Chrome Extension Brings 'View Image' Button Back (9to5google.com)

Google recently removed the convenient "view image" button from its search results as a result of a lawsuit with stock-photo agency Getty. Thankfully, one day later, a developer created an extension that brings it back. 9to5Google reports: It's unfortunate to see that button gone, but an easy to use Chrome extension brings it back. Simply install the extension from the Chrome Web Store, and then any time you view an image on Google Image Search, you'll be able to open that source image. You can see the functionality in action in the video below. The only difference we can see with this extension versus the original functionality is that instead of opening the image on the same page, it opens it in a new tab. The extension is free, and it will work with Chrome for Windows, Mac, Chrome OS, or anywhere else the full version of Chrome can be used. 9to5Google has a separate post with step-by-step instructions to get the Google Images "view image" button back.

Comments

Does it report back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the extension have a GitHub repo where we can see the source code (not some "minified" mangle of javascript)? Does it or will it report back to its advertising masters about what we are viewing? Just asking - it's so often true of Chrome extensions.

Re:Does it report back?

[Hal_Porter]

Hi,

I can confirm the extension doesn't in any way report back on people infringing on our IP rights. It's totally safe to use!

Ebenezer Getty
VP of Special Circumstances
Getty

Re:Does it report back?

[ls671]

The real issue could be having a browser maker being the same entity as the content provider. AOL anybody?

Re: Does it report back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you please write an extension to block all Getty images.

now google will just...

[Anonymous Coward]

remove the code from the html source that contains the direct link

Eric's theorem strikes again

[Indy1]

"For every technology, there is equal and opposite hacker technology"

Re:Eric's theorem strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to getting back features we never had.

Re:Eric's theorem strikes again

[Wootery]

Not really. There's nothing of any technical interest here, just a rather silly lawsuit by people who seem not to understand what it means to publish an image on the web.

They blame Google for people finding and stealing their images. They seem not to realise that if people can find their images online - which is presumably the point of publishing online - that means they'll be able to steal them.

Obfuscation/DRM of still-frame images will always be a losing battle. You can use technical measures to stop hotlinking (inspect HTTP referer header, or split image into several pieces and reassemble in HTML, or constantly shift URLs, etc), but there's no technical way to prevent stealing. Perhaps they could go as far as to use DRM technologies like EME to make it tougher, but it still wouldn't stop a determined thief. Insisting Google get rid of their View Image button is especially laughable.

Re:Eric's theorem strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody needs to explain to Getty that when they publish an image online, they are instructing any client that pokes their server to save a copy of it. You can't "steal" an image from Getty unless someone - who would either work for Getty, or who paid Getty to license the image - made an active effort to distribute it to you and the whole world. And on the flip side, by nature Getty images are absolutely worthless unless they are available for the entire world to "steal."

I despise the RIAA, but at least when they were first ramping up their copyright crusade, they weren't themselves actively spamming the Internet with automatically-downloading mp3s of their copyrighted material and then crying about how nobody stopped the automatic download or deleted the file afterward.

Gee I wonder how you could find out

[raymorris]

Is clicking two links to see for yourself really that hard?

For the entitled weenies who can't do ANYTHING for themselves and need us actual adults to do everything for them:

https://github.com/bijij/ViewI...

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, mirror

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[muffen]

Is clicking two links to see for yourself really that hard?

Every click is an unwanted interruption, making the task at hand harder and harder and harder.... and harder... although after a while, it isn't hard anymore!

Re: Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna guess the Lawyers still got their money.

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[BronsCon]

Considering that you can still right-click and select View Image from the context menu (two clicks vs the one the button on the page allowed for), I'd say yes, anyone interested in this extension is probably too lazy to click twice.

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Anonymous Coward]

No you stupid shit, the preview of the image in image search is not the original. it does not have the same compression, transparency or resolution. Also the linked page often does not hold the image anymore or makes it a pain to find.

Stop typing stuff on the internet, you are adding no value.

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[GrahamJ]

I usually use image search to find an image to hotlink in Slack or a web forum. The View Image button would show you whether the image had hotlink protection. Viewing the image by right-clicking does not.

I guess you’re too adult to have thought of that.

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[BronsCon]

Oh? So when I click the thumbnail of the first image on this page, then right click the preview image and click "View Image" and am taken to this URL, that's not the original image?

Perhaps try it yourself before you tell me I'm rong?

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Aighearach]

You are wrong you fucking moron. And somebody already corrected you, but you don't understand how the computers work so you didn't comprehend it.

