MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty suing Google in the EU over image search  (Read 12363 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 26, 2016, 19:12 »
+3
http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_4_ALL_GI_GoogleComplaint_EN_SEG

I received e-mail about this from Getty. I don't see any articles about it yet.

I guess the earlier strategy of embracing sharing but trying to make money from it via the embedding in blogs for free, the Yahoo metadata deal or the Google Drive deal has been abandoned?


Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2016, 19:27 »
+17
On one side of the coin I am happy Getty is doing this and is pretty much the only agency that always takes action on infringement and copyright etc.

On the other side of the coin they embedded our images and gave them away for free to no benefit or gain to the very contributors they claim they are protecting.

Confused as ever.

« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2016, 19:53 »
+26
"Defending intellectual property and working to ensure a fair marketplace for content creators"

What a big joke that is... They only think how to maximize their own profit.

« Reply #3 on: April 27, 2016, 00:43 »
+6
"Defending intellectual property and working to ensure a fair marketplace for content creators"

What a big joke that is... They only think how to maximize their own profit.
With the mountain of debt they took on to pay the vulture capitalists they almost certainly don't have any other option.

« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2016, 02:50 »
+9
Somehow, I wish google lose this time.

« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2016, 03:04 »
+1
Agencies when they sue copyright infringers, always do publishers to think. Yes, they have to calculate correctly their budgets, and have less hope that they will not be cought. Yesterday witnessed a case when one online newspaper published a short article illustrated with world's airport photos. In between of normal sized photos from different agencies there was a thumbnail screenshot with reference number from Alamy. In 30 min it was removed along with several other photos. Propably there was a person between editors who understand that such type of use can be costly.

« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2016, 03:10 »
+7
Will be interesting to see what happens and how fairly Getty compensate the people who supply them if they win.

« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2016, 04:32 »
+4
During good times people turn a blind eye to infringements but when the bad times set in they look for someone to blame.

« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2016, 13:51 »
+9
Its good news. I hope the case catches attention and raises awereness of copyrights.

Lhetetty minun D6503 laitteesta Tapatalkilla


« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2016, 14:58 »
+2
I was deeply moved by how much they care for Jane.

« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2016, 15:40 »
+5
Evil against another evil. ;D

« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2016, 19:26 »
+2
board meeting...
CEOs (thought bubble)... "we cannot reduce commissions , since there is already peanuts left for monkeys"
Accountant Executives (thought bubble)... "we cannot fire the dead-weight CEOs either,
since they are children of cousins' cousins' cousins of the main shareholders".
dead-weight CEOs who are the children of cousins etc.. (no need for thought bubble... they
are dumb enough to voice their quick-fix solution to safe-guard their position in the company)...
"why don't we bleed those who have been bleeding the contributors at large, who have not be bled by us???"

gasping sound deafens the boardroom... "Waaaa, you are all so intelligent. No wonder we have you on board !!!" (salivating all over the boardroom).

*sorry, no video available*

« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2016, 19:34 »
+3
Getty is getting desperate.

Google shows Getty images with watermarks. It's not like they remove the watermarks and let people steal images.

Google implemented bigger previews (which they get from Getty) because it's user friendly. Got forbid that a company tries to make it easier on the user. Getty only want google to show their tiny thumbnails so the users click to Getty to get a bigger preview, which makes the user experience lousy. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Maybe they can request Google to not spider their site at all...that will take care of all the problems.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2016, 19:51 by Minsc »

« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2016, 23:38 »
+6
Google is playing with rotten cards in this affair since long....not only in our industry......the news got hit hard by their practices but in many cases they have won litigations and have arrived to agreements with the big brother.

There must be some "easy" way for Google to display images and clearly indicate that those are copyrighted. Redirecting to the original source for bigger previews is needed and the biggest issue of course is stop the scraping and downloading of high resolution content.  I hope that EU will not only punish economically (which at the end of the day will only benefit investors and not creators) but also take more effective measures.

What I find insulting is that it is only Getty that is taking a stance.......were are the others......mighty Adobe........contributor "friendly" Shutterstock.....etc.......no voice heard from that part of the wall.

From:

 http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/google-faces-eu-competition-case-over-image-search-116042700613_1.html


" Getty said it had approached Google three years ago with its concerns.

