Author Topic: Google Images Search by Image (was Drag and Drop) (Read 69484 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #150 on:** June 19, 2011, 15:50 »

Quote from: michaeldb on June 19, 2011, 12:47

Quote from: sharpshot on June 18, 2011, 03:22
I think people became more wary about sharing music files online when bodies like the RIAA started taking legal action against them and it received lots of publicity. I don't think we have anything like that but I think the sites should go after a few of the more blatant copyright infringers. It should be quite straightforward when some of these people have watermarks on their images. A few legal cases would receive publicity and I think that would do a lot more than us sending requests to individuals that are probably just going to remove the images at best.

Yes! We as individuals should not have to pursue infringers. That will not work. It should be the job of the microstock sites. With some of them taking up to 85% commissions from us, they should have money to get some IP lawyers and public relations people on this IMO.

Indeed the should, but that would eat into their highly prized short-term profitability, so it's not going to be high on their priority list.

madelaide · « **Reply #151 on:** June 19, 2011, 17:02 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 19, 2011, 14:47

So far, I haven't found many "infringements", aside from XXL images hosted online. Maybe that speaks to selling exclusively.

It's hard to trace infringements other than watermarked images, large sizes and uses that require EL. Maybe not much to do with being exclusive, but not being in sites that sell subs (given that IS' subs is a totally different concept).

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #152 on:** June 19, 2011, 19:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 19, 2011, 14:47

So far, I haven't found many "infringements", aside from XXL images hosted online. Maybe that speaks to selling exclusively. Or maybe the thieves think my stuff is garbage. I am going to have someone go through my portfolio looking for things to send to CE.

Your images are probably subject to more infringements than all of us combined but yours don't stick out with a watermark. You've sold so many and your images rank so high in google that people will obviously pinch the image without the watermark than with it. They don't have that luxury with my images... yet.

iclick · « **Reply #153 on:** June 20, 2011, 02:20 »

Okay just a follow up for you Guys regarding the web site DesktopNexus a popular Website for free Wallpaper where I found one of my best sellers being flaunted as desktop candy on its welcome page

http://www.desktopnexus.com/

I ended up contacting the offending member direct using the below Shutterstocks DMCA Notice from shutterbuzz and bam! it was removed immediately with an email of apology.

http://buzz.shutterstock.com/tips/protecting-your-content

.... of course the damage has already been done with nearly 2,000 downloads no doubt now in possession of individuals who think they can make the file available elsewhere for free

ShadySue · « **Reply #154 on:** June 20, 2011, 08:42 »

I haven't even had a receipt of email re the two infringements I sent to CE after the first one (that I got a reply to, that it would be dealt with in the order it was received).
IMO, they are, as expected, inundated since this Google feature was introduced. For myself, I will send emails to personal sites where it is pretty certain that someone has 'stolen' a file inadvertantly, especially if they are telling the public they can download it at will. I'm sure all I'll get is the image taken down, but if that stops others downloading them, it's a result. I don't think iStock would be any better than me in getting a private user to pay for a usage, and they say they give them the option. That being the case, I'd rather that it was removed from a site sooner rather than 'in the order it was received'.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #155 on:** June 20, 2011, 13:53 »

Lucky me, my stuff isn't good enough to steal.

I haven't read everything in the thread, but it's been fun. For something else interesting people might try entering their name with the word photo after it (or you pseudo and photo after it) and see where your photos are being used. I did find one unauthorized use, but since it was SpeedTV and it's four years old, I look at it as free publicity. Checked my Micro Pseudo that I've started using and found one on PBS.org, which was funny. Here's a shot with one sale in two years and I found it?

Oh yes, I was surprised that Alamy came up, but I thought only the most recent, then I came up with the theory that only the first page from Alamy comes up. Which in my case is all of the same driver and car which I sent in when he was nominated for an award. I need to upload new mix. Maybe someone can check and see what their Alamy looks like from Google? It searches the Account Name apparently not the individual pseudonyms. It displays the first page of your complete collection (latest uploads)

I have one image, lets call it my best seller, so I did a search. I found it on SS where it's for sale, that's it?

side note:

Quote

Dear GazoPa Users,

Thank you for using GazoPa services. GazoPa.com started at TechCrunch50 in September 2008 and has grown to more than 90,000 unique users per month. However, we have decided to put our time and efforts to BtoB business and have discontinued our BtoC services on June, 2011. We have received lots of inquiries from all over the world and decided to focus on BtoB market especially in China where e-commerce grows dramatically.

