Google to remove View Image button from Image Search According to Getty Images

[glitterball]

I just received an email from Getty Images (I am a contributor), stating that they will be withdrawing their complaint to the European Commission about Google Image Search as Google have agreed to make some important changes:

Google has worked closely with us to address many issues raised by Getty Images around Google Images, the image search functionality of Google. Moving forward, Google has agreed to make changes in Image Search, including making the copyright disclaimer more prominent and removing the view image button. This is a benefit to all image owners globally and we expect this to have a positive impact on traffic to our site.

Some good news for content creators at last?

[glakes]

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.

Which is just a politically correct way of saying we have stopped stealing your images and using them in a way that benefits Google rather than the useful websites who produced them.

My guess is Google will get around this by ranking even more stolen images which appear on websites with Adsense. As we all know, Google really does not care about rights so long as they are making money...

[tangor]

... or figuring out a different way to make money. :)

[engine]

I'm always surprised by the number and resolution of images on sites leaving them wide open to theft.

As I said, you can always block the bots.
Alternatively, use better watermarking, or smaller thumbnails, or both.

[RedBar]

Alternatively, use better watermarking,

However for image search Google very rarely ranks a watermarked image these day and they haven't done so for at least 3+ years.

What amazes me is how many image thieves are complaining about this, they just do not seem to recognise that they are stealing other people's work and effort.

Even the BBC today have told Joe Public about right clicking, this is not now going to make any difference, IMHO.

[MrSavage]

@engine, here's the deal. Your solutions take time and effort. Those "solutions" will solve very little. Images stopped sending traffic right? So I'm not sure what part of that is so confusing. The only solution was legal action. That worked (partially it seems). I could block access to my site completely, thus no theft, no scraping, no nothing. Is that a solution? If it's viewable by everyone online, it can be stolen. That's life. It's just when the 90+% market share company decides to host the world's images, it's pretty much a dead deal. Watermarking can make some sense, however I NEVER see the watermarked site as being the first few images that Google ranks. So the Google can't attribute/reward the originator of the image so again, is ruining your own images with watermarks an actual solution? Smaller thumbnails should look uglier so how is that going to result in click-throughs from the image search?

I think it's funny what people here discovered about the viewing (still) of the full sized images, even Getty. If there was any debate about using the word "farce", here's a bit more proof for you.

[edited by: MrSavage at 3:15 pm (utc) on Feb 16, 2018]

[chrisv1963]

Even the BBC today have told Joe Public about right clicking, this is not now going to make any difference, IMHO.

This is why Google should stop hotlinking our images and replace them by thumbnails. Hotlinking is wrong, it's bandwidth theft and it's encouraging to and making it easier to steal our images. BBC should report on how Google is stealing for millions worth of bandwidth every day instead of telling Joe Public how to view our images ("stolen" by Google) without visiting our websites ...

[engine]

Before anyone thinks I support Google: I do not! I agree, hotlinking does not help at all, and i'm really not sure why Google thinks it's a good idea.

I'll leave my Rayban glasses, my wallet, perhaps a laptop, in full view in my car. Better still, i'll leave the windows open so they don't get smashed as the thief helps themselves to the car's contents.
Oh, wait, it'll take some effort to hide the things, and to close the windows, and perhaps even to park in a safer place.
The equivalent is that Google has only made theft easier by pointing to where my car's parked.

Yes, it takes effort.

I wonder if Getty has realised they aren't quite there with this, and they will have to try again.

[RedBar]

Ever since the Google image theft I created some code so that whenever anyone tried to hotlink it would generate a 403 but for the search engines through htaccess I allowed them access. Purely by coincidence the interesting thing is that it also generated a lesser quality image and if anyone wanted to see the original they had to visit my sites.

I've just checked how this is working with the new image search and it's now better than ever. Anyone right clicking only gets that lower quality and a smaller image.

Don't ask me how I've done this however e.g. a 600 x 800 is shown by Google in lower quality and when right clicked is actually saved as a low quality 194 x 259.

'Tis time for me to appy this across all sites again methinks.

[MrSavage]

As people have pointed out, this isn't perfect yet and it's yet to be seen whether Getty will speak up.

Everyone has different niches and traffic but for me, image traffic provides ad click revenue. I believe that this type of visitor are the one who aren't going to bother with the right clicking and work around. So whether this ends up staying as is, a 5%, 10%, 15% or whatever increase is still an increase. It's a move up which is not something that has happened in a long time.

