pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google image search redesigned - hi res stock photos  (Read 13563 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aspp

« on: January 25, 2013, 17:22 »
+8
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-redesigns-image-search-results-faster-20130125,0,6407894.story

Try searching for Shutterstock or Istock. Masses of watermark free images many in hi resolution. Is that new ?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 17:41 by aspp »


CD123

« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2013, 17:36 »
0
Seems to me like people who leave the original image name (containing the word Shutterstock) and use it then on the internet. This is crazy!!!

This one is 2848 2136:
http://www.propointgraphics.com/wp-content/uploads/shutterstock_75752338.jpg

There are masses of them round 1000x1000!

Edit to fix words typed incorrectly, clearly due to cockroach walking on the inside of my keyboard!

« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 17:56 by CD123 »

« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2013, 17:46 »
0
I found a number of high res files and as with CD123's example, the format of the link was site-name/wp-content/uploads/big-shutterstock-image.jpg

Is there some web site development tool that follows this format? And why would you upload the huge version of the file if you were only going to display it in a browser?

Even if that image is licensed by the site, they're not supposed to display it above 1200x800 (or something like that) per most of the licenses.

The new search looks lovely, but it's going to be an image thieves road map!

CD123

« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2013, 17:51 »
+1
They would not even have to search for a site like heroturko to get their images any more, you just pic them up straight for Google Images. Why don't we just start saving everyone the trouble and upload directly to Google and get it over and done with?

This is getting so ^$@$#%$ demoralizing!!!  :'(

PS Heart to the OP for good thread.

« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2013, 17:55 »
0
I found a number of high res files and as with CD123's example, the format of the link was site-name/wp-content/uploads/big-shutterstock-image.jpg

Is there some web site development tool that follows this format? And why would you upload the huge version of the file if you were only going to display it in a browser?

Even if that image is licensed by the site, they're not supposed to display it above 1200x800 (or something like that) per most of the licenses.

The new search looks lovely, but it's going to be an image thieves road map!

The only thing I recognize is that path containing /wp-content/ means it's a wordpress site.

« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2013, 17:58 »
0
I noticed the new google format yesterday while searching images at work. But here at home, just now, google search still looks the same, firefox mac. Maybe taking a while to propagate?

CD123

« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2013, 17:58 »
0

« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2013, 18:02 »
0
Did someone contact Shutterstock about this (I suppose someone should contact iStock too...)? I don't know what they could do, but perhaps if all the stock sites contacted Google to see what could be done about this?

CD123

« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2013, 18:03 »
0
I noticed the new google format yesterday while searching images at work. But here at home, just now, google search still looks the same, firefox mac. Maybe taking a while to propagate?
Weird. Running Firefox 19.0 and 10.0.2 on my computers, both showing new format. If it was Windows I would have advised to press Ctrl + F5, to reload the page, else it sometimes uses pages from you cash memory. Do not know the Mac equivalent though.  :(

CD123

« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2013, 18:05 »
0
Did someone contact Shutterstock about this (I suppose someone should contact iStock too...)? I don't know what they could do, but perhaps if all the stock sites contacted Google to see what could be done about this?
Good idea, but I think the big girls and guys (like you) must do this. I am sure us small fry will not be taken as seriously  ;)

« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2013, 18:05 »
0
I noticed the new google format yesterday while searching images at work. But here at home, just now, google search still looks the same, firefox mac. Maybe taking a while to propagate?
Weird. Running Firefox 19.0 and 10.0.2 on my computers, both showing new format. If it was Windows I would have advised to press Ctrl + F5, to reload the page, else it sometimes uses pages from you cash memory. Do not know the Mac equivalent though.  :(

I'll clear my cache and see if that does it. I did reload the page with no change.

CD123

« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2013, 18:07 »
0
I noticed the new google format yesterday while searching images at work. But here at home, just now, google search still looks the same, firefox mac. Maybe taking a while to propagate?
Weird. Running Firefox 19.0 and 10.0.2 on my computers, both showing new format. If it was Windows I would have advised to press Ctrl + F5, to reload the page, else it sometimes uses pages from you cash memory. Do not know the Mac equivalent though.  :(

I'll clear my cache and see if that does it. I did reload the page with no change.

Bad news, you will have to buy a new computer (preferably with Windows on it)  ;D

CD123

« Reply #12 on: January 25, 2013, 18:12 »
0
I think these images where always there and where accumulated over many years. It is only now with the new search, which probably pick up imbedded link data from the pages, like image names, that they are found with this search criteria and are now so beautifully displayed in this format.

« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2013, 18:16 »
+12
I notified Shutterstock, iStock and Dreamstime with the following (with the agency name changed each time, of course :))

Google's re-designed image search is lovely but it makes searching for full size, unwatermarked Shutterstock images a breeze - it appears to be blog users who have (probably legal) full size images uploaded even though they're displayed small.

This is a road map to thieves to load up on Shutterstock content for free. Do you think you can persuade Google to change this in some way?

Read more about the issue here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-image-search-redesigned/msg294146

regards,

Jo Ann

ShadySue

« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2013, 18:19 »
0
Evanescent Wan Think Itching Udder
(H Chace)
 :( :( >:(

« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2013, 18:20 »
+2
I do not understand the details of this, but I have an uneasy feeling.
Like the "War of the servers"
or
the war of the empires in 1914.
I have the feeling that something big is going on.

Like the whole foundation of copyright and distribution is cracking.

I shall watch closely, any communication from shutterstock, who will be the best informed, there will probably be something written between the lines.

CD123

« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2013, 18:23 »
0
I notified Shutterstock, iStock and Dreamstime with the following (with the agency name changed each time, of course :))

Google's re-designed image search is lovely but it makes searching for full size, unwatermarked Shutterstock images a breeze - it appears to be blog users who have (probably legal) full size images uploaded even though they're displayed small.

This is a road map to thieves to load up on Shutterstock content for free. Do you think you can persuade Google to change this in some way?

Read more about the issue here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/google-image-search-redesigned/msg294146

regards,

Jo Ann



Thanks Jo Ann


ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2013, 18:25 »
+2
Someone explained on here that there are still a lot of clueless people who have no idea how to resize for the web, who use e.g. Front Page, and just throw in a file at the top resolution they have and rely on the browser to resize it on the fly.
That's why often you might see your image 'in use' with a live link, and when you click on it, you get taken to the large size of the file, usually the actual size they bought it from the agency. So if they bought a large size for print, or indeed a large size from a sub site, they just use it on a web page as is.

CD123

« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2013, 18:31 »
0
The workings behind this is very interesting. Search for 123RF and found this image (second image listed) at 2444 x 1636:
http://www.123rf.com/blog/images/867152_l_110121020528.jpg

If you "Visit page" you get to a tutorial on 123RF's own site. The image on the page looks quite small (so you do not expect that it is a high res picture), but it was in fact only re-sized on the screen (page format for display), while the original was left at its original size. I suspect that Google used to only pic up the screen sizes of these images, but due to it now actually picking it up from its source data, it accesses the real image in the site's database and supply access to that.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 18:34 by CD123 »

CD123

« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2013, 18:33 »
0
Someone explained on here that there are still a lot of clueless people who have no idea how to resize for the web, who use e.g. Front Page, and just throw in a file at the top resolution they have and rely on the browser to resize it on the fly.
That's why often you might see your image 'in use' with a live link, and when you click on it, you get taken to the large size of the file, usually the actual size they bought it from the agency. So if they bought a large size for print, or indeed a large size from a sub site, they just use it on a web page as is.
You got it.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #20 on: January 27, 2013, 00:16 »
0
Someone explained on here that there are still a lot of clueless people who have no idea how to resize for the web, who use e.g. Front Page, and just throw in a file at the top resolution they have and rely on the browser to resize it on the fly.
That's why often you might see your image 'in use' with a live link, and when you click on it, you get taken to the large size of the file, usually the actual size they bought it from the agency. So if they bought a large size for print, or indeed a large size from a sub site, they just use it on a web page as is.

"a lot", try most of them!! almost all my commercial clients are unable to resize images for web use, and I always supply them with a folder of high res images, marked 'for print' and a folder of 72ppi web images, all with the suffix_web. Doesn't stop them from uploading the giant files..

80% also recontact me to resize images for them, which is so very tiresome as I go to the trouble of supplying images in two formats for them.

« Reply #21 on: January 27, 2013, 00:40 »
0
I've been learning a little about WordPress in the last day or so and when you upload content into the media manager, the original file goes into wp-content/uploads and WordPress automatically makes small medium and large sizes for you to use in the blog posts or elsewhere on a web site - but the original image is there in the directory too.

So, for example, one of the images found in a Google image search for iStock is from this blog post. The image shown in the blog is downsized by WordPress. The file name for what's shown is istock_dandelionlarge-300x199.jpg

But the Google image search button that says View Original Image doesn't take you to what's shown in the blog but the full size original in the same directory. That image appears if you click on the small image - I assume the fact that it's linked to from the 300x199 version is why Google has picked it up. Not sure if it was within the license terms for the full size image to be displayed like that.

« Reply #22 on: January 27, 2013, 02:26 »
0
I use Wordpress. Their upload system allows you to upload any size you like and then select thumb/small/med/lrg or original to include it in your page.  They also allow you a huge amount of server space. The majority of users probably don't know about downsizing and just upload whatever they've got and then click on the required size.

Maybe google is digging into the users' image library, with the original upload size, rather than linking to the selected size used in the web page. You can, in any case, click on the image to get the full-size version form Wordpress pages.

I guess I'll downsize even more than I was, now. So thanks for the heads up.

Poncke

« Reply #23 on: January 27, 2013, 03:04 »
0
Quote from the comment on the page

Quote
Bilal Hussain at 1:29 PM January 25, 2013
Definitely not for me! It's optimised for tablet & touchscreen operating systems (e.g. Windows8), & from my experience so far it doesn't cut the cake for Windows7.


http://discussions.latimes.com/20/lanews/la-fi-tn-google-redesigns-image-search-results-faster-20130125/10

Might explain why we are not seeing it yet.

Also from the SS licence;

Quote
2. By this Agreement, and in consideration of payment of the total agreed price, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Shutterstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:

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


http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=standard

Even the EL doesnt allow high res

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml?hsb=1&type=enhanced

« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 02:17 by Poncke »

« Reply #24 on: January 28, 2013, 11:59 »
+1
I received a reply this morning from Dreasmtime support

"Thank you for contacting Dreamstime Customer Support team. We are aware of this situation and we are monitoring for some time. The problem is that we cannot do much when it comes to Google policies. I will forward your message to our legal team. They are currently evaluating the intensity of the problem and what would be our possible solutions."


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7626 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 02:19
by Perry
3 Replies
2632 Views
Last post June 20, 2008, 23:26
by Peter
7 Replies
3411 Views
Last post October 14, 2011, 04:43
by leaf
11 Replies
5249 Views
Last post September 19, 2012, 13:04
by CD123
5 Replies
2366 Views
Last post February 19, 2015, 05:33
by jarih

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results