pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google image search redesigned - hi res stock photos  (Read 13562 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2013, 14:25 »
0
And "First Place" it's mine... at 3600px... >:(

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/investor/files/2012/04/api_f-16_fighting_falcon_istockphoto.jpg

IStock already notified... but, should I write to blog owner, explaining how do they re-size an ***** image?



« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2013, 07:18 »
+3
That's just crazy, sometimes I simply can't believe things like that are actually happening. Where are we going to?

What's the future of stock photography?

Found lots of Facebook pages using stolen photos, and I'm talking about big companies, like Canon, Epson, nobody cares anymore. We need to act, or else this industry will collapse.

red

« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2013, 07:48 »
0
Aren't you an admin on DT (or at least you were)? Isn't there anything official that can be done about this or are companies like DT not able to legally fight back? If not, why?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 09:18 by cuppacoffee »

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2013, 07:57 »
+1
And "First Place" it's mine... at 3600px... >:(

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/investor/files/2012/04/api_f-16_fighting_falcon_istockphoto.jpg

IStock already notified... but, should I write to blog owner, explaining how do they re-size an ***** image?


Happened to me once; CR wrote to them and it was solved in reasonable time (a couple of days). In this case, I'm sure, by looking at the (non-profit's) site I'm sure it was just ignorance, not malice so they changed it as soon as they were asked to.
I'd wait to see what CR says, then a couple of days more to see if the offenders comply, but IME, CR seem to think their responsibility begins and ends with sending one email.

« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2013, 08:12 »
+1
At the very least, Google should also be including the copyright metadata in the image info as well. By not doing so, they are, IMO, accessories to the crime of image theft.

Along with this, they could also be responsible and post a simple one sentence statement at the top of each image search explaining copyright and the potential penalties for violation. But, alas, I'm pretty sure that encouraging a behemoth such as Google to be responsible would require economic arm twisting and/or legal force.

« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2013, 08:45 »
0
Aren't you an admin on DT (or at least you were)? Isn't there anything official that can be done about this or are companies like DT not able to legally fight back? If not, why not?

I'm still an "admin" (ambiguous word, isn't it?) on DT, but I'm not involved in legal actions. That's the lawyers' job and unfortunately I don't know anything about their job, just like they don't know anything about mine. I'm just a photo reviewer. The official reply from Dreamstime was already posted by jsnover, and I can't add anything to it.

But I'm also a photographer, and a stock contributor, hence my concern. What's the future of stock photographers, if we're only watching? We have to be very vocal about these wrong things happening, we have to point out copyright infringement as loud as we can, or else...

ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2013, 08:58 »
0
Along with this, they could also be responsible and post a simple one sentence statement at the top of each image search explaining copyright and the potential penalties for violation. But, alas, I'm pretty sure that encouraging a behemoth such as Google to be responsible would require economic arm twisting and/or legal force.

As before, if you click on one image there is a small notice which says 'Image may be subject to copyright'. (Maybe that's just google.co.uk?) But it's not exactly evident how you would find out whether the image is copyright. The random photo I clicked on was in hundreds of instances across the web,
http://tinyurl.com/ayzlobm
and you'd have to be very persistent and at least a bit knowledgeable to even make an educated guess. You'd need to know about Google Image Search and how to install it to your choice of browser. (I gave up trying to keep fixing it with new versions of FF and now have Chrome on my computer only to use GIS). Then you'd have to recognise the names of all the stock agencies. But of course, even if not on an agency, it's still copyright, but finding the copyright holder would be even more difficult if they have it on a personal site.
That particular pic I randomly chose is effectively orphaned - maybe deliberately by Google(?). OTOH, it's very easy to copy a photo and thereby lose the metadata, so maybe just ignorance by some user in the chain.

red

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2013, 09:25 »
0

I'm still an "admin" (ambiguous word, isn't it?) on DT, but I'm not involved in legal actions. That's the lawyers' job and unfortunately I don't know anything about their job, just like they don't know anything about mine. I'm just a photo reviewer. The official reply from Dreamstime was already posted by jsnover, and I can't add anything to it.

