MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google image search redesigned - hi res stock photos  (Read 13556 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."

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.

« Reply #50 on: February 01, 2013, 13:13 »
0
^^ agree. You can do a reverse search for year(s) already with the largest file first.

« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2013, 13:48 »
-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.

Exactly.  You have to expect this sort of thing, it's a control issue.  If you want full 100% control, you are probably in the wrong sector of the business.  You'd be better off selling only rights managed and treat every image your product like one of your children.  No it's not pleasing when people use purchased images in a way that goes against the terms of use, but it's not within anyone's control to be able to police 100% of the violations.

Poncke

« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2013, 13:54 »
+1
No, the difference is that Google is now showing the full res on THEIR search engine. You no longer have to go the website. Its taking traffic away from sites. And traffic is the life line of a website. Google is messing with peoples livelihoods once more.

« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2013, 14:33 »
0
No, the difference is that Google is now showing the full res on THEIR search engine. You no longer have to go the website. Its taking traffic away from sites. And traffic is the life line of a website. Google is messing with peoples livelihoods once more.

The only people who will suffer are the ones who build websites where they give away images to attract views to ads. Sounds like a good deal for us, as if those sites go out of business we will have less free competition.

If Google have a business end in view in these changes, it may be to hurt companies which sell advertising on a pay-per-view basis.

« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2013, 15:14 »
0
Can't help thinking that with all the problems with Getty/iStock/Google it's time to start looking at RM again. The "stack em high, sell em cheap" strategy only works if there is a method (agencies) in place to collect pennies and pay out the dollars.

If that business model is destroyed by a Google ultra efficient at finding large stock images without watermarks, or a greedy bunch of corporate socipaths like Getty, then surely the only option is to reverse the flow again with RM by limiting the distribution by price? Less images out there means less opportuinty for theft. RM images - or a similar licensing model, must be a lot easier to protect.

Stock imagery won't go away - if value from RF is degraded the licensing model will just change it's form again.

« Reply #55 on: February 04, 2013, 06:04 »
+1
So, now that D-Day madness is almost over, I can see there are more than 100 pages only on this forum about Getty/Google Drive situation. That's a lot!

While here on this topic we have only 3 pages of messages.

Which makes me wonder: Do you really understand the problem?

Google Drive has about 10k pageviews per day. Do you know how many page views per day Google Images has? 1 BILLION! Yes, 1 billion pageviews a day, for over 10 billion images indexed.

Can you even calculate how small the Getty/Google Drive situation is, compared with the real issue?

Here's an article published today by Achilles, on his blog: http://blog.dreamstime.com/2013/02/04/google-images-new-layout-how-this-impacts-photographers-and-webmasters_art38649

Any input is highly appreciated.

We need to think of a better strategy to protect our images and educate people, if we want to be here next year.

Microbius

« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2013, 06:25 »
0
If Google decided to act in a moral way and stopped trying to shirk its responsibility and hide behind safe harbor provisions this could actually be good for the industry.

Their search is getting so good that it can find all instances of an image out there on the internet in one search. Imagine if they then allowed the owner of the images to tag all instances with their copyright info. So when any one of the images came up in a search the copyright holder's info would be right there allowing the searcher to track ownership and buy a licence.

If they actually cared about people looking into the copyright status of an image before pinching it from one of their searches they would already be working on  this. Surely it would be the best thing for many of their users who are looking for an image to use too.


Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2013, 07:09 »
0
Which makes me wonder: Do you really understand the problem?

Yeah, sure, Getty, and its partner in crime, Google, are killing Microstock. Feb 2nd is over, now we wait and see if the big guns in MS will sue. Personally, I'm now focusing outside the reaches of Getty and Google.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7621 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
3405 Views
Last post October 14, 2011, 04:43
by leaf
11 Replies
5246 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