"Google's proposed solution was no solution at all: accept its presentation of images in high-res format or opt out of image search. This would mean allowing the harm to continue, or becoming invisible on the Internet," it said."

« Reply #14 on: April 28, 2016, 04:59 »
+9
The other sites might be frightened of losing an expensive legal battle with Google and finding they have sunk without trace in the search results.  I think governments should be dealing with Google.  Copyright laws are quite straightforward and should apply to everyone.  Other internet businesses that have allowed people to flaunt copyright laws have been dealt with by governments.  Taking on Google in the courts must be a daunting task because they have such deep pockets.  Getty might be thinking that Google will want to settle this quickly to avoid bad publicity.

« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2016, 11:07 »
0
 well, i guess someone will win, and someone will loose.
 and, maybe, someone will get some money...

 but don't bother yourself and be nervous - nor rich/vulture shareholders are going to loose their money. these people will be safe and well (in their expensive apartments/real estates/on their expensive yachts etc...) - somehow - common people will pay all the bills at the end, i am pretty sure about that :)
 

« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2016, 11:47 »
+1
The other sites might be frightened of losing an expensive legal battle with Google and finding they have sunk without trace in the search results.  I think governments should be dealing with Google.  Copyright laws are quite straightforward and should apply to everyone.  Other internet businesses that have allowed people to flaunt copyright laws have been dealt with by governments.  Taking on Google in the courts must be a daunting task because they have such deep pockets.  Getty might be thinking that Google will want to settle this quickly to avoid bad publicity.

very wise person !!!
it's like the undesirbles in the old colonial days taking on the rajas or colonials. or modern day
asians or africans or brazilian favelas vs mafia,etc..ietaking on the corrupted rich backed by the govt.
it takes a very big person or an idiot like those movie legendaries eg david,maid of orleans, robin hood,etc ie. you must be either very brave or very stupid... to challenge a giant.


« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2016, 13:23 »
+3
google has been sued over this before and won, not expecting a different outcome this time. however i do agree that google should do more to prevent theft and stimulate image purchasing from the source. not expecting that to change either, googles goal is to make all data available in the world to everyone for free

« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2016, 13:46 »
+1
Here's what I see when I do a google search for Getty images. I get a preview of an image with a Getty watermark on it, so I don't know what they're suing for.

Maybe this lawsuit is related to something else, like people having access to a high resolution image without a watermark. But this again is the fault of Getty. It's their responsibility to prevent anyone from scrapping their website and access the high res images without paying. Maybe if they spend some time on improving their system (starting with iStock) instead of being complacent, they wouldn't be suffering in the first place.

« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2016, 13:58 »
+3
Or maybe it's related to something else, like Google indexing images that were previous bought by someone else, who puts it on their website and gets indexed by Google without the watermark. Then someone else downloads it and uses it on their website without paying Getty.

If that's the case, then it's pretty complicated. The person who download the image probably never had the intention of paying Getty in the first place. But do we place the blame on Google? I mean why stop there? Why not any search engine who can index images? I've seen my own images on search engine without watermarks, but never at super high resolution and I rely on people to know what is legal and what is not legal and I would never blame Google.

op

« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2016, 13:59 »
0
I think it's about google video scanner. I have 640x360px watermark free frames of my videos all over google..

« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2016, 15:24 »
0
Isn't suing about search position?

« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2016, 23:56 »
+4
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.


Or maybe it's related to something else, like Google indexing images that were previous bought by someone else, who puts it on their website and gets indexed by Google without the watermark. Then someone else downloads it and uses it on their website without paying Getty.

If that's the case, then it's pretty complicated. The person who download the image probably never had the intention of paying Getty in the first place. But do we place the blame on Google? I mean why stop there? Why not any search engine who can index images? I've seen my own images on search engine without watermarks, but never at super high resolution and I rely on people to know what is legal and what is not legal and I would never blame Google.


« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2016, 00:44 »
0
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.

op

« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2016, 03:04 »
+4
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.

No, they are not watermarked! Not mine so I guess, I'm far from alone.

« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2016, 03:34 »
0
No, they are not watermarked! Not mine so I guess, I'm far from alone.

I'd love to see an example. Because I've only found watermarked images.

