Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Takes Down Slideshow-Building Tool After Getty Images Lawsuit
jfruh writes Slideshows are an increasingly popular (and, for publishers, lucrative) web content genre. So why not automate their production? Microsoft had a beta tool that was part of Bing Image Search that did just that, but took it down in the face of a lawsuit from Getty Images. It turns out that, unlike a human web content producer, Bing couldn't distinguish between images publishers have the rights to use and images they didn't.
that produces nothing just stifled innovation. Go go content rights owners!! We have these parasites and a few posts down we have true movers and shakers like Musk.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Was there an upgrade to humanity that I'm not aware of, because the last time I checked, humans were quite bad at these things, even when that is a large portion of their job description.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So... Getty Images, instead of using the power of image-matching algorithms to get more customers for its library by setting up a checkout point at the end of the auto-slideshow and/or tack on advertising (ala YouTube) just torpedoed the whole thing instead.
You figure they had the tech to identify the infringing images to begin with. Why not just say to Microsoft "hey, we have this set of algorithms that you're welcome to use to improve your widget. Let's talk about blanket licensing for Bing in exchange for downstream revenue."
tag the image as commercial and it gets filtered in image search Tag it with say CC and Public and it shows up.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm one of the first in line to bash MS, but how is the copyright violations that users perpetutate, MS' fault? It's same with Google as far as I'm concerned, and content in its search indexes. They, MS and Google, are providing all the information of the offending parties, so why go after MS/Google? Is this strictly a 'bigger target=more publicity='all press is good press' equation here, we're seeing from Getty images?
From a consistency standpoint, I don't like the direction this is taking us on the web. Every 'big' target with large user base is ripe for C&D's, DMCA notices, and the like, primarily because the system is broken. Is there something I'm missing here, or when has the web turned into big media getting EVERYONE ELSE, to do it's policing?
If I click a link to a page with a slideshow I immediately hit back or close the tab. They are not worth my time.
tag the image as commercial and it gets filtered in image search Tag it with say CC and Public and it shows up.
Even better, include in the tag the source and where-to-purchase info.
On the one hand, it's Getty images. On the other, they're reducing the number of slide shows. Sorry. I have to side with Getty on this one. Anything that reduces the number of slideshows in the 'net is good.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
People who go to the museum aren't going to stop going to the museum because the pictures appear on Bing.
More people seeing the aren't will me your collection is worth more money.
A museum is more then the art. It's an experience.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Not an HTML tag. It needs to be some kind of metadata embedded in the image itself. There are places in various formats for these things; I guess we just need better tools to read and write them.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I rad the article, but I swore it was the Getty Museum. Probably becasue I was talking about the Getty Museum this morning my brain just filled in parts for me.
mea culpa
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
this is a super bummer. The slideshow tool was great for pr0n. hands-free operation, so to speak.
Even better, make it pop up a big flashy ad telling you where you can buy this and much much more! Our prices are insane! First 3000 customers get a free refrigerator magnet!
void where prohibited by law
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I really just feel like if you post it on the internet it's part of the public domain. While I don't particularly like web slide shows, many other people seem to like them. In cases like this, it makes far better sense to have a standard than a ton of variation in functionality.
This summary just built up my hopes and then shattered them. Oh look, another meeting. I can't wait to see more stupid pictures and charts of information that can't possibly be read from a distance greater than 3 feet from the projection screen.
xhamster and many other sites have a slideshow option.
...Slideshows are an increasingly popular... web content genre...
I wish someone would claim the rights to web slideshows, and make everyone take 'em all down. I have been unable to find a more vacuous space waster on the web than the current abundance of slideshows. I'd almost rather watch cat videos..... (no flames please, I did say 'almost')
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
There, problem solved. They might not like the slight drop off in page views, but if they want to get picky about how their webpage is parsed by the search engine that is the most sure fire way that nobody via a search engine will be viewing their images outside of the context they wanted. It's just like the news sites suing google news. They will whine about excerpts and headlines used in the results, but they don't want to use robots.txt. What they want is both the traffic, and the ability to extort money from the search engines that bring them traffic.
I would have to agree here. HTML would be left up to the developer of the site to make sure the copyright is encoded. They wouldn't always know if they grabbed an image off Bing or Google if it had a copyright on it.
Alternatively, DRM images like we do music so it cannot be linked outside the site(s) allowed to show it.
Just rejoice that it happens once in a while.
Followed by tools to strip it out, and tools to replace it with your own information, and tools to break into web servers and silently modify all of their images to show that you own them.
Nope. DRM is not going to save us.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Ummm.. What?
More NASA rockets have blown up than Space X. A LOT more.
You sound jealous.
Please Microsoft please help me make it easier to take ten sentences worth of copy and turn it into 10 pages worth of content. Everyone knows users just love to slog through 10 pages of agony to red 10 lousy sentences someone through together as click bait.
I put my copyright info and website address in the EXIF data of all my images, actually all modern digital cameras can do this automatically.
In case anyone doesn't know about EXIF data, you may be surprised at the amount of data your phone is adding to every image you take with the phone's camera. GPS coordinates, time and date, phone make and model, etc.
In my day, we didn't have Internet. If you wanted to get annoyed by a slide show, you went to a friends or relative's house. The kids got fussy, and the adults got "tipsy" or perhaps even drunk. Then they either overstayed their welcome or drove the kids home while wasted. They chain-smoked in the car and we liked it!
From the article "Rather than draw from a licensed collection of images, Defendant gathers these images by crawling as much of the Internet as it can, copying and indexing every image it finds, without regard to the copyright status of the images and without permission from copyright owners like Plaintiff,"
I wonder why Google wasn't charged, too? Isn't that how their image search works?
It turns out that, unlike a human web content producer, Bing couldn't distinguish between images publishers have the rights to use and images they didn't.
You have to know that's joke-bait. I see what you did there!
Doesn't work. Just because I tag your image as CC doesn't make it CC. You have to know the origin of an image. That means a ubiquitous search of the Internet to find the original posted source -- possibly through several contortions. That's the problem with using anything other than a curated database of images. It takes some significant leg work to prove who has the right to release a particular Internet image for licensing.
The only thing that a tag does is simplify the search engine front end for who you might possibly contact to see if they can prove they're the copyright owner.
Still wouldn't help (see my previous comment on why the HTML tag doesn't work). Embedded tags can be modified, which means they cannot be trusted to assert the rights usage of an image. I could tag one of your images as CC... that doesn't make it actually CC. You cannot know that an image is CC or any other license unless you talk to the original license holder. What you have to have is a central registry, curated by humans, where someone can upload an image and certify "this is my image" and that database is in trusted hands. It has to be a place where risk mitigation is done by identifying the real world names of the artist and registering their particular images. That's what makes the various image service groups so valuable... without them, the legwork involved in proving origin is huge.
So... you think that "image service group", let's call it Getty for argument's sake, could use something like... let's say EXIF tags, that somene else, let's say Bing, could read? Or are tags not a good idea even in that case?