When we started our service in 2008, some people were skeptical about our activity. But Since then, the number of images and videos on the internet are increasing and the demand to a navigation tool is growing as well. Considering inquiries that reach to us, we believe similar image search engine would be becoming must-have tool in various kinds of fields. Due to our limited resources, we have had to make the hard decision to shut down our BtoC sites and decided to focus on BtoB market.

We'll be launching a new image search site mainly for research purpose in near future as an alternative tool for our current users.

If you have any questions, please email

One again, thank you all for your support over the years.

Sincerely,
The GazoPa team

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on June 15, 2011, 22:03

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.

SNP · « **Reply #156 on:** June 20, 2011, 19:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 19, 2011, 14:47

So far, I haven't found many "infringements", aside from XXL images hosted online. Maybe that speaks to selling exclusively. Or maybe the thieves think my stuff is garbage. I am going to have someone go through my portfolio looking for things to send to CE.

I think part of the reason you haven't found many is because you're knowledgeable enough to recognize legitimate vs. illegitimate uses. I haven't found many infringements and in most cases I'm cringing reading about contributors contacting 'violators' directly. but I guess for non-exclusives they'd rather not wait for the agency to intervene. It's my guess that in many cases actual clients are being wrongfully contacted. and those who have stolen are a waste of time to contact. they'll take your image down (maybe) and just steal someone else's.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #157 on:** June 20, 2011, 21:03 »

Quote from: SNP on June 20, 2011, 19:06

Quote from: sjlocke on June 19, 2011, 14:47
So far, I haven't found many "infringements", aside from XXL images hosted online. Maybe that speaks to selling exclusively. Or maybe the thieves think my stuff is garbage. I am going to have someone go through my portfolio looking for things to send to CE.

I think part of the reason you haven't found many is because you're knowledgeable enough to recognize legitimate vs. illegitimate uses. I haven't found many infringements and in most cases I'm cringing reading about contributors contacting 'violators' directly. but I guess for non-exclusives they'd rather not wait for the agency to intervene. It's my guess that in many cases actual clients are being wrongfully contacted. and those who have stolen are a waste of time to contact. they'll take your image down (maybe) and just steal someone else's.

It's pretty obvious which images have been used illegitamately. I've only looked up one image (I'm too scared to look at the rest just yet) and found 30 with the Dreamstime watermark mostly on blogs. Those are definitely illegitamate. Ones that require a print or web EL are easy to spot too if you haven't sold any for those images you find.

I'm also cringing about contributors contacting violators but apparently Dreamstime have wiped their hands off it and passed the ball back to us. Pretty crappy move! Risky too I might add. Image some irate contributor sending out an email filled with "F" & "C"s. It could make Dreamstime look very unprofessional. I suggested in the forums that they at least hand us over some standard document to forward with our email but they haven't replied. I personally think they should take their time, hire temp staff if need be and handle it themselves. If Google hadn't provided this feature, we would still be oblivious to what's going on so I don't see any reason why anyone should panick about it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #158 on:** June 20, 2011, 21:19 »

Alert: Hijack completed in seven pages.

For SNP let them steal someone else's images then. That's the whole idea. Not letting them use our work for free because we'll roll over and play dead, due to difficulty in finding abuse, profit or prosecution. You just don't care enough to even write them an email and protect your work. You must be French Canadian - let them eat cake?

Someone please search on your name and see what comes up for Alamy? Just the first page of your main pseudo? My pseudos are all variations on my name, it won't work for myself. Someone with distinctive names would be a better test.

pseudonymous and others. Exactly the problem, you are correct. The agencies don't protect us and don't GAS. The reason the laws are so protective and punishing for music (which stops nothing but it looks good on the news) is the record companies are protecting the industry as a group. You will see Disney, Warner, Sony and the big ones, but it's the industry as a whole that is behind this.

Now who's making the money on photography? We should see Getty, Corbis, MSN and

(whoever owns the five biggest collections in the world) and they should be fighting for stronger laws for their own sake, which will protect us bottom feeders and independent artists. Why don't they care?

Quote from: pseudonymous on June 20, 2011, 21:03

Quote from: SNP on June 20, 2011, 19:06
Quote from: sjlocke on June 19, 2011, 14:47
So far, I haven't found many "infringements", aside from XXL images hosted online. Maybe that speaks to selling exclusively. Or maybe the thieves think my stuff is garbage. I am going to have someone go through my portfolio looking for things to send to CE.

I think part of the reason you haven't found many is because you're knowledgeable enough to recognize legitimate vs. illegitimate uses. I haven't found many infringements and in most cases I'm cringing reading about contributors contacting 'violators' directly. but I guess for non-exclusives they'd rather not wait for the agency to intervene. It's my guess that in many cases actual clients are being wrongfully contacted. and those who have stolen are a waste of time to contact. they'll take your image down (maybe) and just steal someone else's.

