Google's New Image Search Facilitates Image Stealing

First pagePrevious pageof 5
Displaying 81 to 96 of 96 matches.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 7:17AM

Posted By Andyd: S
Stopping Google from indexing your images would require a robots.txt file adding to your website.

Here how http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35308

I wouldn't stop the general Google crawer unless you don't want any traffic from Google at all.


You do understand the issue is that we license images to businesses who post them online on their sites, and don't really have an interest in blocking google to protect our content from people who are looking to easily grab high resolution images, right? A robots file is no solution at all, unless you're discussing your personal site, and those should be watermarked.

(Edited on 2013-02-06 07:18:17 by sjlocke)
Andyd
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Flash downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto VideographerExclusive iStockphoto Audio ArtistThis member has lost their last cage match. Consider this the black eye the bully gave you after school by the bike racks.
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 8:44AM
/
/
Posted By sjlocke:



Posted By Andyd: S
Stopping Google from indexing your images would require a robots.txt file adding to your website.

Here how http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35308

I wouldn't stop the general Google crawer unless you don't want any traffic from Google at all.




You do understand the issue is that we license images to businesses who post them online on their sites, and don't really have an interest in blocking google to protect our content from people who are looking to easily grab high resolution images, right? A robots file is no solution at all, unless you're discussing your personal site, and those should be watermarked.

(Edited on 2013-02-06 07:18:17 by sjlocke)



Oh yes Sean I fully understand the issue. I was of course responding to a couple of post above where some members were asking how to block Google from indexing images on their website which I did.


 

(Edited on 2013-02-06 08:46:04 by Andyd)
mlwinphotoCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 8:54AM
Posted By jtyler:

Posted By JodiJacobson:


Posted By mlwinphoto:
In the meantime I've blocked Google searches from accessing my website.



How do you do that...I would like to do that too.



Me three


If you are with SmugMug:  Gallery Settings>Security & Privacy>Hello World>click 'No'.


This supposedly blocks Google from being able to see your Gallery(s).  We'll see.  I've got some images on Google that are directly from my website.  Fortunately I don't put up anything other than low rez (800 pix) but that size is still usable on the web.
InkkStudios
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:20AM
Posted By JBryson:

Posted By spfoto:
One of the things I notice is that the images I found that were large or full size, (above the allowed max 1200 x 800) were mostly from blogers, I wonder if a discusion could be had with Blogger, Wordpress and the like to limit image size?

(Edited on 2013-02-05 17:23:26 by spfoto)


It seriously makes me wonder why a blogger would license a large or full size image....very suspicious of that.


Lack of Knowledge Jani. I have to deal with a ton of bloggers and they all really are clueless as to how to post, what to post etc.  Many of them are trying to be photographers as well. So they use a lot of their own FULL size images without even knowing to downsize them.


 
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 10:31AM

Posted By InkkStudios:
Posted By JBryson:

Posted By spfoto:
One of the things I notice is that the images I found that were large or full size, (above the allowed max 1200 x 800) were mostly from blogers, I wonder if a discusion could be had with Blogger, Wordpress and the like to limit image size?

(Edited on 2013-02-05 17:23:26 by spfoto)


It seriously makes me wonder why a blogger would license a large or full size image....very suspicious of that.


Lack of Knowledge Jani. I have to deal with a ton of bloggers and they all really are clueless as to how to post, what to post etc.  Many of them are trying to be photographers as well. So they use a lot of their own FULL size images without even knowing to downsize them.


 

Blogging isn't an elite sport anymore. Anyone can build one with limited knowledge of how to even turn on a computer at this point in time. I like the idea of figuring out a way to inform the sites mentioned in the quote above. It seems like it would benefit everyone involved.

(Edited on 2013-02-06 10:32:24 by Lobo)
phototropic
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 11:05AM

Whilst all of this is being dealt with (presumably between Getty as our Agent and Google) it would be very helpful in the interim if Google were to change the "this image may be subject to copyright"" wording next to the images (once clicked through|) to something like:


"IMPORTANT NOTICE - This image may be protected by copyright - Copying and using this image inappropriately may result in legal action and could incur substantial damages. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE..."


[ or some words to this effect ]


This would then link to a separate page that clearly points out the perils of illegal use whilst also providing guidelines on how images can be acquired legitimately etc... It could also express the moral case for respecting copyright and the do and don't of image use...


This is something that Getty (the Industry...) could ask Google to do straightaway whilst this whole issue is being dealt with. It would probably do Google some credit since they would be seen to be taking quick, sympathetic and constructive steps in the meantime and it would also be very simple to do (and would not be detrimental in any way to the "image finding experience" they are seeking to promote...).


Of course, this assumes that Google does agree with the principals of copyright and protecting the originator's interests...
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 1:19PM
You might want to make that suggestion to Google. I'm sure there are several external discussions going on about this that would be better served by the suggestions people are making here. I'm not suggesting you stop talking about things in here, I just think we all need to realize that this isn't something we are going to resolve in the iStockphoto Forums.

Thank you, Folks. Carry on.
phototropic
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:04PM
Posted By Lobo:
You might want to make that suggestion to Google. I'm sure there are several external discussions going on about this that would be better served by the suggestions people are making here. I'm not suggesting you stop talking about things in here, I just think we all need to realize that this isn't something we are going to resolve in the iStockphoto Forums.

Thank you, Folks. Carry on.

Thanks Lobo. I don't have time just at the moment to seek out other external discussions on this matter. If someone could point me in the right direction with a link or two... or if this is inappropriate in the forum perhaps via site mail, I would be happy to do so.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 2:31PM
iStockphoto and Getty are the industry leaders. I would hope our discussion has brought this issue to their attention and that they are taking some sort of action on our behalf, especially as we are distribution 'partners'.
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 4:25PM
/
/
Posted By sjlocke:
iStockphoto and Getty are the industry leaders. I would hope our discussion has brought this issue to their attention and that they are taking some sort of action on our behalf, especially as we are distribution 'partners'.

Yes, and more importantly it affects them as much as us if not more.
Lobo
Mask of the Diablo Azul - Member has won between 1 and 3 Steel Cage matchesThis user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 4:26PM

Posted By sjlocke:
iStockphoto and Getty are the industry leaders. I would hope our discussion has brought this issue to their attention and that they are taking some sort of action on our behalf, especially as we are distribution 'partners'.

I can assure you that it's being discussed at many levels. That said its not something I've been provided any direction on. The trouble with threads of this nature is that people start demanding answers from admins and we aren't typically able to accommodate a formal response. So the discussions typically falls off the rails and people get frustrated.

So please feel free to continue to discuss this just appreciate I have no responses available for you at this time.

(Edited on 2013-02-06 16:28:03 by Lobo)
Maulsmasher
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:03PM
Posted By Lobo:


Posted By sjlocke:
iStockphoto and Getty are the industry leaders. I would hope our discussion has brought this issue to their attention and that they are taking some sort of action on our behalf, especially as we are distribution 'partners'.


I can assure you that it's being discussed at many levels. That said its not something I've been provided any direction on. The trouble with threads of this nature is that people start demanding answers from admins and we aren't typically able to accommodate a formal response. So the discussions typically falls off the rails and people get frustrated.

So please feel free to continue to discuss this just appreciate I have no responses available for you at this time.

(Edited on 2013-02-06 16:28:03 by Lobo)

Thanks just knowing it is being discussed is comforting. I don't think folks are demanding answers, but just acknowledgement goes a long way.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Flash downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Flash ArtistExclusive iStockphoto VideographerMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 5:52PM
Glad it's being discussed. I just hope it isn't being dismissed.
CaseyHillPhoto
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Feb 6, 2013 11:37PM
Yes, the acknowledgement that this is on Getty's radar is huge. Thank you.
Silberkorn
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember has had a File Of The Week
Posted Thu Feb 7, 2013 5:38AM
Just FYI the "competition" and other webmasters that handle photography or art have reported a loss in traffic of 60-80% since new google Image viewer has gone live. Some smaller stock Agencies have claimed they won't be able to survive if this goes on.
courtneyk
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Thu Feb 7, 2013 4:27PM
It seems someone has already created a software workaround. I am not a programmer and have no idea how it works, but perhaps it is smoething that could be considered...


Here is an example of how it works

(Edited on 2013-02-07 16:28:25 by courtneyk)
This thread has been locked.
First pagePrevious pageof 5
Displaying 81 to 96 of 96 matches.
Not a member?Join