I knew that you knew .. :)..the comment was for those who did not..
Unfortunately Google has been using images that do not belong to Google, and for which they do not have permission, for years..it is now 20 years since Google began..
Usually their defenders say "fair use", which doe snot apply to them..the moment that they left their lab at the University they no longer had "educational use" which was what they were "flying on" up to then..Then their defenders used "well you can always block them" ( I do ) which again was a "crock", it is not the legal responsibility of anyone to block IP theft of their images, or their unauthorised use , it is the legal responsibility of those who use the images ( for example in images search) to only do so if they have written permission to do so..the user cannot "imply" permission.
Google should be no exception, but what they rely upon, and have always relied upon, is that their "in house lawyers " would tie up anyone who sued them ( even if they had registered their copyright..which is not legally necessary ) in the US courts for decades or until the plaintiffs grandchildren were old and grey..Only billionaires ( and governments ) can afford to sue Google over IP abuse..and Google know it..immoral, unethical, illegal ..So, you block them, and ensure that if anyone else takes and uses your images, that they are marked as yours ( in a way that cannot be easily removed ..exif data is far to easily removed ) and if Google then use those unauthorised images, then the person viewing them knows where they are from, and who's legal property they are..
But if the day comes when someone brings a class action against Google, or the EU tells them to stop..I'll join in..as in the early days , I had a few images that were not marked, and G used them as did others..I got the others taken down, and as they were no longer available via the image thieves , Google eventually purged their system of them ..
I've even given permission to some people to use some of my images for no charge..with my watermark, copyright, brand..and they have done so..
Plus when I ( or anyone else ) send images to image banks ( Getty , istock, shutterstock etc ) the rights situation is different, but they still mark images ..Sending marked images to publishers, or editors is normal, and always has been , it keeps them honest, the unmarked images are when the check has cleared..If you use an agent ( many photographers do ), it is best to send marked images for your portfolio, until you are certain that you can trust them, or / unless they pay "upfront"..Few agents will, few galleries will, few editors will, but some may "commission", even with them, it is better to be paid in full, before the negs ( digital or otherwise ) are handed over without marks..technically commissions can be x considered "work for hire" , but get paid first, fighting to get paid after the fact can be very expensive, and you might go broke from the legal fees before you win..or they might go broke, and you'll not get a penny, but still have to pay your lawyers..