Author Topic: Google images search issue (Read 3758 times)

Mactrunk · « **on:** March 05, 2013, 09:43 »

I read a topic on this site today were someone pointed out that Google would easily be able to ban images in the search results by reading the image data. So if an image would be hires and/or from any stock agency it would be banned in the search results. This helps us to protect it from people steeling our images.

I was thinking of making a website that points out this issue. Google does not listen to complaints of individuals but if we would create a website were we would create allot of traffic together (I have NO commercial interest in the traffic!!!) and point this problem out it might get some attention? If it gets lots of visits it might get noticed. We would need allot of backlinks so put it on every website we can and I can make an option were people could sign a digital petition. I could even make an option so that people could post there portfolio links. If we could get thousands of people to sign it and make this website scream it might get Google to notice it??? Maybe even get the stock agency's to notice the site and join? Or am I thinking to far now?

Negative point is that it might also backfire and many people that are not into selling stock but buying could get on the site and might find out how easy it is to get hiress images from Google. I mean people that did not use this search function before.

I could have this website online in just weeks. I am getting more serious in stock lately and that is why I got this idea. I hate the idea that people are getting our images for free thanks to Google. So the idea is a bash Google site to get noticed.

What do you think?

Pinocchio · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2013, 10:32 »

Quote from: Mactrunk on March 05, 2013, 09:43

I read a topic on this site today were someone pointed out that Google would easily be able to ban images in the search results by reading the image data. So if an image would be hires and/or from any stock agency it would be banned in the search results. This helps us to protect it from people steeling our images.........

Not sure this would work, because it requires that all on-line images have appropriate information in the image in some sort of standardized form, and a list of "real" stock agencies. On-line images frequently have ALL metadata stripped - sometimes by the photographer (very strange but true), sometimes out of a misguided attempt to make a web page load faster, and sometimes out of ignorance - just take a look at what happens when you Save for Web in Photoshop.

Are you aware of
a) PLUS (http://www.useplus.com/index.asp ) has an initiative (see https://www.plusregistry.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PlusDB ) that will enable copyright holders to register their images to make it easier to identify the rightsholder from the image....

b) Then there is PicScout and Image Exchange from Getty, trying to do the same thing while they get a nibble of the licensing fee regardless of where the image is licensed?

Dreamstime is engaging with Picscout, but appear to be unwilling to provide any details at this time.

Regards
edited for format...

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2013, 10:57 »

I don't think most people who sell stock for a living want their images banned from google searches. A lot of sales come from google. We just want them properly watermarked and shown in the context of the webpage they are posted on (hopefully the download page at one of the agencies).

Mactrunk · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2013, 11:15 »

You have a point there I did not think about. The searches WITH watermark will probably also disappear. And they are the ones that show up if you are not searching with the keyword 'Shutterstock' or other stock company. So there goes my plan haha. Thanks for the reply.

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2013, 11:22 »

Quote from: Mactrunk on March 05, 2013, 11:15

You have a point there I did not think about. The searches WITH watermark will probably also disappear. And they are the ones that show up if you are not searching with the keyword 'Shutterstock' or other stock company. So there goes my plan haha. Thanks for the reply.

No problem. I'm with you that something needs to be done, but just not clear what will address all our issues...

Sadstock · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2013, 12:05 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on March 05, 2013, 10:32

Quote from: Mactrunk on March 05, 2013, 09:43
I read a topic on this site today were someone pointed out that Google would easily be able to ban images in the search results by reading the image data. So if an image would be hires and/or from any stock agency it would be banned in the search results. This helps us to protect it from people steeling our images.........

Not sure this would work, because it requires that all on-line images have appropriate information in the image in some sort of standardized form, and a list of "real" stock agencies. On-line images frequently have ALL metadata stripped - sometimes by the photographer (very strange but true), sometimes out of a misguided attempt to make a web page load faster, and sometimes out of ignorance - just take a look at what happens when you Save for Web in Photoshop.

Are you aware of
a) PLUS (http://www.useplus.com/index.asp ) has an initiative (see https://www.plusregistry.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/PlusDB ) that will enable copyright holders to register their images to make it easier to identify the rightsholder from the image....

b) Then there is PicScout and Image Exchange from Getty, trying to do the same thing while they get a nibble of the licensing fee regardless of where the image is licensed?

Dreamstime is engaging with Picscout, but appear to be unwilling to provide any details at this time.

Regards
edited for format...

Would also add that almost all the micro agencies strip metadata from images before giving them to customers. Probably to keep customers from directly contacting contributors and cutting the agency out of the process.

click_click · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2013, 13:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 05, 2013, 10:57

I don't think most people who sell stock for a living want their images banned from google searches. A lot of sales come from google. We just want them properly watermarked and shown in the context of the webpage they are posted on (hopefully the download page at one of the agencies).

Why isn't Google providing referral links to the agencies and takes a cut for sales?

Right now they are not making any money with their images search. Why not cash in a few cents per license?

Isn't that a logical move for them?

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2013, 14:44 »

Quote from: click_click on March 05, 2013, 13:36

Quote from: lisafx on March 05, 2013, 10:57
I don't think most people who sell stock for a living want their images banned from google searches. A lot of sales come from google. We just want them properly watermarked and shown in the context of the webpage they are posted on (hopefully the download page at one of the agencies).
Why isn't Google providing referral links to the agencies and takes a cut for sales?

Right now they are not making any money with their images search. Why not cash in a few cents per license?

Isn't that a logical move for them?

Great idea! I would certainly prefer that to what's happening now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Google images search issue (Read 3758 times)

Mactrunk

Pinocchio

lisafx

Mactrunk

lisafx

Sadstock

click_click

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors