Why isn't MSG lighting up about this?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-04/getty-images-sues-to-block-microsoft-s-bing-image-widget.html

I�ll consider the irony in that as part of my missing payment for the 1.3 million downloads getty gave away for free via the Microsoft deal.

Better than if they would not do anything about it.

Wonder why they don't sue google, who presents said images to the world on a silver platter, too.

If Getty's suit against Microsoft is successful, it will become a precedent. Other companies, including Google, will have to review their practice.

I'm an almost no one I guess. Home page on both browsers and I collect points. Enough for some Amazon $5 gift cards, $40 worth so far, just doing searches. (which I used to buy books, you know those old fashioned paper things that you hold in your hands and read?) 

Referral Link Follows: https://www.bing.com/explore/rewards?PUBL=REFERAFRIEND&CREA=RAW&rrid=_65a187a1-9487-8aa9-e2c1-aaf68ce52cda If someone signs up and reaches Silver status I get some points. Which is how I got started when a friend said, he got free stuff, just for setting Bing as the search...

Let me say, I reached Silver in about three days, as it just takes joining and answering account information and doing a few tasks. I expect that some people who will work for quarters, might be interested in Free Money for using a search? Maybe not?

Funny thing, I never noticed any photo widget announcement? Maybe I'm blind because of enough photos and links from all kinds of other places? And if I had noticed it, I wouldn't have used it. Well maybe for my own images?

Ah now I see it, I did a search:

Bing Image Widget enhances your web site with the power of Bing Image Search and provides your users with beautiful, configurable image galleries and slideshows.

Finds Shutterstock thumbs, but not very accurate. When I typed in my SS name and Indycar I got postage stamps and a broken foot x-ray. But I also found one of my licensed images in use on a website, (no watermark made me look) which was interesting. Might be of interest to run a test widget, and see if you spot your images in use?

Here's what a click through from the Bing widget, will get to on SS. I found nothing from IS displayed.



And interesting, here's the data that SS had tagged on the image - http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/111418/111418,1326077480,2/stock-photo-milwaukee-wi-may-indycar-cars-and-crew-on-pit-lane-before-a-race-may-in-milwaukee-92279344.jpg In other words, the editorial description that I had entered, but look at the "-" as the separator and stock-photo was added.

Here's what actually was entered and shows on SS for the same file: "MILWAUKEE, WI - MAY, 29: INDYCAR cars and crew on pit lane before a race, May 29, 2009 in Milwaukee, WI. "

The date data (or maybe just numbers?) and redundant "WI", has been stripped.

There was a post about the widget recently. I think the reason it hasn't made a bigger splash here is that almost no one uses Bing

Also, individually, there's not a lot we can do until there's a use that violates one of our copyrights specifically (such as sending a DMCA takedown notice).

Let Getty go spend some of its money on fighting this - I'm guessing they feel it steps on their toes with their freebie blog images rather that they really have any concern over contributor copyrights.

I think the reason it hasn't made a bigger splash here is that almost no one uses Bing

Bing has slightly under 20% of search. That's huge in terms of revenue. Also powers Yahoo which is still the front page of the web for many people (as odd as that seems today).

I keep hearing from people I trust that they increasingly prefer Bing. Personally - I find that I use search less and less.

It will be back up just as soon as Microsoft adds a warning that it's entirely up to the user to be sure that an image can be used legally.   In fact it won't even be that intimidating - just some vague weasel-words that won't scare off anyone who doesn't already understand the issues.

This was just a 'beta' and the lawyers probably hadn't vetted it yet.   

+1