MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google Images Search by Image (was Drag and Drop)  (Read 52268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2011, 17:00 »
0
anyone know anyone that works at google??? I know the employees can devote one day a week to a project they choose to work on. Someone whisper into their ears about creating  something that will benefit the artists and provide an alternative to the agencies! Those geeks can think something up!!!


« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2011, 17:05 »
0
Ok, this is where we can ghet the plugin from:
http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searchbyimage.html


Yes, scroll down to the bottom of the page and you download the extension for firefox or chrome. I just did it and you just right click on an image...it shows up underneath the Tineye extension and works basically the same way. So much easier than using google image search.

PS Thanks Paulie.

« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2011, 17:20 »
0
Thanks for the tip, I even found a few without watermark, that looked legit.

This one was so sweet that I almost can forgive him for stealing my picture and claiming copyright to it...

« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2011, 17:30 »
0
I think I'm misunderstanding what you mean - could you clarify please?

It would be possible to build a subscription service such that the images would stop working if the subscription ended. Even before that, digital watermarking already exists. It is possible to track every copy of an image sold.

But I suppose this sort of thing doesn't work if a user wants to alter the image or use it in design.

ShadySue

« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2011, 17:39 »
0
Well, I found one of my images right away with no watermark, but credited to another site which has three of my images probably legitimately purchased. So I guess they just 'lifted' the image from the other site.
One of my top-sellers, so apparently 10 pages of hits. That was just the first one, on a tumblr, whatever that is.
Of course, once someone posts a photo without a watermark, even if licensed, that's it up for grabs.

Later - I've just found many incidences of one image on different sites with exactly the same crop. Coincidence? I don't think so!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 18:43 by ShadySue »

red

« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2011, 17:44 »
0
tumblr -

It's a free blog service that's easy to use and really pretty cool.

Tumblr, sometimes styled as tumblr., is a microblogging platform that allows users to post text, images, videos, links, quotes and audio to their tumblelog, a short-form blog. Users can follow other users, or choose to make their tumblelog private. The service emphasizes ease of use.

As of May 1, 2011 Tumblr included more than 5 billion total posts and over 17.5 million total blogs.

ShadySue

« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2011, 17:50 »
0
tumblr -
It's a free blog service that's easy to use and really pretty cool.
Tx for the info.

« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2011, 20:32 »
0
wow, yeah a lot of results.

On my first test, on tineye I got 1 result, on google i got 431 results.  This could be bad news for tineye.

« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2011, 21:00 »
0
wow, yeah a lot of results.

On my first test, on tineye I got 1 result, on google i got 431 results.  This could be bad news for tineye.

Correct, probably since Google is indexing everything anyway they just dig in their database (which must be huge) to pull out those results.

That's pretty much the end of using Tineye for me.

« Reply #59 on: June 15, 2011, 21:01 »
0
The words public domain and download free wallpaper next to my photos are really starting to freak me out.  Kinda wish I'd never seen this :(

« Reply #60 on: June 15, 2011, 21:10 »
0
The words public domain and download free wallpaper next to my photos are really starting to freak me out.  Kinda wish I'd never seen this :(

Yeah, for some reason I started seeing a lot of those lately.

Must be profitable to set up one of those cluttered sites where no one really knows which one is free and which one is "premium".

Maybe some visitors get so confused that they unknowingly purchase credits and actually DO buy our images. Who knows...?

« Reply #61 on: June 15, 2011, 21:31 »
0
At first, I was really happy and enjoyed this feature. Very fun.
I see alot of people here talking about "stolen" images. How does one know if images were stolen or rightly purchased?


Perhaps More Importantly:
Then just now I tried something. I wanted to see how many hits a popular istock photo gets. So i tried DrGround's Good news Travels Fast. You get tons of hits. but then, i can sort them by size. Hey look, if i do that I get a high-resolution, non-watermark image that a site is using somewhere. for this image, you can get a 6MP version. Now, it's not legal to take this 6MP image and use it anywhere... but it sure makes it easy...

In short, you can go to a stock site, decide which picture you want, go to google images and get a High-Res, non-watermarked version, quickly. I'm not worried (being a small-timer), but it may be an interesting issue to bring up?
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 21:51 by adijr »

« Reply #62 on: June 15, 2011, 21:43 »
0
You forgot to label your post:

How to get stock images for free

You are correct. That's why I have been sending out DMCA notices to everyone that is hosting my images in high res.

Everything usually over 800 pixels is not allowed for web use.

« Reply #63 on: June 15, 2011, 21:50 »
0
You forgot to label your post:

How to get stock images for free

You are correct. That's why I have been sending out DMCA notices to everyone that is hosting my images in high res.

Everything usually over 800 pixels is not allowed for web use.

:) Sorry, I don't mean to promote it (obviously).

The 800px rule (btw, 800px in higher dimension, you mean?) is actually part of the contract of a sale? Is it true for all agencies?

« Reply #64 on: June 15, 2011, 21:58 »
0
The 800px rule (btw, 800px in higher dimension, you mean?) is actually part of the contract of a sale? Is it true for all agencies?

Dreamstime:
Quote
... For Web use, you must not use the image at a width exceeding 800 pixels unless it is included in your site's design. If the image is part of a design and manipulated accordingly, the image width can be higher than 800 pixels. ...

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

iStock
Quote
... Displaying an original image digitally on-screen larger than 1200 x 800 pixels; video image size limitation is 640 x 480. Any size reproduction is acceptable with substantial changes to the content. ...

huh, didn't remember that one... interesting, quite large though  :P

so i guess the rest is about the same

« Reply #65 on: June 15, 2011, 22:01 »
0
The 800px rule (btw, 800px in higher dimension, you mean?) is actually part of the contract of a sale? Is it true for all agencies?