If they are indeed not watermarked, then the responsibility falls on Getty to secure those images. Google spiders respect Robots.txt. If Google can scrap secured content from GettyImages.com, then a good software engineer can do the same with a script. You can't leave the door wide open and expect people to not steal.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 03:39 by Minsc »

« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2016, 05:47 »
+3
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.


It IS the fault of google because they are indexing everything and making it available to everyone to download. They are a HUGE company. Certainly they should be able to put some kind of watermark over all images before they show in their index.


« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2016, 10:33 »
+1
It IS the fault of google because they are indexing everything and making it available to everyone to download. They are a HUGE company. Certainly they should be able to put some kind of watermark over all images before they show in their index.

google confuses me in a way. what is their purpose or benefit of gathering images??? they are not being paid , are they???
as for protection of intellectual property , i can't see google bothering with anything protective.
they even allow fake nudes, full page high res of other publications being used by ppl who are not the owner of these images. everything from filth to stock photos are there for the taking.
can't see google being protective about anything.

as i said , how do they benefit from this??? are they being paid for allowing everything to be picked up in a search??? as i said, i am confused , old-school dummy wondering how they actually made money out of their search engine.

« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2016, 11:32 »
0
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.


And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.



It IS the fault of google because they are indexing everything and making it available to everyone to download. They are a HUGE company. Certainly they should be able to put some kind of watermark over all images before they show in their index.


Here is a nice summary of the original compliant by Getty:

http://www.thesempost.com/getty-images-blames-google-not-competitors/

Getty is blaming Google for the loss of sales, instead of its own incompetence. In the google images search, you can clearly see that the high res images are watermarked. They're complaining that Google shouldn't show the high res watermarked images because people already saw a preview and that discourages traffic to Getty, therefore reduce potential sales to that user.

If the images are watermarked, then the image is protected. If the image is NOT watermarked, Getty's incompetent web team is allowing Google to crawl protected content, so the blame rest with them. Either way, you can't blame Google, because they are a search engine.

From what I gathered, Getty wants certain things from Google and they're not getting it. They want the image search to show only tiny thumbnails (preferably around 200x200), so that it's tiny and push the user to visit Getty instead of seeing the high res watermarked image on Google. Second, they WANT google to index their images because it helps generate traffic to their website. If they opt out of Google Image Search, they can lose as much as 50% in traffic to their website. And they're complaining that their search rankings are not high enough because other websites outrank them sometimes.

What Getty wants is completely unreasonable. They're a bunch of whiners and they rather blame a search engine instead their incompetence for losing so much market share in such a short time.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2016, 12:24 by Minsc »

« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2016, 12:03 »
+2
You are correct about Getty and their issues with Google. My post was more in general regarding just Google, indexing everything under the sun without regards to copyright. If someone posts a high rez image on their website, that is stupid enough. That Google then grabs it and allows it to be redistributed by way of their owning the whole search world, then I personally believe they are acting as redistributors, and violating copyrights. I also believe that they MUST have the ability to do something about that, what with their having more money and power than God. In essence, it boils down to what they want to do vs. what they are capable of doing.

Quote
google confuses me in a way. what is their purpose or benefit of gathering images??? they are not being paid , are they???


http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/what-does-google-actually-make-money-from-goog1121.aspx
https://www.quora.com/How-does-Google-earn-money
http://www.channel4.com/news/if-google-is-free-how-does-it-make-so-much-money

« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2016, 14:26 »
+1
Getty suing Google because they're not doing well is like a contributor suing Getty because they're not doing well. Everyone plays by the same set of rules and Shutterstock is thriving. Getty is not happy that Shutterstock is thriving, so they want special treatment from Google.

When you read the whole complaint, Getty has no case. Google is doing what a search engine is supposed to do. Every agency has their watermarked images indexed. Shutterstock, 123RF, FT, Dreamstime, Getty, Istock, etc. Google Image Search increases traffic to all those site and quite frankly, I'm proud to have many of my images show up on the Image Search from different sites. I believe it's great for SEO and brings new more traffic to my images.

Getty made a video about how much they cared about contributors and that's completely BS. They care less about contributors than any agency out there. They're notorious for sending out extortion letters to people and demanding thousands of dollars from infringers and contributors get none of it. They're a bully and is trying their best to hold on to the status quo. In secret, they probably want people to steal their images, so they can demand thousands per images that can be bought for a few dollars on other sites.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2016, 16:39 »
+1
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

 Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.


And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.