Yes, once in awhile the image is so small that the preview was actually the original. But usually not. Fucking duh.

The feature they removed would never have even existed if what you said worked the way you think it does.

Be wrong before being corrected, it is the best you can do. But please stop continuing to be wrong even after your betters have corrected you. Yes, anonymous coward is your better. That's how stupid you were here.

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Anonymous Coward]

Linus?

Re:Gee I wonder how you could find out

[BronsCon]

The extension grabs the image URL from that preview image, jackass. Here are lines 30 and 31 of the extension itself:

// Retrive the image;
var image = object.querySelector('img');

and just a little farther down, on line 73, we set the URL for the View Image button we're putting back on the page:

viewImageLink.setAttribute('href', image.src);

Oh, look at that, we're using the src attribute of the preview image.

I've been doing it manually, the way I described in my previous posts, for years. Much longer than that button has existed, mind you, and I will continue doing it that way now that the button is gone.

Now that your better has pointed out that the extension is literally doing the exact same thing as right clicking the image and clicking View Image, do you want to go sit down and shut the fuck up?

Re: Gee I wonder how you could find out

[Anonymous Coward]

So the extension doesn't work then?

Re: Gee I wonder how you could find out

[BronsCon]

If you're insinuating that what's worked just fine for me since before the "View Image" button was even ever implemented "doesn't work" then... no, it does not. And, if it does, the code on Github is not the code that goes into the extension, because the code in Github is doing exactly what I said above.

Firefox too!

[ElectraFlarefire]

Also for Firefox too as can be quickly found out.
Makes it harder for google to block should they wish.

Re:Firefox too!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Number Four.

Re:Firefox too!

[mu22le]

Also for Firefox too as can be quickly found out.
Makes it harder for google to block should they wish.

You can automatically convert Chrome (and Opera) extensions to firefox:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

They all use the Same API now anyway.

Re:Firefox too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the firefox version https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/view-image/

Re:Firefox too!

[omfglearntoplay]

Thanks. Had no idea they were that compatible.

Re:Firefox too!

[Anonymous Coward]

They all use the Same API now anyway.

That is a broad claim. At least Firefox has its own extensions to that API. Afaik NoScript can actually intercept various Google tracking requests before they are send out, a functionality that is crippled on Chrome.

Re:Firefox too!

[MiliusXP]

I'm number 5 :s

Re:Firefox too!

[Kernel Kurtz]

Who is Number One?

Re:Firefox too!

[jez9999]

They weren't until Mozilla turned Fx into a clone of Chrome. I'm surprised you even have to convert them.

Goog Gonna Nip This In The Butt Real Soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Else Will Get Siouxed Like A Bannedshe!

No need for an extension

[Anonymous Coward]

Just right click on the image and choose Open Image in new tab.

Re: No need for an extension

[Anonymous Coward]

No because that just opens Google's compressed, small-size thumbnail, not the full version from the web host (source).

I'm surprised Google left the link to the full image in the HTML source, allowing this workaround to exist in the first place.

Re: No need for an extension

[innocent_white_lamb]

You're doing it wrong.

Left-click on the image so it opens into the larger image where "view image" button used to be.

Now right-click on the larger image and select "view image".

Re: No need for an extension

[AK Marc]

I'm surprised Google left the link to the full image in the HTML source, allowing this workaround to exist in the first place.

Then you are the dumbest fucking person on the planet. Google didn't want it. Google didn't care. Google took out the button because of a lawsuit. If the lawsuit people don't like it, they can sue The Internet. I'm not surprised they left it easy. Google doesn't want to lock it down. Why would you think Google would lock it down well?

Re: No need for an extension

[Anonymous Coward]

The original image is there, because google is linking directly to the source image for the larger view. Google does not archive and display every image from it's own servers. cuts down on bandwidth and storage and they would probably run afoul of copyright laws if they did so. As far as i know only the little thumbnail images are served from google's own servers, since realtime image resizing would significantly reduce speed that the page loads. I imagine it falls under some kind of fair use clause, just as the snipets of text from a page that appear in search result summaries.

Re: No need for an extension

[Calydor]

Not always easy when the image is on an image-heavy page, so you end up having to scroll through 50 other images that all have to load in first.

Or maybe the page Google indexed is dynamic, so by now the image that was cached on page 2 is on page 41 and you'll never find it again.

Re: No need for an extension

[Teun]

True.
Regretfully they have removed the indication of the pixel size from the list of 8 thumbnails so there is a fair chance you get nothing bigger.
Luckily you can during the original search still specify a certain minimum size.