I'll post back whether earnings have actually seen a difference on a couple of my image based websites. I just think that the ad clicking traffic these days are not the ad blockers and would also not be the right click saving types either.

Right now this still seems like a farce, but I can't see the change being a 0% increase. Score one for the good guy.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 2:53 am (utc) on Feb 20, 2018]
[edit reason] Added paragraphs and spacing for legibility [/edit]

[RedBar]

I have no idea why however, so far today, my traffic is way down, sure it'll never get back to the 100K image PVs per day I used to have with great AdSense earnings but any improvement would be gratefully received.

[ken_b]

Anyone seeing any real impact from this yet?

[NeapTide]

If you guys are too much conscious about your images getting stolen, put a watermark of your site on them for G's sake. That's what I do.

[NickMNS]

Has anyone right clicked on a Getty Image photo. The click doesn't take you to the photo alone as in most cases. It opens a webpage that shows that specific photo and then a bunch more thumbnails, the price of the photo etc...

[glitterball]

Has anyone right clicked on a Getty Image photo. The click doesn't take you to the photo alone as in most cases. It opens a webpage that shows that specific photo and then a bunch more thumbnails, the price of the photo etc...

I saw the effect that you are talking about once, but not in other attempts to reproduce it. Perhaps they are rolling it out?

Really, we need a court to rule that unauthorised hotlinking is a copyright infringement and is subject to statutory damages. That would fix this issue forever.

[RedBar]

If you guys are too much conscious about your images getting stolen, put a watermark of your site on them for G's sake. That's what I do.

Obviously some people do not read others' posts:

However for image search Google very rarely ranks a watermarked image these day and they haven't done so for at least 3+ years.

If you personally do not try to rank for images then you may not be aware of this however this has been fact for several years, the unfortunate thing is that Google lost control of the original image creator years ago. My images are copied every day, I don't have too much of a problem with that so long as they do not rank above me however when Google ranks the most awful. spammy, keyword-stuffed, brand new, non-responsive, free, WordPress sites above me, then I get mightily pi$$ed off.

Bear in mind that mine are genuine corporate sites with realworld products, many of these copy BS sites are people trying to con others that these are their products. Google has created this world of fake sites simply by pretending that their algorithms are infallible, they're not.

[chrisv1963]

I don't have too much of a problem with that so long as they do not rank above me however when Google ranks the most awful. spammy, keyword-stuffed, brand new, non-responsive, free, WordPress sites above me, then I get mightily pi$$ed off.

Google seems to love that type of crap sites. I still can't figure out why. Google seems to love Pinterest too. For many of my images the original version on my website is no longer ranking on Google Image Search ... but the Pinterest copies are ... and the Pinterest copies of my pictures that have been stolen and placed on crap spam websites ...

[EditorialGuy]

However for image search Google very rarely ranks a watermarked image these day and they haven't done so for at least 3+ years.

If that's true, it could be a benefit to site owners who aren't interested in having having their images rank in search. (Disclaimer: I'm no fan of watermarked images, simply because they look ugly.)

[keyplyr]

Watermarked Getty Images are usually some of the highest placed in image search.

[MrSavage]

If the mentions of a Getty specific right click feature is an "exclusive" to their so-called settlement, then I need to get my barf bag at the ready.

[keyplyr]

There's no "Getty specific right click feature"

Again, the right click is a browser feature.

[MrSavage]

Did we read the comments above?

Has anyone right clicked on a Getty Image photo. The click doesn't take you to the photo alone as in most cases. It opens a webpage that shows that specific photo and then a bunch more thumbnails, the price of the photo etc...

I saw the effect that you are talking about once, but not in other attempts to reproduce it. Perhaps they are rolling it out?

< snip >

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 1:05 am (utc) on Feb 20, 2018]
[edit reason] Let's keep discussions civil. [/edit]

[ken_b]

Has anyone right clicked on a Getty Image photo. The click doesn't take you to the photo alone as in most cases. It opens a webpage that shows that specific photo and then a bunch more thumbnails, the price of the photo etc...

I tried this out on several images. Right click/new tab opened to a page on the originating site. Right click/view image opened just the image but on the originating site.

But on Getty images either way opened a Getty page. I'm guessing that's due to something on the Getty site ... right?

