prior to the announcement. Coincidence or strategic manipulation by Google?

*eta

« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2013, 08:24 »
+1

« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 08:24 »
+6
I'm fairly certain that Google would never consider implementing the same kind of search functionality with music and video, stripping the artist information and the record label or studio information, and protecting themselves with "Music or video may be protected by copyright". Why is this? Because the labels and studios would fight back viciously.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 08:25 »
+1


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
5838 Views
Last post March 21, 2007, 15:55
by a.k.a.-tom
21 Replies
7016 Views
Last post March 12, 2012, 22:55
by RacePhoto
64 Replies
18002 Views
Last post September 03, 2013, 13:37
by cascoly
16 Replies
3133 Views
Last post June 11, 2020, 03:54
by Pauws99
1 Replies
2121 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