pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Images Search by Image (was Drag and Drop)  (Read 52297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: June 16, 2011, 12:10 »
0
And what about the license attached to the use of this Google service? What do you think about it?

I think you're just basically giving them permission to give you the service.


« Reply #101 on: June 16, 2011, 12:46 »
0
"Getty letters" is the best that have been ever done in this field. Infractors can get angry, but most of them don't try it again. And it's not necessary to go to trial; one good lesson for the thieves is losing their customers, when the customer feels that has been put in trouble by the designer.

ShadySue

« Reply #102 on: June 16, 2011, 12:55 »
0
Huh, I've just found the same pic on two different blogs, both credited to House Beautiful. I guess it's off the HB site, as that site didn't show up on the search. As they are blogs, I've given them the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was done out of ignorance, not malice. So I've emailled them.
However, one I found watermarked on a Norwegian site, with three other iStock pics watermarked, I passed on to CE.

XPTO

« Reply #103 on: June 16, 2011, 13:06 »
0
And what about the license attached to the use of this Google service? What do you think about it?

I think you're just basically giving them permission to give you the service.

First of all you, as an exclusive iStock contributor, you should read really carefully the 11.2 point.

And I don't think I understand exactly what you mean. To me it sounds like  a rights grab. English is not my first language but it seems clear what the sentences in bold say.

For example:

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

This doesn't sound like I'm giving them permission for me to use the service. In fact that sounds a little non-sense to me... I read that as they have the right to use any content I submit to the service in any way they want . If I'm wrong please clarify it to me.

The point 11.2 refers again to the "Content" as to what the user submits to service provided by Google and implies a loss of exclusivity of any content submited to the service.

And in the point number 11.3:

"Google (...) may (a) transmit or distribute your Content (...) and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary (...) You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions."

I remember a controversy with license terms similar to these upon the launch of Google Chrome, to the point that Google had to change those terms.

Again, English may not be my first language but when I read "your content" or "Content which you submit" I understand it as the images dragged and dropped to the search box, since that is the ONLY content I own in all the process.

If I'm wrong I'd appreciate an explanation.

« Reply #104 on: June 16, 2011, 13:12 »
0
"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services"

"for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services"

"the required technical steps to provide the Services"

How do you expect them to provide you with the service if you don't give them permission?

XPTO

« Reply #105 on: June 16, 2011, 13:36 »
0
"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services"

"for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services"

"the required technical steps to provide the Services"

How do you expect them to provide you with the service if you don't give them permission?

If it's them who own the service, and I am the user who goes to their site and use it (not being forced to) where am I in any position to give them permission for anything? Aren't they the ones that allow me to use it?

And even if it refers to the "storage", use or modification of the images so that the service can technically function I don't think it does answer to the "your Content" question completely.

The point 11.2 refers to "a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies", being the "such Content" what is referred in point 11.1 as "any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.".

I'm not the only one reading these terms like this and the other people (in alamy forum for example) are native English speakers. It continues to sound like the rules of many of the photography contests available nowadays.

But as someone said in the alamy forum: "Even with the worst interpretation of those conditions it would be worth it to refute a claim that one of your pictures was orphaned works. "

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #106 on: June 16, 2011, 14:49 »
0
Your guess is incorrect, certainly in the UK. I personally know of two clients who have received such letters from Getty both for over 1000 Gbp who paid up immediately. ( Not in relation to any work my company did by the way)

Whether the threats were enforceable was a risk they were not prepared to take, and many others do the same thing as a result of the publicity that surrounds these letters.  Google such terms as 'getty images scam' 'getty threatening letters'  'getty fsb'. The FSB is the Federation of Small Businesses and has been covering this topic for many years.

