Google just launched the ability to sort the image results by license type.  Essentially is sifts out images you are apparently free to use for free.  Now they just need a 'license from an agency' setting to help us out!

How would the average person know about this?

It's not for the average person. Why would the average person want to know about this ?

They might want to use images in blogs, newletters, cards they send their pals etc.
They may not 'want' to know that they should pay for these uses, but they 'should' know.

The average person is not using Google Images to look for images for a blog, newsletter, card ...

Blogging and newsletters are dying out anyhow. People do that less and less. Commercial users already mostly know that they should pay for content.

I don't know about blogging, as I prefer 'proper' websites but every organisation I'm a member of or affiliated to, and companies we have stocks in or my husband advises, sends out paper and/or digital newsletters.

Yes commercial users. But they already know that they should pay for content. Ditto commercial blogs. They know that if they cheat (and the content is not subscription) then they risk getting an agency demand (if they are somewhere copyright is respected). Though many commercial blogs depend on content distributed as PR which is free to use anyhow.

It's the average person you were talking about. And the average person is blogging less and less. Social media took over. Ditto community newsletters, church groups etc. All that stuff went to Facebook mostly which is partly why old fashioned microstock is likely to be a declining market IMO. 

And the average person is blogging less and less. Social media took over. Ditto community newsletters, church groups etc. All that stuff went to Facebook mostly which is partly why old fashioned microstock is likely to be a declining market IMO.

Again, not in my experience. These groups have a presence on Fb etc because they've been told that's "what young people use", but they use their newsletter and website for their core audience because it's so much easier to set out information in a way that people can easily find it. Social media is a way to try to find new people who might be interested, but it's difficult to find core information there. But stock is pretty much irrelevant to these groups, but it always was.

Quote from: bunhill on January 14, 2014, 07:54

The average person is not using Google Images to look for images for a blog, newsletter, card ...

Sure they are.  And there's no reason they shouldn't know about how to license in image.  They pay for content on iTunes, don't they?

Well clearly people pay for content on iTunes and quite right too. And commercial users should definitely pay to use images. But that's a different conversation.

@sue - churches and community groups were big users of microstock back in the days before Facebook. And in those days even small businesses and shops were often convinced of the need to have a website. FB is the thing now. Though young people are less and less engaged with it according to everything I see.

I can't see the button myself, but this can only be a good thing, surely?

Unless Google are going to become an image agency of sorts, in which case we will be no doubt screwed further.

Quote from: bunhill on January 14, 2014, 07:54

The average person is not using Google Images to look for images for a blog, newsletter, card ...

My guess would be that the average person very much shops like this.

my point was that the average person is not blogging - and that the average person does not have a need for commercial content. Sue addressed this.

Most Google image searches are not by people looking for images to buy (or steal).

That's true and maybe I'm too naive? You could be right. 

Here's the second part which makes me think, there's not much here for me or any of us right now.



Everything says FREE!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 14, 2014, 11:15

I don't understand how getting recognition and having the biggest search engine on the planet, promoting your work, exposure, potentially making more sales, is "getting screwed"?

Terribly negative viewpoint.

Quote from: fotoVoyager on January 14, 2014, 10:45

I can't see the button myself, but this can only be a good thing, surely?

Unless Google are going to become an image agency of sorts, in which case we will be no doubt screwed further.

I hope you're right.

However, years of experience have made me cynical about the arrival of unstoppable money-hoovering corporate behemoths into any business.

Most Google image searches are for people looking for content to use.

I absolutely do not believe that to be true. I believe that people use it as a visual extension of search. That's how I use it. And that's how I see it being used.

Where can we get some stats and find out for certain ?

@bunhill I know a lot of people that search Google for a particular image. If there is no watermark, they download it and use it. I just had my son's teacher send out a newsletter that was clearly downloaded from Google using this exact method because she forgot to clear out the url so when you clicked on the image it brought you right to that website she got it from!

 I run a couple of blogs, mostly food related, and I take my own images of the food. I put a small watermark in the bottom right corner but that doesn't seem to scare anyone off. I have one image that has been stolen hundreds of times for a particular product. Some people chop off the watermark or blur it out and others just don't even care and just use it... Not much I can do since most of them are not in the US!

The fact that some people sometimes use Google Images to find images to use does not necessarily mean that this is what Google Images is most used for.

I believe that most uses of Google Images are not to find images to use. People use it to look at things - or to find things by looking - or to remember what a particular actor looks like, or a car, or a place or some other thing - etc.

Of course, I'm just talking about me, but if I want to see what Joe Actor looks like, I'm more likely to web search and go to IMDB to his page, because then I know what I'm looking at.  Same for a car.  I could type in "Porsche Quattro XT Turbo 2000", but when a bunch of random cars come up, I have no idea which is what.  It's easier to go the product site to be sure and then find it.

However, if I'm looking for "velvet texture", it doesn't matter what it is, only what it looks like, so you just find one without a watermark, click through to the site and see if it's available for free use.

I could type in "Porsche Quattro XT Turbo 2000", but when a bunch of random cars come up, I have no idea which is what.  It's easier to go the product site to be sure and then find it.

I often use it when I am not quite sure what I am looking for - for example to find sites which have more information about something which I can only describe. Looking for something which looks like what you are trying to find is a great way of finding the page.

So I scroll through the image results until I see a thing which is like what I am trying to find out about. I often do this with paintings, antiques, furniture etc. And in general sense - finding the image is often a great way of finding the page.