It IS the fault of google because they are indexing everything and making it available to everyone to download. They are a HUGE company. Certainly they should be able to put some kind of watermark over all images before they show in their index.


Here is a nice summary of the original compliant by Getty:

http://www.thesempost.com/getty-images-blames-google-not-competitors/

Getty is blaming Google for the loss of sales, instead of its own incompetence. In the google images search, you can clearly see that the high res images are watermarked. They're complaining that Google shouldn't show the high res watermarked images because people already saw a preview and that discourages traffic to Getty, therefore reduce potential sales to that user.

If the images are watermarked, then the image is protected. If the image is NOT watermarked, Getty's incompetent web team is allowing Google to crawl protected content, so the blame rest with them. Either way, you can't blame Google, because they are a search engine.

From what I gathered, Getty wants certain things from Google and they're not getting it. They want the image search to show only tiny thumbnails (preferably around 200x200), so that it's tiny and push the user to visit Getty instead of seeing the high res watermarked image on Google. Second, they WANT google to index their images because it helps generate traffic to their website. If they opt out of Google Image Search, they can lose as much as 50% in traffic to their website. And they're complaining that their search rankings are not high enough because other websites outrank them sometimes.

What Getty wants is completely unreasonable. They're a bunch of whiners and they rather blame a search engine instead their incompetence for losing so much market share in such a short time.


Interesting read...

I am sure the author Jennifer Slegg is a sharp cookie and understands SEO.

But to compare a RM image from Getty for a few thousand $$$ to a similar RF image on micros clearly shows she does not understand the stock industry.

Just sayin.

« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2016, 01:56 »
+3
I am sorry to say but you still don't get it. You keep bouncing against a wall......take a few steps back and look and the whole picture on it.

"Getty suing Google because they're not doing well".....so where do you get that......some Sherlock Holmes deduction or too much wishful thinking. Gettyimages is a huge corporation distributing a variety of content that is way beyond microstock agencies ( Footage of news and stills, Sports venues, red carpet, stock ( RM and RF),...... and of course (thankfully it has competing agencies which  I truly celebrate- if not all content creators would suffer much more).

  The reason of Getty not doing well is basically that they let Investment funds plunder their deposit box and aquiring large amounts of debt. There are other reasons of course..the appearance of microstock, nano stock, subscription, free images, creative commons,.. and Piracy. We could talk and write the next months back and forth about all the other issues that affect Getty (and the other agencies) but for the sake of this post I will stick to the reasons why Getty is suing Google. You posted an article where there is a link to the original press release of why Getty is taking this action: http://press.gettyimages.com/getty-images-granted-interested-party-status-in-eus-investigation-into-anticompetitive-behavior-by-google/

I think it is very clear why they are suingargumented by facts and not some speculations like in your post.
When you read the whole complaint, Getty has no case. Well lets see what the EU has to say, dont rush into wishful thinking again
Google Image Search increases traffic to all those site and quite frankly, I'm proud to have many of my images show up on the Image Search from different sites. I believe it's great for SEO and brings new more traffic to my images. No problem with that, I like that my images are also present on web search results. The difference is that I want that those small resolution images lead to the content creator and to get compensated, and what I dont want is that non willing to pay customers download directly a high resolution image of a client link to that image that paid their fee to use that image.

They care less about contributors than any agency out there They care not more nor less that Shutterstock , Adobe,etc,etc..other agencies that want to maximize profits at the costs of contributors. Now there are a new breed of agencies driven by contributors that I hope someday will change this panorama and drag down all the Gettys, Shutters and Adobes of this business.

They're notorious for sending out extortion letters to people and demanding thousands of dollars from infringers and contributors get none of it False. Thank God they are one of the few agencies that still care about copyright compliance. When I was nonexclusive I contacted support of many agencies about copyright fraud..what happened..nothing. By the way, in my monthly Getty statement that I received this month I had more revenue from license compliances  than actual sales, so they clearly share part of the recouped money when they succeed to catch the infringers.

In secret, they probably want people to steal their images, so they can demand thousands per images that can be bought for a few dollars on other sites. Nope they simple want that if a customer buys their content, he/she uses it within the legitime uses of the license.

So after speculating fo a while about the reasons of Getty suing Google in a few posts let me guess too. Maybe the reason you feel uncomfortable with this Getty move is because you at some point received one of those license compliance letters, or you are one of the people that uses the facilities of Google to download improperly copyrighted contentAm I wrong in my speculation?......