Here's an example of the sort of publicity Getty letter receive:

http://copyrightaction.com/forum/the-real-cost-of-being-sued-by-getty

Getty going after small legitimate businesses and gaining publicity for copyright issues is one thing but I doubt such education reaches or effects the actions of the bulk of the unlawful users of images that these google searches will unearth. And I also wonder whether actual copyright owners get the recovered amounts from those that pay.


that's good...I'm glad to be wrong. though I'd guess many times the letters are sent to people who inadvertently abused a license or something. I can't see many image thieves--who operate unscrupulously as a rule--shaking in their boots over letters from Getty. and I don't think there's much you can do about those kinds of thieves on the internet.

« Reply #107 on: June 16, 2011, 15:45 »
0
I've just found a complete rip-off of one of my illustrations on Shutterstock. Reported it to IS, but you couldn't get more blatant.

Xalanx

« Reply #108 on: June 16, 2011, 15:57 »
0
pfff.... a new way to find lots of watermarked (and obviously unpayed) images in use.

« Reply #109 on: June 16, 2011, 16:02 »
0
And what about the license attached to the use of this Google service? What do you think about it?

I think you're just basically giving them permission to give you the service.
Really? What about the modify, distribute, and royalty-free?? Those are odd terms for this type of service, or not?

« Reply #110 on: June 16, 2011, 16:06 »
0
pfff.... a new way to find lots of watermarked (and obviously unpayed) images in use.


Sent a note to FT.
Quote
I found one of my images watermarked from Fotolia in several sites:

http://theenglishstars.blogspot.com/2010/06/airport.html
http://www.infoaviacao.com/2010/02/em-marco-tem-novas-turmas-de-check-in.html
http://machhen-travel.blogspot.com/
http://deliraradois.blogspot.com/2010/08/checking-in.html
http://taxitravel.com.br/
http://ulatenglishbox.wordpress.com/2010/05/page/5/
Answers:    
Fotolia :    Thank you for the email we will make an effort to resolve the issues.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #111 on: June 16, 2011, 16:13 »
0
for iStock contributors, they've posted an admin update regarding this issue. I think exclusive iStock contributors in particular are better to send these issues through admin to handle communication. it seems already a number of people are going off half-cocked and contacting sites with images on them and I think in some cases it may be a honest mistake, or a customer who purchased a license. in cases where there is an infringement, I think it should be handled by those in the legal know.

I'd hate to see potential or current buyers turned off an agency because of interaction with an angry contributor.

« Reply #112 on: June 16, 2011, 16:29 »
0
Really? What about the modify, distribute, and royalty-free?? Those are odd terms for this type of service, or not?

Is anyone actually reading these terms or just pulling out bits?

Seriously, you can upload or send any image online there, not just stuff you hold copyright on.  Just because I send a picture of the Mona Lisa through doesn't mean I'm telling google they can use it in an ad.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2011, 22:01 by sjlocke »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #113 on: June 16, 2011, 22:32 »
0
Really? What about the modify, distribute, and royalty-free?? Those are odd terms for this type of service, or not?

Is anyone actually reading these terms or just pulling out bits?

Seriously, you can upload or send any image online there, not just stuff you hold copyright on.  Just because I send a picture of the Mona Lisa through doesn't mean I'm telling google they can use it in an ad.

I only pull out tidbits that help support my agenda.

ShadySue

« Reply #114 on: June 17, 2011, 04:33 »
0
for iStock contributors, they've posted an admin update regarding this issue. I think exclusive iStock contributors in particular are better to send these issues through admin to handle communication. it seems already a number of people are going off half-cocked and contacting sites with images on them and I think in some cases it may be a honest mistake, or a customer who purchased a license. in cases where there is an infringement, I think it should be handled by those in the legal know.

I'd hate to see potential or current buyers turned off an agency because of interaction with an angry contributor.

Hmmm. We'll see.
Of the two I contacted yesterday (very mildly and before Joyze posted), both using the same image credited to 'House Beautiful', one has got back to me already, very apologetic and said it's a personal, non commercial blog (clearly true) and she can't pay for images and has taken the image down. She also mentioned she'd have to buy ten credits to get one pic costing, as she put it, 'somewhere between 2 and 5 credits'.
However, that's an immediate Result inasmuch as she has taken the pic down.

I'm finding very few of mine with iStock watermarks, and those I've found have been in forums, asking a question or illustrating a point. Like I said above, I have contacted CE about one forum with four watermarked images. Had a reply back from CE telling me that it would be dealt with in due time, when it came to its turn. Would someone pay for an illustrative image to go on a forum? We'll see. Is that considered 'fair use'? I've seen watermarked images on both the iStock forum and here. Maybe they're always images by the posting contributor. What about hotlinking? Years ago, I contacted CE about a hotlinked image of mine, and months later it was still hotlinked to (with the istock watermark) on the same site.

I can tell quite easily (as previous posts) that someone has copied an image from another site, e.g. if it's credited to another site (several instances), or in the case I mentioned, when the blogger said, "I don't know where this is, but it's really cool" (and invites people to download the pic from his site). On iStock, I have the location mentioned down to about 1/2 mile. Will this guy buy an image to put on his site when he can't invite people to download? I think he's probably a kid who doesn't know anything about stock agencies or copyright. I hardly think so, his whole site is like that: just collections of 'cool natural phenomena' that have caught his eye.
If there are a lot of uses with exactly the same crop and size, clearly most are copied from each other, but it would be more difficult for me to establish who legitimately bought the image. Again, many of these seem to be used in forums.

So, what's more important? He won't become a buyer, and all the time I'd wait for CE (weeks/months), people could be downloading the image to their heart's content, thinking it's OK. If I write to him directly, he might take it down today.

Much as it might surprise people here, most 'civvies' think you can download any images from the web, especially for personal/non-profit use. Even if they would never steal a photo from an agency and remove the watermark, if they found an image on a site with the invitation to download, they're probably not going to check whether that is a legitimate invitation. Even Google, gazillions of miles above TinEye as it is, doesn't record a fairly high proportion of my images as being on iStock, so even someone who went to that trouble wouldn't always know.

I'd certainly contact CE if it were a commercial use, but that would be more difficult unless it had a watermark - not likely to be credited to another site or 'I don't know what this is, but it's cool' - or no download shows. So far, I haven't found any of my 0 dl files in use, so I'm pretty sure that files in many cases are being 'lifted' from other sites.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 04:54 by ShadySue »

« Reply #115 on: June 17, 2011, 05:44 »
0
ShadySue,

It happened to me once to find an image of mine in a business blog credited to a webiste. I assumed that the website had purchased a license, and the blogger used it without knowing this was wrong. I sent them an email explaining the situation, offering a link to one of the stock sites to purchase it, they apologized for the mistake and removed the image.

« Reply #116 on: June 17, 2011, 06:12 »
0
Really? What about the modify, distribute, and royalty-free?? Those are odd terms for this type of service, or not?

Seriously, you can upload or send any image online there, not just stuff you hold copyright on.  Just because I send a picture of the Mona Lisa through doesn't mean I'm telling google they can use it in an ad.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.

If you dont have the rights you cannot give google a licence.
If you upload your own work - then you are opting in and giving them a licence simply by uploading.

Push comes to shove, you have granted google a licence legally and thats that - dont use google services and you dont


PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #117 on: June 17, 2011, 06:16 »
0
I'm finding quite a few images that are the exact size as a site's thumbnails.

I highly doubt someone would buy an XS at around 424 x 283 and resize it to 110 x 74.

« Reply #118 on: June 17, 2011, 07:24 »
0
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of DCMA takedown notices - the aim is to get third parties such as web hosts to take down your images, not as a remedy against the person who has stolen the images themselves.

For example - userX posts your image on flickr. You send the DCMA notice to flickr to take down the images. If you know who userX is, you can sue them for stealing your work. If userx has their own website userx.com, you send the DCMA notice to their web host to take down the content. If flickr or the webhost don't do it, they themselves risk becoming liable for the copyright infringement.

