Google's New Image Search Facilitates Image Stealing

In case you hadn't heard about the new Google Image Search functionality (I thought there was a thread here, but can't find it), here's an article (yes, from a competitor) about the impact it is having on sales and traffic:
How Google Image Search is Affecting Photographers - find it on the interwebs, no linking to competitors.

This is an important issue for all of us. Honestly, I can't see how they can get away with it, when it comes to court time.

(Edited on 2013-02-04 15:10:35 by Lobo)

Come on, Sean. No one else gets to do it why would you assume you could? Don't link outward to competitor sites.

Interesting but disturbing read. Thanks Sean.

Sean, can you email me the site...I would like to read it. My email is on my front page

Thanks Sean

Sorry, here's an article I found searching on new google image search impacts photographers...

eta: and it even features Sharon!

(Edited on 2013-02-04 15:30:41 by sjlocke)

i'm now even happier that I've removed all traces of Google from my home and work PC's. These guys seem hell bent on becomeing the corporate monster that they so clearly tried not to be in the beginning. One can only hope people will see them for what they are and find alternative search providers. Or, maybe after their recent outrageous tirade against the Chinese, our oriental cousins will do it for us

So, is Getty/iStock taking a position about this new Google software?

Good grief.


From the search results page, the pop-up image previews have links to 'Share' (not sure what that does, but I bet it's not good) and 'More Sizes' which loads a page showing you every size of the image found on the web. Pick the size you want, and download is just a click away.


The search is extremely speedy and you can refine search results by size, colour, subject, image type. The serach engine is, as you'd expect, very good. No surprise that image-rich sites are suffering a drop in traffic.

What I am wondering about is: How is GI/iStock maing money with it?


Don't see the Business Model for this moment. Might come if GI/iS would explain.

What happened to that "Don't be evil" mantra? Sigh. Evil in the disguise, hard to stop with zillion number of believers.

For us this is "new news" but for GI/iS, of course they knew this for months. This is probably part of the agenda they both signed and agreed on.

Thanks for the news Sean.
I do not like any kind of monopoly, and Google is one good example of.

I don't think this has anything to do with iStock or Getty, other than their responsibility to protect our interests.

They can't be blamed for the clumsy actions of Google.

Surely some coincidence?

Here is the Google announcement.  There seems to be a lot of grummpy people commenting.  Not good for us, not good for webmasters and siteowners.

In addition to the obvious problems for content creators (ie photographers and illustrators), it seems that this has already signficantly harmed Google traffic to image rich sites....likely microstock distributors, Istock and Getty included. Even if these distributors have no actual concern for protecting our IP, which is becoming more apparent day by day, it would seem a prudent business move to take an aggressive united stand against this. Yet, the silence on this is deafening.

Getty has taken a position on this with Google with a gift of 12000 images for free.

This is simply outrageous and I can see our dwindling downloads becoming even fewer. Who will buy when they can get images as large as some of those that I've found while browsing. Perhaps all image libraries should group together and take a stand on this.

Just did a google images search for "istockphoto business people" and must say I'm completely shocked by the results. This is seriously wrong.

edit: Just did a search for "istockphoto handshake" and selected to only have large format images. Well ... no need to come here I suppose, it's all there for free. A smaller selection, but free, which is the only thing that matters for many. This is theft, it should be stopped.

(Edited on 2013-02-05 06:43:46 by sodafish)

^ That's scary.