Dreamstime:
Quote
... For Web use, you must not use the image at a width exceeding 800 pixels unless it is included in your site's design. If the image is part of a design and manipulated accordingly, the image width can be higher than 800 pixels. ...

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

iStock
Quote
... Displaying an original image digitally on-screen larger than 1200 x 800 pixels; video image size limitation is 640 x 480. Any size reproduction is acceptable with substantial changes to the content. ...

huh, didn't remember that one... interesting, quite large though  :P

so i guess the rest is about the same

even at 1200, the (easy-to-steal) problem doesn't go away. but still, good point. Practically speaking, what does it mean "included in the site design"? sounds subjective to me.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #66 on: June 15, 2011, 22:03 »
0
Well, I'm already finding some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about people just copying what's already out there.

I found one of my more popular images with some simple text added to it. One designer probably modified it and it's now on at least 75 other websites.

I'd love to know for each image sold how many are copied. 75 from one image is pretty bad.  


« Reply #67 on: June 15, 2011, 22:07 »
0
Well, I'm already finding some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about people just copying what's already out there.

I found one of my more popular images with some simple text added to it. One designer probably modified it and it's now on at least 75 other websites.

I'd love to know for each image sold how many are copied. 75 from one image is pretty bad.  

I experienced the same. I think we would all be doing really well if all our images would be licensed properly, even at micro prices.

So sad that those cheap ba$tard$ out there can't even spend a few bucks on an image...  >:(

« Reply #68 on: June 15, 2011, 22:11 »
0
Not to mention all the high res files of Vetta and Agency - ouch.

« Reply #69 on: June 15, 2011, 22:31 »
0
Well, I'm already finding some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about people just copying what's already out there.

I found one of my more popular images with some simple text added to it. One designer probably modified it and it's now on at least 75 other websites.

I'd love to know for each image sold how many are copied. 75 from one image is pretty bad.  

I experienced the same. I think we would all be doing really well if all our images would be licensed properly, even at micro prices.

So sad that those cheap ba$tard$ out there can't even spend a few bucks on an image...  >:(

I'm not sure everyone is actually a cheap *insult removed*... honestly, before I bought a DSLR I didnt' know anything about these rules and photos and licenses. I vaguely assumed that you can do anything to any photo and re-post it just fine... It was a simpler time...

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #70 on: June 15, 2011, 22:41 »
0
Hopefully now with this better technology people will start getting busted more often.

But still, something needs to change. RF licensing can't be tracked. Looks like I'll need to try more RM until there's a solution.

Why wouldn't an agency be interested in this? Istock made one sale and lost 75. Istock is making about $10 per download from me so that's $750 worth of lost sales just from one image. With millions of images that's gotta be tens of millions of dollars just falling out of their pockets every year.

« Reply #71 on: June 15, 2011, 22:45 »
0
Why wouldn't an agency be interested in this? Istock made one sale and lost 75. Istock is making about $10 per download from me so that's $750 worth of lost sales just from one image. With millions of images that's gotta be tens of millions of dollars just falling out of their pockets every year.

Nah... a 75x rate is for a specific image you estimated. On average, that factor is probably much much smaller - and where it is, it may be a ton of work to do anything about it (many sites are outside the jurisdictions in which istock sells its licenses, for example). I'm guessing it's a ton of work, for a very small potential $$ increase, and agencies judge that the same work can be put to developing the agency in some other way. Just my guess...

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #72 on: June 15, 2011, 22:46 »
0
Well, I'm already finding some of the stuff I mentioned earlier about people just copying what's already out there.

I found one of my more popular images with some simple text added to it. One designer probably modified it and it's now on at least 75 other websites.

I'd love to know for each image sold how many are copied. 75 from one image is pretty bad.  

I experienced the same. I think we would all be doing really well if all our images would be licensed properly, even at micro prices.

So sad that those cheap ba$tard$ out there can't even spend a few bucks on an image...  >:(

I'm not sure everyone is actually a cheap *insult removed*... honestly, before I bought a DSLR I didnt' know anything about these rules and photos and licenses. I vaguely assumed that you can do anything to any photo and re-post it just fine... It was a simpler time...

Yeah, I think that's a big reason. Most people have no idea or just don't think it's that big of a deal. That needs to change.

A friend of mine has a business partner who made the mistake of copying a Getty image. They went after her with a threat letter and invoice. They didn't tell me what it said but I'm guessing it was a pay-or-be-sued type of deal.

« Reply #73 on: June 15, 2011, 23:14 »
0
Lots of my uses are on pages that aren't in English... about 5 of my dad on Thai people's facebook pages. I presume if you bought it that is legal as far as the stock sites are concerned, but I am not sure FB would be happy about it (and I doubt they were bought for this use).

Some of the European ones were sellers with links back to DT or other stock sites - presumably partner sites?

Interesting, it sure does bring up a lot more than tineye ever did.

--=Tom

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #74 on: June 15, 2011, 23:39 »
0
Yeah, I think that's a big reason. Most people have no idea or just don't think it's that big of a deal. That needs to change.

A friend of mine has a business partner who made the mistake of copying a Getty image. They went after her with a threat letter and invoice. They didn't tell me what it said but I'm guessing it was a pay-or-be-sued type of deal.

I would have guessed a 'cease and desist' rather than pay or be sued. they'd have to actually commit to taking someone to court to see any monetary compensation for usage.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
7619 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
3404 Views
Last post October 14, 2011, 04:43
by leaf
0 Replies
1575 Views
Last post August 31, 2012, 13:05
by JanNowak
9 Replies
4143 Views
Last post March 04, 2013, 23:07
by bruce_blake

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results