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.
Somedays I think photographers and publishers have no idea how the internet works.
Of course they don't. I work at a web hosting company and my bosses don't know how the internet works either.
Getty bills people to use shit they don't own.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-getty-copyright-20160729-snap-story.html
They are fucking scum.
If it is a stock image replace it with whitespace or the top result from the google image search for "stick figure" and the image caption or title.
For example: "stick figure" and "trump". See? Much better than whatever the original image was.
One of the features of Google Images is a "find other sizes of this image" function. If Getty did provide Google with copies of all their images, it'd be pretty easy for Google to block copies from Google Images. (Note: the pic I selected is one of Getty's royalty-free pics.)
That's what baffles me about Getty suing Google over this. Google Images is the best thing that could happen to Getty. Not because of the publicity, but because Google Images makes it trivial to find copyright violations. Getty just has to put the URL for one of their copyrighted images into Google Images, and use the "find other sizes of this image" function to get a list of websites using that image. It's then trivial for them to cross-reference the list of websites to confirm they've properly licensed the image. Asking Google to neuter Google Images just reeks of a decision by some clueless manager or lawyer, with no input from someone who's actually on the front lines trying to find copyright violations for Getty. This is going to result in more violations of Getty's copyrights, not less.