Getty suing Google because they're not doing well is like a contributor suing Getty because they're not doing well. Everyone plays by the same set of rules and Shutterstock is thriving. Getty is not happy that Shutterstock is thriving, so they want special treatment from Google.

When you read the whole complaint, Getty has no case. Google is doing what a search engine is supposed to do. Every agency has their watermarked images indexed. Shutterstock, 123RF, FT, Dreamstime, Getty, Istock, etc. Google Image Search increases traffic to all those site and quite frankly, I'm proud to have many of my images show up on the Image Search from different sites. I believe it's great for SEO and brings new more traffic to my images.

Getty made a video about how much they cared about contributors and that's completely BS. They care less about contributors than any agency out there. They're notorious for sending out extortion letters to people and demanding thousands of dollars from infringers and contributors get none of it. They're a bully and is trying their best to hold on to the status quo. In secret, they probably want people to steal their images, so they can demand thousands per images that can be bought for a few dollars on other sites.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2016, 10:16 »
+1
@ everest

"I am sorry to say but you still don't get it. You keep bouncing against a wall......take a few steps back and look and the whole picture on it."

MSG forum is for complaining, bitterness, speculation, and wishful thinking.

It surprises me how many people simply don't get it, the whole picture. There are a few here that do, but they are certainly in the minority.

« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2016, 12:32 »
0
I am sorry to say but you still don't get it. You keep bouncing against a wall......take a few steps back and look and the whole picture on it.

Actually, I know exactly why they're suing. I rather use deduction than listen to corporate babble. So I'll explain it to you one last time.

Google created Google Image Search in 2001. As many companies continue to do after its first iteration, they keep improving it, be it visual design or overall usability. In 2013, they added a new feature...image previews. This image preview allow a user like you and I to view a larger image preview instead of looking at a thumbnail.

When they implemented this feature, web traffic dropped, not just for Getty, but for a lot of website. The reason was because the image preview gave the user what they need to see instead of clicking a blurry thumbnail which takes them to another website. This was done to improve the usability of Google Image Search and it has.

When this happened, Getty was furious. They saw their traffic dropped and some revenue drop. The whined and complained to Google to no avail. Google basically said you can opt out of Image Search, but Getty reluctantly agreed to continued to be crawled.

As Getty's marketshare and revenue continue to erode, they got more bitter and angry. The WANT Google to remove the preview feature so Google users continue to see a tiny thumbnail. Google Refused, so Getty lawyers comes up with different creative ways to shame Google...people stealing images, Google is promoting piracy, blah, blah, blah. So now they attached themselves to a lawsuit, in hopes of getting Google to change their search engine and remove image previews.

So there you have it, the entire reason why Getty is suing. Getty won't opt out of Google Image Search because they will become invisible to the internet, but they want Google to make the usability of the Image Search worse so they may see more traffic to their site. As contributors, we see Stock search engines to change all the time, from gigantic previews, to socialistic image rotation to revenue cuts that erode our revenue, but we're all not suing like Getty...or maybe we should sued them for their Redeemed Credits system.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2016, 13:07 by Minsc »

« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2016, 13:00 »
0
Some further reading on why Getty's lawsuit isn't about copyright:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/

Getty still have options. They have 2 image preview types...one small, one large. They allow Google to index both. The can change their Robots.txt to allow Google to only index the small one. So why isn't Getty blocking it? Because it isn't about copyright.

They're suing Google in hopes of getting them to change their website. As if I was suing Getty to get them to change their website.

« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2016, 13:51 »
+2
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/

Have you actually read what you linked too?  The examples of people getting the wrong end of the stick are pretty much verbatim what you have posted.


« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2016, 14:47 »
0
Is theregister.co.uk a better site than it used to be? Some years ago it was the supermarket tabloid equivalent of technology news; a kernel of truth around an acre of silliness.

« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2016, 15:07 »
0
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/

Have you actually read what you linked too?  The examples of people getting the wrong end of the stick are pretty much verbatim what you have posted.


Yes, I have. And I can't side with Getty on this situation. Every search engine has adopted the same preview feature (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckgo), but Getty is only going after the biggest player and they're suing to make a product harder to use. This is a slippery slope. After Getty is done with Google, they'll want to do the same to other search engines assuming they win.