It's pretty obvious which images have been used illegitamately. I've only looked up one image (I'm too scared to look at the rest just yet) and found 30 with the Dreamstime watermark mostly on blogs. Those are definitely illegitamate. Ones that require a print or web EL are easy to spot too if you haven't sold any for those images you find.

I'm also cringing about contributors contacting violators but apparently Dreamstime have wiped their hands off it and passed the ball back to us. Pretty crappy move! Risky too I might add. Image some irate contributor sending out an email filled with "F" & "C"s. It could make Dreamstime look very unprofessional. I suggested in the forums that they at least hand us over some standard document to forward with our email but they haven't replied. I personally think they should take their time, hire temp staff if need be and handle it themselves. If Google hadn't provided this feature, we would still be oblivious to what's going on so I don't see any reason why anyone should panick about it.

cathyslife · « **Reply #159 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:55 »

Quote from: SNP on June 20, 2011, 19:06

I think part of the reason you haven't found many is because you're knowledgeable enough to recognize legitimate vs. illegitimate uses. I haven't found many infringements and in most cases I'm cringing reading about contributors contacting 'violators' directly. but I guess for non-exclusives they'd rather not wait for the agency to intervene. It's my guess that in many cases actual clients are being wrongfully contacted. and those who have stolen are a waste of time to contact. they'll take your image down (maybe) and just steal someone else's.

It has NOTHING to do with waiting for the agency to intervene. In most cases, there is no intervening. Perhaps for you there is, but for the rest of the tens of thousands of contributors on microstock, there isn't. I'm pretty sure that most of us, by now, know when our images are being used wrongfully. As was mentioned earlier by Race Photo, let them steal someone elses (maybe even yours...I've seen plenty of istock and getty images floating around on the rapidshare sites). But I'm going to do what I can to stop it when I see my images being misused. So far, I have had good luck with people taking my images down.

ShadySue · « **Reply #160 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:46 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 20, 2011, 13:53

Lucky me, my stuff isn't good enough to steal.
I haven't read everything in the thread, but it's been fun. For something else interesting people might try entering their name with the word photo after it (or you pseudo and photo after it) and see where your photos are being used. I did find one unauthorized use, but since it was SpeedTV and it's four years old, I look at it as free publicity. Checked my Micro Pseudo that I've started using and found one on PBS.org, which was funny. Here's a shot with one sale in two years and I found it?
Quote
I tried my name and photo and found nothing untoward. Annoyingly, the Google search has deteriorated recently, and one way is that if you search "John Doe" photo, after a page or two, "John Doe" isn't held together, and you get hits on photos of John Smith shooting a doe. (hypothetical example). As my surname is one spelling variant of a city, the search soon deteriorated - Shame on you Google, don't 'fix' what ain't broke.
Although my name is unusual, I have a namesake who is a serious investigative journalist in the USA (I'm so proud of her!) who shows up in a lot of searches!

On your second point, although with the new Google search, I can't find one of my flaming images, with sufficient XSm sales to imagine there must be a few on the web; even with TinEye, I found in-uses for two images that have only sold once each, and had no reason to imagine they weren't the actual sales.

[Off-topic] Is it EVER going to stop raining here.

madelaide · « **Reply #161 on:** June 21, 2011, 19:23 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2011, 03:55

It has NOTHING to do with waiting for the agency to intervene. In most cases, there is no intervening.

This is actually amazing to me. They don't bother at all! I have reported watermarked images to several sites, they always reply something like "we will send this to our legal department" or something of that sort, but I'm sure they do nothing, because the watermarked images remain! Last time DT said I could contact the infractor directly.

Maybe if it is the case of an EL issue they do something, but they don't bother waste 30s of their time with a website or blog using the images, just because it isn't worth the time, regardless of the moral, ethical or legal aspects of copyright infringement.

ShadySue · « **Reply #162 on:** June 21, 2011, 19:44 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 21, 2011, 19:23

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2011, 03:55
It has NOTHING to do with waiting for the agency to intervene. In most cases, there is no intervening.

This is actually amazing to me. They don't bother at all! I have reported watermarked images to several sites, they always reply something like "we will send this to our legal department" or something of that sort, but I'm sure they do nothing, because the watermarked images remain! Last time Dreamstime said I could contact the infractor directly.

Maybe if it is the case of an EL issue they do something, but they don't bother waste 30s of their time with a website or blog using the images, just because it isn't worth the time, regardless of the moral, ethical or legal aspects of copyright infringement.

