SERP using my image for another site snippet

[keyplyr]

While doing a keyword search to check position of one of my pages, I discovered the og image for my page included in top-of-the-SERP snippet for another site with similar content.

I sourced the markup for the page and my og image is not there, so it is Google Search that is doing this.

This is really insulting. I spend valuable time creating these original images for *my* pages, not for the competition!

[browndog]

This has been discussed before. Google are happy to mash together content from one site and an image from another. Not much we can do about it unfortunately. Google rule the Internet. They've done it to me a lot. I pay for unique images, which they take and add to my competitors answer box content.

[not2easy]

There's more here: [webmasterworld.com...] and most people seem OK with it because the image link is to their site, while the 'answer' text links to another site. If your image links to another site - that's different.

[keyplyr]

My image doesn't link to my site though. It's in the snippet of a competitors site. Anywhere you click/tap in that snippet you go to their site.

Ironically, the image has my watermark all across it... blatantly visible

[Robert Charlton]

Here's where we discussed this before....

Mashed Up Featured Snippet w/ Links to 2 Different Sites
April-May 2017
https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4844393.htm [webmasterworld.com]

Much of the concern in our thread, and in Barry's seroundtable thread that I'd cited, was about the question of whether it's "fair" that Google uses snippet and image from different sources. Here's one of several spots where I considered the question.

My main competitor is there in the answer box, as they always are, but my image is next to their content.

Barry mentioned in the seroundtable article I'd cited above that this kind of thing might happen... and he predicted that some SEOs wouldn't be happy about it, but he also noted that this is how it has worked for years in "Top Stories or News box content", and everybody's survived. It could even be argued that it's giving two pages links up top rather than just one.

Keep in mind... Google has separate criteria for images in serps...
....etc

I characterize some of the types of images I'd seen thus far, and I also suggest near the end of my second post in that discussion...

Try to look at these with a dispassionate eye, and to figure out what user-needs Google's algos might be trying to satisfy with various choices of images.

(PS: Slight posting overlap with the above two posts as I had another tab open and didn't see them appear.)

[chrisv1963]

and most people seem OK with it because the image link is to their site, while the 'answer' text links to another site.

Wrong. The image links to the Google Image Search page with the hotlinked version of the image. In other words it leads to a page owned by Google that is stealing your bandwidth by hotlinking your image.

Three concerns here:
1. Your (copyrighted) image used in snippets with another website's text and link. Thus, the image is promoting the other website.
2. Your image hotlinked in Google Image Search
3. Your bandwicth stolen by Google.

[keyplyr]

@chrisv1963 - yes the image links to the Google image page and that is adding insult to injury.

However, there is no hotlinking going on. Google caches our images and servers that version.

They used to hotlink a couple years ago. I actually liked that. I ran a script that redirected the user to my page as soon as they tried to view the larger image.

[chrisv1963]

They used to hotlink a couple years ago. I actually liked that. I ran a script that redirected the user to my page as soon as they tried to view the larger image.

They are still hotlinking in image search. At least, that is what I'm seeing when I rightclick + "view image" in Firefox.
I used to run a similar script but it no longer works.

[MrSavage]

At this point it almost seems strange to complain about this.

[keyplyr]

@chrisv1963 - it is not hotlinking. Neither Bing nor Google hotlink images anywhere, not even in their respective image search results. It may appear that way, but you are seeing a cached image on their page.

In Image Search, when your browser hovers over the larger image and you see the file path to your own server, but that is not evidence of hotlinking, that is their forwarding code displaying.

You can test this by making a change to your image, clearing your browser cache and then quickly going to Google's Image Search. Your updated image will not be there until Google crawls and caches it.

More evidence they do not hotlink is, both Google and Bing Image Search display images I have removed from my server.

At this point it almost seems strange to complain about this

Glad to read this from you Mr Savage :)

[glakes]

Images in Google are FUBAR. Don't even bother submitting feedback for the search query either as Google may get around to it in 5+ years. My top selling product, and #1 listing in Google, uses a competitors image when searching using a mobile device. I thought about submitting a DMCA takedown request, and still might do it one of these days I'm bored. Just pisses me off to have a 100% genuine American made product ranked #1 in the SERPS and Google sticks a picture of a Chinese made POS next to it.

[Robert Charlton]

yes the image links to the Google image page and that is adding insult to injury.

Agreed. That's way over the top for what I'd consider fair use.

At the time this feature was first reported, I remember that the image links I tested were direct links to their source pages... and I believe that was the consensus about what was going on.

[MrSavage]

Glad to read this from you Mr Savage :)

I guess you missed the subtle jab there. Sometime sarcasm misses the mark in written word.

The point I'm making is that until Google affects people in a negative way, it's all good. If it's not happening to me then it's not worth discussing right? It's all just ranting or complaining or nonsense. Right, up until something Google does that affects you in a negative way.

All the predatorial developments with Google fall on deaf ears, until of course it affects somebody personally. Whelp, we can observe and discuss trends that are going to cost us money/traffic/revenue, but most times the self-righteous want to defend, defend, defend. Up until something affects them personally.

[keyplyr]

I guess you missed the subtle jab there. Sometime sarcasm misses the mark in written word.

Ha ha, no but it seems you missed mine :)