I refuse to side with a company that wants to reduce the usability of a product. Not to mention their dishonest public release about why they're suing. They want to make search harder to use, which goes against the philosophy of product design and usability. Google did makes some changes by adding "Visit website" buttons to each image, which drives high quality traffic as opposed to low quality traffic that many websites were getting.

With bigger previews, users are able to clearly see the watermarks of each agency. If people want to buy an expensive image from Getty, they will buy an expensive image from Getty. If they don't, they won't.

« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2016, 03:45 »
+5
I own a movie streaming service. My users' experience is better when I offer all of Disney's content along with all Netflix and Amazon Prime original content through my single service/ player. Users also want it to be free. So that is why I have appropriated it all and am giving it away, making my profits from ad space. As I don't own the copyright, have to bear costs of production or have to pass on any money to the copyright holder everyone wins right? at least me and the users and that's all that counts.

Google has been allowed to grow into a monster with contempt for the law (thanks to the legalised corruption that is the American political system, but that is another discussion) it's about time they were reigned in.

op

« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2016, 05:38 »
+1
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/

Have you actually read what you linked too?  The examples of people getting the wrong end of the stick are pretty much verbatim what you have posted.


Yes, I have. And I can't side with Getty on this situation. Every search engine has adopted the same preview feature (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckgo), but Getty is only going after the biggest player and they're suing to make a product harder to use. This is a slippery slope. After Getty is done with Google, they'll want to do the same to other search engines assuming they win.

I refuse to side with a company that wants to reduce the usability of a product. Not to mention their dishonest public release about why they're suing. They want to make search harder to use, which goes against the philosophy of product design and usability. Google did makes some changes by adding "Visit website" buttons to each image, which drives high quality traffic as opposed to low quality traffic that many websites were getting.

With bigger previews, users are able to clearly see the watermarks of each agency. If people want to buy an expensive image from Getty, they will buy an expensive image from Getty. If they don't, they won't.


You are missing something crucial. Getty is suing Google in the EU where the european commission is accusing Google of abuse of dominant position regarding its internet search and android business. If Google is find guilty, as Microsoft has been in the past, then a bunch of companies will have a good case to suing them back.

« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2016, 12:05 »
+1
I own a movie streaming service. My users' experience is better when I offer all of Disney's content along with all Netflix and Amazon Prime original content through my single service/ player. Users also want it to be free. So that is why I have appropriated it all and am giving it away, making my profits from ad space. As I don't own the copyright, have to bear costs of production or have to pass on any money to the copyright holder everyone wins right? at least me and the users and that's all that counts.

Google has been allowed to grow into a monster with contempt for the law (thanks to the legalised corruption that is the American political system, but that is another discussion) it's about time they were reigned in.


The difference is that Getty allow Google to crawl those images, whereas Disney would send assassins after you. Your analogy makes no sense in that regard.

It's been 3 years since the change and Getty still can't get over it. In that 3 years, things changed and Getty doesn't like it. Look at the traffic history of Getty:

http://siterank.me/gettyimages.com

They had a little drop in traffic 2013 which is probably related to the change in Google Image Search, but recovered whatever traffic they lost 3 months later. What Getty can't handle is that the industry is changing and they can't believe they're not on top. The change to Google Image Search had the same effect on Shutterstock:

http://siterank.me/shutterstock.com

Look at the what happened. They got even better after the change. Before this, websites were getting ghost impressions with high bounce rates. After the change, sites starting getting higher quality traffic.

What does all this mean? It means that the Getty's revenue drop over the last few years isn't related to Google. It's related to an industry-wide change. It's related to the rise of mobile advertising needing only good enough images. It's related to the changing mindset of people not wanting to pay thousands for 1 image. Not to mention smartphone camera quality drastically improving over the years. Everything changes and Getty can't handle that change...so they blame Google instead of themselves.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 13:50 by Minsc »

« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2016, 12:18 »
0
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/28/getty_on_google/

Have you actually read what you linked too?  The examples of people getting the wrong end of the stick are pretty much verbatim what you have posted.


Yes, I have. And I can't side with Getty on this situation. Every search engine has adopted the same preview feature (Google, Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckgo), but Getty is only going after the biggest player and they're suing to make a product harder to use. This is a slippery slope. After Getty is done with Google, they'll want to do the same to other search engines assuming they win.