But I'm also a photographer, and a stock contributor, hence my concern. What's the future of stock photographers, if we're only watching? We have to be very vocal about these wrong things happening, we have to point out copyright infringement as loud as we can, or else...

I understand. Whenever you have chimed in on the DT forums you are helpful and straightforward, I appreciate that. I'm in a similar position there but not as "high" up as you. And, like you I am a photographer who deplores what is going on with Google.

« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2013, 09:30 »
0
... The random photo I clicked on was in hundreds of instances across the web,
http://tinyurl.com/ayzlobm...


And how nice that they are sorted by size for you, with the largest right there up front. Go Google!!

« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2013, 10:54 »
0
Nice update. It is definitely easier to use now. Hopefully, this will bring in more sales.

« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2013, 10:57 »
0
Aren't you an admin on DT (or at least you were)? Isn't there anything official that can be done about this or are companies like DT not able to legally fight back? If not, why not?

I'm still an "admin" (ambiguous word, isn't it?) on DT, but I'm not involved in legal actions. That's the lawyers' job and unfortunately I don't know anything about their job, just like they don't know anything about mine. I'm just a photo reviewer. The official reply from Dreamstime was already posted by jsnover, and I can't add anything to it.

But I'm also a photographer, and a stock contributor, hence my concern. What's the future of stock photographers, if we're only watching? We have to be very vocal about these wrong things happening, we have to point out copyright infringement as loud as we can, or else...


Any chance of getting a link to that? I must have missed that.

« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2013, 10:59 »
0

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2013, 18:02 »
0
Happened to me once; CR wrote to them and it was solved in reasonable time (a couple of days). In this case, I'm sure, by looking at the (non-profit's) site I'm sure it was just ignorance, not malice so they changed it as soon as they were asked to.
I'd wait to see what CR says, then a couple of days more to see if the offenders comply, but IME, CR seem to think their responsibility begins and ends with sending one email.

Thanks for the reply.

I'll wait CR reply, and then after some time, will check if they are keeping full res image online.

« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2013, 19:04 »
0
As before, if you click on one image there is a small notice which says 'Image may be subject to copyright'. (Maybe that's just google.co.uk?) But it's not exactly evident how you would find out whether the image is copyright. The random photo I clicked on was in hundreds of instances across the web,
http://tinyurl.com/ayzlobm
and you'd have to be very persistent and at least a bit knowledgeable to even make an educated guess. You'd need to know about Google Image Search and how to install it to your choice of browser. (I gave up trying to keep fixing it with new versions of FF and now have Chrome on my computer only to use GIS). Then you'd have to recognise the names of all the stock agencies. But of course, even if not on an agency, it's still copyright, but finding the copyright holder would be even more difficult if they have it on a personal site.
That particular pic I randomly chose is effectively orphaned - maybe deliberately by Google(?). OTOH, it's very easy to copy a photo and thereby lose the metadata, so maybe just ignorance by some user in the chain.


I clicked on the "learn more" link and followed the trail, finally sending this e-mail:

Quote
Hi - your Google Drive stock images says that they are labeled (not licensed) for commercial use with a link to "learn more".  That takes you to an article saying that it's up to the user to figure out what license is available, followed by this warning:  Before reusing content that youve found, you should verify that its license is legitimate, and check the exact terms of reuse stated in the license. For example, most licenses require that you give credit to the image creator when reusing an image. Google has no way of knowing whether the license is legitimate, so we arent making any representation that the content is actually lawfully licensed.
 
How is one supposed to find out about legitimate image licenses?  There is no link back to the source, no listing of the source and reference to the copyright owner or artist.


This is the response I got back (which sounds like it came from a 15 year old high school intern): 
Quote
Hey Karen,  You just may get your answer in the "Google Drive Help Forum"  http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/drive
Just pick a discussion category, jump in and post your question.  You'll soon have your answer.

Cheers, Shannon


Translated means: We have no clue and we really don't care, that's your problem, not ours - go find your own crowd-sourced answer that may or may not be correct.  :o

Poncke

« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2013, 12:09 »
0
You should post that question and answer in the forum and see what response you get.

In the mean time, what the feck is up with IS, any answers from them??

« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2013, 12:13 »
0
I have heard nothing from IS or SS so far.

RacePhoto

« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2013, 12:23 »
0
I have heard nothing from IS or SS so far.

What's odd is all I see for my name is thumbnails from SS, BS and one from 3dstudio. (nice reminder, thanks, I just deleted all on 3Dstudio) ;)

Biggest one is 450x353 from SS.

I'm searching on my Micro name. Should I be doing something else? Searching my real name I find the largest image is on SS forums, 1000x### where I posted it?

What am I doing wrong that I don't find larger images like others here do?


« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2013, 12:27 »
0
I have heard nothing from IS or SS so far.

What's odd is all I see for my name is thumbnails from SS, BS and one from 3dstudio. (nice reminder, thanks, I just deleted all on 3Dstudio) ;)

Biggest one is 450x353 from SS.

I'm searching on my Micro name. Should I be doing something else? Searching my real name I find the largest image is on SS forums, 1000x### where I posted it?

What am I doing wrong that I don't find larger images like others here do?

Your name isn't in the file name the stock sites use when buyers download images. It's when you search on the agency name (as it appears in the files downloaded) that you hit the treasure trove of high res images. You might try the image number of your best sellers as an image search and see what that yields

Milinz

« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2013, 21:57 »
0
And "First Place" it's mine... at 3600px... >:(

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/investor/files/2012/04/api_f-16_fighting_falcon_istockphoto.jpg

IStock already notified... but, should I write to blog owner, explaining how do they re-size an ***** image?


That's Forbes not Google. The problem isn't the search it's the places they find them. If there was no Google or Google images all the other searches will find them. Don't blame Google for having the best software.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2013, 22:02 »
0
Some of the images I found of mine on Google Images are from my website.  Fortunately I have only put very small sizes up on the web but they are supposedly right click protected.  May have to downsize even further....very maddening and I can't believe it's legal.

Milinz

« Reply #45 on: January 31, 2013, 22:16 »
0
Some of the images I found of mine on Google Images are from my website.  Fortunately I have only put very small sizes up on the web but they are supposedly right click protected.  May have to downsize even further....very maddening and I can't believe it's legal.

It's illegal to have a search find things?

mlwinphoto

« Reply #46 on: January 31, 2013, 22:36 »
0
Some of the images I found of mine on Google Images are from my website.  Fortunately I have only put very small sizes up on the web but they are supposedly right click protected.  May have to downsize even further....very maddening and I can't believe it's legal.

It's illegal to have a search find things?

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see any way to prevent someone from 'taking' the image from Google Images and bypassing having to license from me.  Could be wrong, I suppose.

« Reply #47 on: February 01, 2013, 11:19 »
0
Webmasters are considering blocking Google images according to this blog and others. I think they feel that they've been locked out due to the changes made - no useful traffic to their websites from Google Images as there was just a few days ago. Some of the comments are worth a read.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2013, 11:23 by halfshag »

« Reply #48 on: February 01, 2013, 12:35 »
+1
What a depressing theme - once companies become successful and dominant they ignore, or abuse, the people who create the content that made them big and successful.

Getty or Google: at some level - biting the hand that feeds them - they're so similar. Without any content to search, Google wouldn't be able to sell ads and make a packet. Without any contributor copyright audio, video, illustrations & images, Getty'd be out of business.

Except that we (contributors) might get hurt, it'd be fun to see those two try and be partners so we can watch Google crush Getty (Google makes nice now, but once they've cornered whatever it is they want, Getty'll get kicked to the curb). Greedy baskets both of them

« Reply #49 on: February 01, 2013, 13:05 »
+1
What a depressing theme - once companies become successful and dominant they ignore, or abuse, the people who create the content that made them big and successful.

I honestly don't really see what the big outrage is here. You could sort your search results by size before. This change really isn't all that different. Google isn't the one that is putting these large resolution files out there. Will there be abuses? Yes, of course. Does Google drive sales and bring paying customers in as well? Yes, they do.

I'm of the opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives here. And, the negatives are things that Google can't fix like sites posting images at resolutions they aren't supposed to or people stealing files from sites. Those two things will probably exist as long as the internet does.


 

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