Re: No need for an extension

[SandorZoo]

That doesn't always work. Sometimes the larger image is the (hotlinked) original image, but sometimes it's the same size as the thumbnail, and is either an image hosted in gstatic.com, or a base64 encoded data URL. It seems to me the larger an image is, the less likely it is to be hotlinked from Google's image search pages.

Re: No need for an extension

[Teun]

Oops, the original size has moved to below the preview.

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

Okay, so how were you seeing the View Image button in the first place, then?

All that changes here is that you have to right click before you left click now.

Re: No need for an extension

[Calydor]

You've never gone to visit the page an image was originally from and found it to be an absolutely MASSIVE portfolio so it's like doing the Google Image search all over again, just with even more crud thrown into the mix?

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

"View Image" in the context menu doesn't take you to the page the image is on, it takes you to the image. See here for simple steps to try this for yourself.

Re: No need for an extension

[Calydor]

Okay, there's been a misunderstanding, then. I was replying to a discussion about how pointless the View Image button was because you could just right-click the image in Google's results, then that it wasn't a problem to just open the page it's on and get it from there.

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

I just went back and read the thread again and I think the misunderstanding started a bit before I posted, then. innocent_white_lamb, who you replied to initially, gave the same steps I did.

Re: No need for an extension

[Aighearach]

The "misunderstanding" is to just presume that bro-whatever is literate. He can read, but he's aliterate. He knows how, but won't do it. So you think there is a misunderstanding, but really he just has no idea what the conversation is and even after using the internet for years, he still doesn't understand that the context menu "view image" only shows the preview, and the google feature linked not to the preview but to the full size original. And, that they cache those links and even after the page that links to it goes away, the link to the original images are usually still valid even after the "page" that included the links has changed.

There isn't really much to "understand," so much as, he'd have to stop knowing he's right long to actually read a paragraph to find out how it works. Never going to happen. Give him ten more years, he still won't know how to internet.

Re: No need for an extension

[Aighearach]

Try reading it another 20 or 30 times, but actually read the words instead of skimming them. Were you one of those people who took a "speed reading" class and lost 15 IQ points, permanently? Because you'd no longer be capable of reading directions and following them carefully?

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

Let's do that right here, k?

You're doing it wrong.

Left-click on the image so it opens into the larger image where "view image" button used to be.

Now right-click on the larger image and select "view image".

So, step one given in that post is to left click the thumbnail. Step two is to right click the image (after clicking the thumbnail to reveal the image) and click "View Image". Yeah, those are the steps I gave. I wasn't quite as explicit about clicking the thumbnail but, then, I didn't think I needed to be since it had already been said.

Try a little humility once in a while, it's a better look for you (and, indeed, most people) than arguing against facts.

Re: No need for an extension

[TranquilVoid]

Left-click on the image so it opens into the larger image

So, step one given in that post is to left click the thumbnail

The problem is that this opens the entire source web page. That page may contains 100s of other images you have to load and scan through to find the one you want. Or it may no longer contain the target image, yet that image still resides on their servers so would have been accessible by the original View Image link.

I haven't looked at the addon code like you, but a simple test shows it works sort-of as advertised.
- Search for cat in Google images
- Left-click first image in results, for me an allegedly 5360x3560 image from pexels.com
- Right-click > Show image in new tab, shows 276x183 thumbnail from cache
- Click addon's View Image button, shows a 1000x664 image from hir6.hu

Note, I had to select the second 'similar image' then back to the first to get the addon's link to set itself properly.

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

Clicking the thumbnail opens the image details, where the View Image button (and the preview image) would originally have been. Left clicking the preview image will take you to the source page, but right clicking it will let you view it. That is the image from which the extension sources the URL for the View Image button, so clicking the button gives you the very same image. It is true that some larger images are replaced with smaller ones for preview, but the method the extension uses to source the original can't work around that, either. Both methods are functionally equivalent.

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

Go review the source code for the extension. I did and it's sourcing the URL for the "View Image" button from the preview image. If the right-click method won't take you to the true original image, neither will the extension. As for the now-removed View Image button, I don't know if it actually behaved differently than the extension because I never used it. But, again, do actually review the source code for the extension.

As for whether or not I "know how to internet", I'm a developer, I've been programming literally since the age of 5 and have been doing web development since the 90's. I know very well "how to internet", thank you.