Getty sending letters of demand when they find a culprit is absolutely the correct way of enforcing copyright. In some cases people have a legitimate way of getting around copyright violations - for example they paid a web developer to build a site for them, the web developer stole the images without the knowledge or consent of the client - but in that case the web developer is still liable for the copyright breach, and can be sued themselves and the website owner still needs to pull down the images. If someone gets caught out without a valid excuse or defence, then paying up is probably the best thing they can do, (or hope that they're too small a fish for someone to worry about frying).

Basically you should be sending DCMA notices to Google, Yahoo, Webhosts, etc. Letters of demand for damages for past copyright violation and takedown notices to anyone who is actually stealing your work. If you do this, remember to document violations with screenshots etc & probably include them in any correspondence.

To me this tool seems to be a way of making it much easier to track down violations of copyright, and should see an increase of legitimate uses, rather than the opposite.  Lets see how it pans out.

« Reply #119 on: June 17, 2011, 08:59 »
0
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of DCMA takedown notices - the aim is to get third parties such as web hosts to take down your images, not as a remedy against the person who has stolen the images themselves.

For example - userX posts your image on flickr. You send the DCMA notice to flickr to take down the images. If you know who userX is, you can sue them for stealing your work. If userx has their own website userx.com, you send the DCMA notice to their web host to take down the content. If flickr or the webhost don't do it, they themselves risk becoming liable for the copyright infringement.

Getty sending letters of demand when they find a culprit is absolutely the correct way of enforcing copyright. In some cases people have a legitimate way of getting around copyright violations - for example they paid a web developer to build a site for them, the web developer stole the images without the knowledge or consent of the client - but in that case the web developer is still liable for the copyright breach, and can be sued themselves and the website owner still needs to pull down the images. If someone gets caught out without a valid excuse or defence, then paying up is probably the best thing they can do, (or hope that they're too small a fish for someone to worry about frying).

Basically you should be sending DCMA notices to Google, Yahoo, Webhosts, etc. Letters of demand for damages for past copyright violation and takedown notices to anyone who is actually stealing your work. If you do this, remember to document violations with screenshots etc & probably include them in any correspondence.

To me this tool seems to be a way of making it much easier to track down violations of copyright, and should see an increase of legitimate uses, rather than the opposite.  Lets see how it pans out.

I totally agree with what you are saying but I don't see any harm in sending DMCA notices to individuals, either. You are talking about suing, but in most instances, for most contributors, that isn't going to happen. A good portion of the people using watermarked images are just ignorant of the copyright violation. For the thieves who are posting hundreds or thousands of stolen images, most definitely it should be reported to the ISPs.

« Reply #120 on: June 17, 2011, 11:14 »
0
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the purpose of DCMA takedown notices - the aim is to get third parties such as web hosts to take down your images, not as a remedy against the person who has stolen the images themselves.

For example - userX posts your image on flickr. You send the DCMA notice to flickr to take down the images. If you know who userX is, you can sue them for stealing your work. If userx has their own website userx.com, you send the DCMA notice to their web host to take down the content. If flickr or the webhost don't do it, they themselves risk becoming liable for the copyright infringement.

Getty sending letters of demand when they find a culprit is absolutely the correct way of enforcing copyright. In some cases people have a legitimate way of getting around copyright violations - for example they paid a web developer to build a site for them, the web developer stole the images without the knowledge or consent of the client - but in that case the web developer is still liable for the copyright breach, and can be sued themselves and the website owner still needs to pull down the images. If someone gets caught out without a valid excuse or defence, then paying up is probably the best thing they can do, (or hope that they're too small a fish for someone to worry about frying).

Basically you should be sending DCMA notices to Google, Yahoo, Webhosts, etc. Letters of demand for damages for past copyright violation and takedown notices to anyone who is actually stealing your work. If you do this, remember to document violations with screenshots etc & probably include them in any correspondence.

To me this tool seems to be a way of making it much easier to track down violations of copyright, and should see an increase of legitimate uses, rather than the opposite.  Lets see how it pans out.

I totally agree with what you are saying but I don't see any harm in sending DMCA notices to individuals, either. You are talking about suing, but in most instances, for most contributors, that isn't going to happen. A good portion of the people using watermarked images are just ignorant of the copyright violation. For the thieves who are posting hundreds or thousands of stolen images, most definitely it should be reported to the ISPs.

Its just not what the notice is for. I don't see why I should identify myself and provide all my details to someone who has stolen my work. Its much easier to track down their ISP in any case, and more effective.

Sending out the notice to those who have knowingly or unknowingly done the wrong thing perpetuates the idea that a takedown notice is the worst thing that can happen. I don't see what's wrong with asking them at the very least to purchase a legitimate license. Its not like the images on microstock sites are particularly expensive.

In many cases violators are using your copyrighted work to generate traffic on their website through google adsense or similar programs. In that case, report them to Google and get them banned from adsense for violating the terms of that program. If their page is indexed in google and your images are showing up in the search, sending the DMCA notice to google will make them remove the page and images from the search and penalise that person's website by cutting off traffic.

ShadySue

« Reply #121 on: June 17, 2011, 11:45 »
0
So, I have my second reply, an apology and a removal from her website, so two within a day. Better than CE can manage, as they had a backlog. It'll be interesting to see if they can 'convert' from an apology to a sale. If not, faster to do it myself.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #122 on: June 17, 2011, 11:47 »
0

I read into it, most ppl asked around, and were told to ignore it, so they did and nothing happened. Few might have payed up. Meanwhile, you can download 30 gig packages of stock photos just from p2p. The pissard thing is that ppl. who resell the shots in templates etc, or hype up a domain with 'free whatever', might just make more money than some photogs with their own shots, but I personally think its the micro Rf thing that got to the point where everyone gets ok money/work out of the shots except the photographer.

I agree with you aboutthe part where there are a TON of stolen stuff on the net, but I have had good luck with the people I have chased down using my images illegally. I send a DMCA notice and tell them that they must remove the image or purchase a license and I provide a link for that. Most, of course, take the image down, but with all of that plus an explanation on copyright infringement, I would like to hope I am educating some of the public. Of course there are always a*sholes that are, well, just that, and will seek revenge. Not much you can do with stupid.

I understand your motives and I would kinda agree witrh you, but it really is waste of time especially if they don't even buy it afterwards. You can go crazy hunting the web if you take this too seriously, there's just an army of millions and millions vs. you. IMHO: hopeless. : /

« Reply #123 on: June 17, 2011, 11:52 »
0
I understand your motives and I would kinda agree witrh you, but it really is waste of time especially if they don't even buy it afterwards. You can go crazy hunting the web if you take this too seriously, there's just an army of millions and millions vs. you. IMHO: hopeless. : /

I agree, it sure feels hopeless sometimes. I do what I can and let the rest go.  :)

« Reply #124 on: June 17, 2011, 11:58 »
0
So, I have my second reply, an apology and a removal from her website, so two within a day. Better than CE can manage, as they had a backlog. It'll be interesting to see if they can 'convert' from an apology to a sale. If not, faster to do it myself.

I agree...faster to do yourself. But as pointed out by Holgs, if people think they are only going to get a slap on the wrist, they will likely do it again.

But I don't see any other way, because the agencies must also be inundated with stolen image sites, and copyright infringement shouldn't only be handled if a contributor is exclusive. In many cases, the watermark is still on the image, so being non-exclusive doesn't mean one doesn't know where the image came from, an argument exclusives frequently use to discount complaints by non-exclusives. But I would much rather admonish a thief and have my image removed than do nothing at all. At least there's a 50/50 shot they might NOT use stolen images the next time around, and they might purchase a proper license.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7627 Views
Last post June 19, 2008, 02:19
by Perry
3 Replies
2633 Views
Last post June 20, 2008, 23:26
by Peter
7 Replies
3411 Views
Last post October 14, 2011, 04:43
by leaf
0 Replies
1577 Views
Last post August 31, 2012, 13:05
by JanNowak
9 Replies
4151 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results