I refuse to side with a company that wants to reduce the usability of a product. Not to mention their dishonest public release about why they're suing. They want to make search harder to use, which goes against the philosophy of product design and usability. Google did makes some changes by adding "Visit website" buttons to each image, which drives high quality traffic as opposed to low quality traffic that many websites were getting.

With bigger previews, users are able to clearly see the watermarks of each agency. If people want to buy an expensive image from Getty, they will buy an expensive image from Getty. If they don't, they won't.


You are missing something crucial. Getty is suing Google in the EU where the european commission is accusing Google of abuse of dominant position regarding its internet search and android business. If Google is find guilty, as Microsoft has been in the past, then a bunch of companies will have a good case to suing them back.


I know what it means. Europe can't handle that fact that an American company is handling all their information and the politicians can't handle the fact that they can't hide their misdeeds while Google is around. People don't need to use Google...it's a choice. It's not like Windows where nearly every computer needs it to operate.

Maybe some of those socialist countries should stop sitting around and build their own search engine instead. Russia built Yandax and China built Baidu. What's stopping them?

« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2016, 00:08 »
+6
What socialist countries?

Google has done more to destroy the free market with their lobbying than any other company in history. They make massive contributions to both sides of the Isle to ensure their monopoly, and they make the senators that are in their pocket canvas eu policy makers when they are threatened in Europe.

The tech market is now full of firms who's target is to be bought up by Google, a competitor, rather than continue to build and compete with them. How is that not a horrific distortion of the market?  That innovators are hoovered up by one giant company rather than striving against each other to produce the best solutions is grotesque.

« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2016, 01:53 »
0
What socialist countries?

Google has done more to destroy the free market with their lobbying than any other company in history. They make massive contributions to both sides of the Isle to ensure their monopoly, and they make the senators that are in their pocket canvas eu policy makers when they are threatened in Europe.

The tech market is now full of firms who's target is to be bought up by Google, a competitor, rather than continue to build and compete with them. How is that not a horrific distortion of the market?  That innovators are hoovered up by one giant company rather than striving against each other to produce the best solutions is grotesque.

The tech market is full of firms that want to be bought up by any large company, not just Google. That's the nature of any company that takes funding from investors who wants a 10x return. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Uber, Microsoft, you name it are all companies who have acquired a large amount of companies. Hell, even our good friends at Getty has tried to swallow up the image market with aggressive acquisitions.

While Google hasn't all been innocent, you forget who has been buying up influence behind in the scenes in the EU, the one company that's been pulling the strings and pushing the anti-Google campaign in the shadows...Microsoft.

I'm not exactly calling Google some angelic company, but Getty still doesn't have a legitimate case. Everyone plays by the same rule book, and Getty think they can get their past glory back by suing Google. Little do they know, the market is slowly leaving them behind.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 01:57 by Minsc »

« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2016, 03:19 »
+1
Getty has been trying to pull the same s**t in the image market for decades. All companies that are floated or owned by venture capitalists are pretty much the same ethically. They are run solely for profit. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is what our elected representatives have allowed google to become by refusing to legislate. And that's because google has been paying off politicians on all sides to the point where there can't be any opposing voice heard.

It has got to the point where tech companies only have to innovate just enough to be interesting to or a threat to google then they are bought up. Google execs can then have a sit down and decide what innovations from their vast catalogue of IP to push. What's the difference between that and governments deciding what is best for the consumer? The only difference is it is undemocratic. The market should be deciding not men in board rooms in suits (or even flannel shirts)

The small tech firms waiting for their hand out or windfall from Google are not much different from those waiting for their windfall from goverment payouts. No one wants to spend years clawing their living from building a product or business in the market anymore. They think it's natural to just have an idea and sell up to live in the sun, it's a sense of entitlement and it's what happens when you let firms get the power of nation states.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2016, 03:27 by Justanotherphotographer »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
8913 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 02:19
by Perry
7 Replies
4480 Views
Last post October 14, 2011, 04:43
by leaf
11 Replies
6533 Views
Last post September 19, 2012, 13:04
by CD123
9 Replies
3098 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 19:37
by farbled
8 Replies
6710 Views
Last post April 04, 2013, 09:59
by steheap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle