Slashdot Mirror
Google To Kill Off 'View Image' Button In Search
Google is removing the "view image" button that appeared when you clicked on a picture, which allowed you to open the image alone. The provision to remove the button is part of a deal Google has made with stock-photo agency Getty to end their legal battle. The Register reported last week that the two companies announced a partnership that "will allow Google to continue carrying Getty-owned photographs in its image and web search results." The Verge reports: The change is essentially meant to frustrate users. Google has long been under fire from photographers and publishers who felt that image search allowed people to steal their pictures, and the removal of the view image button is one of many changes being made in response. The intention seems to be either stopping people from taking an image altogether or driving them through to the website where the image is found, so that the website can serve ads and get revenue and so people are more likely to see any associated copyright information. That's great news for publishers, but it's an annoying additional step for someone trying to find a picture. Now you'll have to wait for a website to load and then scroll through it to find the image. Websites sometimes disable the ability to right click, too, which would make it even harder for someone to grab a photo they're looking for.
In addition to removing the "view image" button, Google has also removed the "search by image" button that appeared when you opened up a photo, too. This change isn't quite as big, however. You'll still be able to do a reverse image search by dragging the image to the search bar, and Google will still display related images when you click on a search result. The button may have been used by people to find un-watermarked versions of images they were interested in, which is likely part of why Google pulled it.
In addition to removing the "view image" button, Google has also removed the "search by image" button that appeared when you opened up a photo, too. This change isn't quite as big, however. You'll still be able to do a reverse image search by dragging the image to the search bar, and Google will still display related images when you click on a search result. The button may have been used by people to find un-watermarked versions of images they were interested in, which is likely part of why Google pulled it.
Next move by the publishers: Apple will remove the printscreen shortcut so user can't use it to steal copyrighted pictures. People will have to manually translate the binary code of the picture into an image editor!
Don't display Getty media in your search results.
That'll learn 'em.
but then of course they'd cease to exist on the Internet. They want the best of both worlds, and thanks to our legal system's emphasis on property rights over fair use looks like they got it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Or just push them to search images with another search engine?
But Google won't allow it on the Chrome store.
When I want to remove my pics from Google I just deny their referrers. /shrug Don't people use Bing for images, anyway? *wink*
Can't servers (at least Apache) be configured with mod_rewrite to prevent leeching of images?
...24 hours before a plugin comes up to get the functionality back.
What the hell I use both of these functions on a regular basis.
About 27,400,000 results (0.32 seconds)
This is essentially what was discussed rather extensively for the earlier decades of the internet at large, before and at the early eras of the world wide web.
As commercial forces work their way in, they see less and less of the technical marvel that makes the whole thing work and excel and what it does, and desire it to exist purely as a funnel of whatever is important to them at the moment.
And thanks to the wonders of the legal system, they can force that interpretation on everyone else, no matter the cost and waste of the platform in general.
The images this company posts are just that, they're images on a server. The server, well, serves them up to anyone that can make a request. If they don't like that, then they SHOULD have to figure out a special different way of accessing that data, and convince people to be willing to use that different interface, then close off the general access... but nah, they can't be bothered to do that - better to demand everyone else change the way they access those servers to be less generic, and only just how they'd like.
This will not stand. The web is not to be gatekept. I protest! STRONGLY!
"Websites sometimes disable the ability to right click, too" There are lots of add-ons to fix that problem.
just make a screenshot
I wish Google would just block Getty images.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
I believe they fucked themselves royally by removing this funcionality.
The work-around is in the article:
Fortunately, there's still at least one way around it: if you right click, you can select "open image in new tab" or "view image" (or whatever your browser's equivalent option is), and you'll still open up the full-size picture. It's just a bit less likely that everyone will realize this is an option.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Stuff like this will slowly kill google. It will just get more and more restrictive and useless and people will move on.
I use the picture view a lot to find objects, what about the other items - videos - maps etc. ?
Oh well down it goes.... maybe other search engines win over google on this one...
I used both of those functions on a regular basis, but usually just to adorn a smart-ass post with a smart-ass image.
Humour? Who needs it? Nothing I can't live without (as a married man).
Why Women Aren't Funny
Perhaps Google can add a click that automatically opens the target website with Firefox's Media Preview tab (or your equivalent)—or an extension can be written to do the same; ideally, the extension would arrange the page's images in a Image Search–like image gallery (optional: middle finger as a selection cursor).
google is useless ;)
Gotta love the newspeak-esque way this change was announced. From TFA:
Today we're launching some changes on Google Images to help connect users and useful websites. This will include removing the View Image button. The Visit button remains, so users can see images in the context of the webpages they're on.
— Google SearchLiaison (@searchliaison)
We removed features! You don't need them, even if you use them every day, and you should thank us for this doubleplusgood change.
A company like Getty is displaying usable images on the Internet and getting pissed off about copyright? How hard would it be for them to overlay a watermark that can't be easily 'shopped out? How many pixels are they displaying anyway? Anybody who's legit is going to want to scrub the watermark and resize the image without losing any more quality than necessary. They should be hiding high quality images behind a paid login if they care that much. Even Flickr can do that. Come on, Getty. Put on your big boy pants.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Don't display Getty media in your search results.
That'll learn 'em.
Getty Images is one of the largest and most significant photo archives in the world with over 80 million images and some 50,000 hours of video. Its stock images are prime goods and any professional in the field knows this.
What about “Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!”
#DeleteFacebook
Only user input needed is so it can transfer money from your bank account to copyright holders.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't know if it's still around, but BetterSearch did offer showing images directly since before Google even had the feature.
And yes, it is trivial. Trust that if there is no solution around, I will have one ready on the same evening.
Also, the Content Mafia is organized crime, whose only and exclusive purpose is, to leech on artists and abuse them, and steal our money that *we* actually worked for, in order to never have to work, yet always have enough money for the massive amounts of cocaine.
I worked in the music industry, the TV industry and the games industry. That has been the same everywhere.
That is where their ridiculous overconfidence and sense of entitlement comes from, as well as their outrageous paranoia.
Everything about the media industries can be explained with that little fact.
The Content Mafia is organized crime, whose only and exclusive purpose is, to leech on artists and abuse them, and steal our money that *we* actually worked for, in order to never have to work, yet always have enough money for the massive amounts of cocaine.
I worked in the music industry, the TV industry and the games industry. That has been the same everywhere.
Getty Images has now earned the privilege of being added to Adblock, or a new equivalent plugin.
But you can still right click on the picture in the search results and select "open image in new tab", and it loads the original picture from the remote host. Heh.
That only gives you a Google-generated (and Google-hosted) thumbnail, not the original image, whether you do it on the main results list or the expanded details box after you click a result. That is not an acceptable workaround for any original image much above thumbnail size (i.e. almost all of those that someone is likely to search for).
ok great.
fuck goog.
It's My internet, bitches.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?mydomain.com/.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule \.(gif|jpg|js|css)$ - [F]
are mostly pinterest links anyways. and that never leads to anything useful.
made the switch to duck duck go. happy with the change so far.
I use Hover Zoom+ to get immediate views of the images without clicking anything. https://github.com/extesy/hove... https://chrome.google.com/webs...
The problem with following the link to the web site where the image is found is that very often the page is dynamic ("hottest news stories of today") and the image is nowhere to be found.
No, it's meant to protect photographer's rights.
tineye.com, drag, drop.
I'll just use Yandex' image search.
Its results are far less censored anyway.
https://yandex.com/images/
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
To me, finding a getty image is a failed search. Block them as I have exactly zero interest in their over posed images of business people in cheap ill-fitting suits and dead eyes.
I realize Getty does not seem to represent "the little guy"... but
Google knows how the internet works, artists and publishers do not?
Let's get real. Google exists because they serve ads.
An artist, photographer, publisher exists online because they serve ads,
or entice interested parties to learn more about them.
How else do you sell or generate revenue on the internet?
Some unknown is supposed to put up a paywall?
Google has turned into a thumbnail search engine, which is now completely useless.
Time to suggest alternatives for image searching.
Not a problem automation can't solve.
Getty Images should play ball and come up with image provisioning that doesn't suck. Should.
But in my experience design companies are among the most conservative and dumbest when it comes to digital. The fuss and hassle that Font companies cause with their abysmally shitty licensing schemes cause people to move to FOSS fonts in droves. Just last year IBM moved from Helvetica to their own FOSS font design called Plex, giving the big font fondries a huge middle finger and saving 10s of millions of dollars per year in licensing fees.
Well done IMHO. Getty is in a losing battle with this issue.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
(For now), Bing still has a 'view source image' option.
Seems to work fine.
Can't I just right-click, get the uri, then past it into an empty browser window?
All Getty has managed to do is to make this a three step process rather than a single click process. How in any way, shape, or form does it make their property more secure?
To just get rid of Getty's shit from image search? That crap just clutters up the search results anyway.
I call it uMatrix, uBlock Origin and you can ditch RequestPolicy as it is redundant.
Stop living in 2012, uBlock Origin is the actual author of the original uBlock and also made uMatrix.
While you are at it add a few more things:
Clean Links
Download Status Bar
Google Redirects Fixer
Google Search Link Fix
Greasmonkey (and your favortie scripts)
HTTP Everywhere
Redirect Cleaner
Redirector
RefControl
RightToClick
Video DownloadHelper
If they disable it all that bullshit whatever... go to the page and ctrl-shift-K. find the direct url to the page or just download all images with an FF plugin. Fuck their bandwidth. Or just go to the page and CTRL-F the source code for the page (tools/web developer/page source). Search for .jpg .png .bmp etc.
They get a page hit and wow you stare at their ads nobody will ever buy and you can read any copyright info nobody ever cares about. Then get your image and download a bunch more. Cool bandwidth issue bro. All copyright with ads now you fucking twats.
Dicks
F U
About 794 results (0.34 seconds)
Incredibly low number, they are probably censoring it, like the websites they call controversial.
It'll change nothing, just add a slight (and i do mean slight) bit of inconvenience...