If that's right, where would we find the code that would work on our sites? Is there a piece of open code that would work?

That would be some kind of redirect applicable to image calls from off site, right?

[keyplyr]

But on Getty images either way opened a Getty page. I'm guessing that's due to something on the Getty site ... right?

Yes, it's an in-sight redirect and has nothing to do with Google Image Search.

It would be easy to set up. One way would be to put this in the htaccess of your image directory:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} google
RewriteRule example.html [L]

Of course it only works if there's a referrer present in the request. Some users turn it off (incognito)

[RedBar]

@keyplyr

Watermarked Getty Images are usually some of the highest placed in image search.

Rowlocks, total and effing rowlocks, what the freaking hell are you searching for?

Pretty flowers, nice bridges ?.?.?. Honestly, keyplyr ... do you have ANY knowledge of image search?

YES, I am very annnoyed with your blatant statement ... I shall say no more since I shall otherwise be banned for a fourth time after 30,000 posts!.!.!

You evidently know absolutely NOTHING about image search and why it is required plus the complete and utter Google manipulation for its "financial "friends", supporters and neighbours.

[keyplyr]

@RedBar - let's keep it civil

I run 2 different image directories, each with over 10k image files. This is a huge traffic source. I monitor this traffic several times each day.

Just because you see different results, or have a different opinion of what you see, means only that. I invite you to consider that not everyone sees what you see.



[fix typo]

[edited by: keyplyr at 1:43 am (utc) on Feb 20, 2018]

[MrSavage]

Something stinks. I can't pin point it though. If the right click Getty results in a redirect, then couldn't or didn't they do that prior to making this complaint to the EU?

If every website on the planet needs to put in the same redirect just to "make it just/legal" then please explain how this image practice can continue. Did Google just say here, take this code, use it so you can counter the right click image "theft" that you have such an issue with? I find this subject odd, to say the least.

Google has been obtuse on this roll out, to say the least. As some mentioned, it was mentioned in a tweet which is a bit nonchalant. Getty complained about the current image search, yet it's the obligation of the site owner (Getty) to put code to ensure that the good guy (Google) doesn't make it easy for people to steal the images?

Like our hands are clean (Google) because they remove the button, yet permit a workaround Chrome addon to make the image search the way it was before the button removal. Dweebs are crying online about the removal of the view image button but Google won't address the reason it's gone? As in, value the source? (BS) Protect the copyright holders? (BS) Google didn't say a word to defend or explain further the button removal. They mocked the process essentially because the image button is gone but the full images are simply accessible.

The button was replaced with the right-click action. That's all. If it's wrong, it's wrong. If Google is in the right, then the image button removal is misleading or a red herring or something dummies would think was a compromise. They know the image button functionality is still there! Just a half-A attempt if that. Frankly? They don't give a S. That's my take thus far. It's a farce.

Just because you see different results, or have a different opinion of what you see, means only that. I invite you to consider that not everyone sees what you see.

There is some reflection that needs to be had within the above quote. <snip>


Mod's note: Removed personal comments. Also, added paragraphs and spacing to make MrSavage's post legible.

Mr Savage... better formatting of your posts would help a lot. That includes breaking thoughts up into paragraphs and including empty blank lines between them to provide some white-space and rest for the eye.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 3:50 am (utc) on Feb 20, 2018]
[edit reason] edit per TOS, and formatting [/edit]

[ken_b]

Thanks keyplyr

[RedBar]

Oh, I forgot something:

however when Google ranks the most awful. spammy, keyword-stuffed, brand new, non-responsive, free, WordPress sites above me, then I get mightily pi$$ed off.

NON-HTTPS - Yeah Google, where are MY bonus points for this?.?.?

Where are EVERYONE'S bonuses who have jumped through THAT hoop? Eh, Google? None, nothing, nicht, niente, denada ... for ANY site!

<cut>MY very expletives of richard cranium awards for Google & much worse.</cut>

[thedonald123]

Is there a way to view in Google Analytics visitors who come from Google Image Search?
I'm seeing a slight increase in bounce rate and decrease in pages per visit starting mid February and I wonder if they are coming from Google Image Search

[OnlyOne]

What needs to happen now to improve the user experience is for Google to remove or demote all those images where the full size image cannot be readily found or accessed (Youtube, Pinterest) on the page after clicking on the "visit" button. Some Mac users do not have a right-click button.