Re: No need for an extension

[BronsCon]

- Search for cat in Google images
- Left-click first image in results, for me an allegedly 5360x3560 image from pexels.com
- Right-click > Show image in new tab, shows 276x183 thumbnail from cache

Funny, when I do the same (for example, here), I do see a handful of examples of that issue (including your 5360x3560 gray and white cat hosted be Pexels) but, by and far, right-clicking and selecting View Image takes you to the original. It may well be that all of the images I've ever grabbed using this method have been pointing directly to the original (as the vast majority do) as I've honestly never seen this before today.

In either case, by your own admission the View Image button provided by the addon isn't linking to the original either.

Why not just block images from Getty?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want them on Google. Fine, just remove them.

Hysterical.

[Maxo-Texas]

Lol. Really hysterical.

Time for popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

And let the lawsuits begin!

Yeah. Big surprise.

[Qbertino]

This was expected.

Fuck 'em, too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

Been looking for a good excuse to dump Google for a while now. Image results from Bing (via DDG) are better anyway, and the regular search seems at least adequate.

Re:Fuck 'em, too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you blaming google when they needed to take it out because of shitty scummy Getty, the company that steals people's photos until you sue them. Why would Bing be any different in this case?

Re:Fuck 'em, too late.

[Aighearach]

Europe is much fonder of MS than Google these days, who knows why. Also, MS is more willing to stand up to governments and fight these things. Ultimately this is not about Getty at all, it is about the willingness of Google to do anything, internationally, when demanded by a local government.

I'm not even in Europe, why did my features change? Because google doesn't care if governments use them to harm me. They just don't care.

Irrelevant because...

[thegarbz]

Google images previews the full sized image in the window anyway. Simply right click and click view image or whatever your browser's equivalent is and you get taken to the original anyway.

No need to load yet another extension.

Re:Irrelevant because...

[Aighearach]

Please note that is sometimes true, but often not. As stated it is simply false.

Re:Irrelevant because...

[thegarbz]

Actually it's been 100% true for me. Any time Google has failed to load a full sized image, the Show Original button either resulted in a server timeout or a shoddy redirection page.

Sometimes the Show Original button resulted in a shoddy redirect that the "View Image" menu option didn't. So you're right it didn't work 100% of the time for me, it actually worked 110% of the time.

Now it's tiem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is time to grab some popcorn. I will create an extension where the image will be shown. But if you or some third party would like, the extension will place the watermark saying Do not view image across and diagonally on top of the image as an overlay.

today's captcha is diagonal believe it or don't!

Chromium

[Teun]

For those reluctant to share everything with Google, the extension also works with Chromium.

Bring back the old design

[houghi]

They should bring back the old design. I hate the fact that the images do not line up nicely and that I can not see immediately from what site they are. Yes, I know that I can scroll over it. That takes more time.

I also hate the continuous webpages in general. On Firefox there is Old Google Image Search

I have yet have to find a website where continues pages are an advantage.

A workaround is to add "&sout=1" to your search.

Re:Bring back the old design

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, turn off Javascript and Google Images looks about the same as it always did, all of your complaints gone.

That version never had a "View Image" button.

Or just search using duckduckgo...

[mark_reh]

It works the way the google search did and lets you open the image on the same page.

Fork chromium

[Anonymous Coward]

Sick of this crippled google shitware

Really?

[BronsCon]

Who's gonna be too lazy to right-click and image and choose "View Image" from the resulting dropdown, but not too lazy to seek out and install an extension?

Yeah, the button on the page was great, it gave lazy people a one-click option, but the two-click option still works.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I search for wallpaper images, and right-click and choose "Open Image in New Tab", I get a 300 x 168 pixel image.

Google thought they could take us on? LOL, MATE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot, Sergei! (Btw, what kind of name is Sergei... are you a Russian SPY??) We may not have jobs, girlfriends, or social lives, but we have ALL the time in the world, and you'll NEVER... EVER... take from us what is truly ours.

For now

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"We'll just quickly code up the button and put it on the Google apps store aaannnnnd it's gone!"

Only Certain Proection from This is:

[turkeyfish]

The only way to protect yourself is to avoid any clicks or use of the company's products and its website.

And that prevents you from clicking the summary?

[raymorris]

And how exactly does that prevent you from clicking the link in the summary to look at the extension yourself?

Is this really necessary?

[SurenEnfiajyan]

You can just drag and drop the image on desktop.

Simple fix...

[Halster]

Just use Bing images instead. Their view source image button it still there! ;)

What I really want is ...

[Agripa]

What I would prefer is a plug-in or other permanent configuration which blocks Getty (and Pinterest) from my search results. Their stock photos just pollute the search results.