That's the problem with the tiny prices: nothing in the budget for chasing up infractions.

lisafx · « **Reply #163 on:** June 22, 2011, 12:23 »

I have had success contacting Dreamstime. Not with dozens or hundreds of infractions, but with the occasional odd watermarked image. They've been very responsive IMO.

I don't go looking for misuse, but in the (rare) situations I have run across it, Dreamstime and Shutterstock have been the most helpful agencies in dealing with it. I get the idea that they take protecting contributor's rights very seriously.

Are you guys who haven't gotten responses contacting them for a lot of different infractions? I can see how if you are finding dozens a day with this new feature they may not have the staff to follow up with a high volume of requests.

jvoetsch · « **Reply #164 on:** June 24, 2011, 02:11 »

This tool is amazing and will help a lot of artists track down unlicensed images. Go get em guys!

lthn · « **Reply #165 on:** June 24, 2011, 05:34 »

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 24, 2011, 02:11

This tool is amazing and will help a lot of artists track down unlicensed images. Go get em guys!

You go get 'em. We shoot, create, you take care of our images.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #166 on:** June 24, 2011, 05:35 »

Quote from: lthn on June 24, 2011, 05:34

Quote from: jvoetsch on June 24, 2011, 02:11
This tool is amazing and will help a lot of artists track down unlicensed images. Go get em guys!

You go get 'em. We shoot, create, you take care of our images.

Yeah, lol...

John W. · « **Reply #167 on:** June 24, 2011, 06:15 »

I wonder how this google search 'by image' and 'similar' and 'more sizes' work. As I get different results using these methods. For the same image these different searches bring up different websites with my pictures. 'Search by image' shows new websites but it doesn't find websites I found using 'similar/more sizes'.

lisafx · « **Reply #168 on:** June 24, 2011, 13:55 »

Just wanted to thank Paulie, again, for this neat little tool.

I have a second shoot tomorrow with a teenage model who has been really disappointed not to find any of her pictures from our last session in action. Thanks to this google search thingy I found three in-actions for her. That should boost her confidence for our shoot tomorrow

click_click · « **Reply #170 on:** June 24, 2011, 13:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 24, 2011, 13:55

Just wanted to thank Paulie, again, for this neat little tool.

I have a second shoot tomorrow with a teenage model who has been really disappointed not to find any of her pictures from our last session in action. Thanks to this google search thingy I found three in-actions for her. That should boost her confidence for our shoot tomorrow

I think this is a good time to start charging the models for the shoots

Once they see that they are "famous" they'll probably just throw the money at you... Maybe. lol.

lisafx · « **Reply #171 on:** June 24, 2011, 14:10 »

Quote from: click_click on June 24, 2011, 13:58

I think this is a good time to start charging the models for the shoots

Once they see that they are "famous" they'll probably just throw the money at you... Maybe. lol.

LOL!

I am embarrassed to admit that, for what I pay child models ($20), they might as well be paying me.

Believe me, the thought of in-actions is the big draw for them

click_click · « **Reply #172 on:** June 24, 2011, 14:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 24, 2011, 14:10

Quote from: click_click on June 24, 2011, 13:58

I think this is a good time to start charging the models for the shoots

Once they see that they are "famous" they'll probably just throw the money at you... Maybe. lol.

LOL!

I am embarrassed to admit that, for what I pay child models ($20), they might as well be paying me.

Believe me, the thought of in-actions is the big draw for them

In the end it's great to see them being happy about it as well. It's a win-win situation. Everybody is happy.

ShadySue · « **Reply #173 on:** June 24, 2011, 14:27 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 24, 2011, 14:10

Quote from: click_click on June 24, 2011, 13:58

I think this is a good time to start charging the models for the shoots

Once they see that they are "famous" they'll probably just throw the money at you... Maybe. lol.

LOL!

I am embarrassed to admit that, for what I pay child models ($20), they might as well be paying me.

Believe me, the thought of in-actions is the big draw for them

The converse would be if you got any 'less pleasant' in-actions (I don't mean 'unallowed' necessarily, just maybe used for an 'embarrassing' product or with an 'ugly' manipulation etc.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #174 on:** June 24, 2011, 16:43 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 24, 2011, 13:55

Just wanted to thank Paulie, again, for this neat little tool.

Oh, you're welcome. It took me a lot of time to create it but hey, anything for my contributor friends.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google Images Search by Image (was Drag and Drop) (Read 69484 times)

ShadySue

madelaide

TheSmilingAssassin

iclick

ShadySue

RacePhoto

SNP

TheSmilingAssassin

RacePhoto

cathyslife

ShadySue

madelaide

ShadySue

lisafx

jvoetsch

lthn

Sean Locke Photography

John W.

lisafx

jvoetsch

click_click

lisafx

click_click

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors