Google Now Includes Creator and Credit Metadata in Google Images Photos

Don't forget to include the mention of shopping ads now appearing above many image search results. Credit is nice, just like the talking boxes but dang that doesn't pay the bills so much.

Image metadata can be removed when using image optimization tools. This will increase filesize but looks like a worthwhile tradeoff.

This appears to be a step in the right direction.

I am unclear, technically, as to where this is to be implemented. Is the meta-data to be added to the actual image file or is it added to the web-page?

I will answer my own question. It is added to the image file.

Next question is, what file formats will Google use this for? I use SVG extensively, but I have my doubts that this will be/is implemented for SVG.

The announcement and the standards are all focused on photography and not other types of visual content.

So..when Google shows you an image that is on Pinterest , which is Google's preferred place ( over the website that the Pinterest member stole it from ) ..what do they then show.., Do they show that Pinterest is the owner ( Pinterest's TOS says that they are ) ..and what about images that are taken / copied from their original sites, that then have their exif data and their copyright notices re-written ( extremely easy to do ) and that Google shows in their image SERPs in preference to the original image.. ?

So..when Google shows you an image that is on Pinterest.. ... ..what do they then show.

Assuming that the images remains un-edited the creator and credit should remain the one that was shown in the meta-data. At least that is my understanding.

It is more of a "going forward" solution than getting the horses back in the barn. The requirements are not "easy-peasy" to follow and implementation for now isn't a few simple steps. But that was skimming through it. I saved their .pdf for a later, in depth look. Right now, I'm seeing it as an opportunity for the app market.

I just checked 50 images on Pinterest..none had meta data in the IPTC fields..
Pinterest used to strip meta data from uploaded images..apparently they still do..
So..images at Pinterest will be "orphan"..how convenient for all except the original image creators..

btw .. I should add that the images I checked were all from various museums accounts and similar institutions or large companies.. The kind of people and institutions who would not forget to have meta data in the IPTC fields of their images.. especially as these images are part of their collections, and are copyright to them..

So..as I chose search terms which I knew that Google would serve me Pinterest as the first result ( and in fact the first page of image results was dominated by Pinterest, over the original sites that the images come from ) ..Google would serve images with no creator nor credit if they come from Pinterest, Google's darling image source..

Also just checked the exif data on this "sneezing albino stag" image at the BBC..
[bbc.com...]

No exif data in the IPTC field..and the "credit" to the the photographer can be edited out with a simple crop..as someone who was quoted in that article has said "he should have watermarked it"..done correctly watermarking is non intrusive on photos and extremely difficult to get rid of..

SVGs are another matter..we have a site that uses SVGs, on which we took measures to block any copying by Pinterest users, ( using amongst other things an idea that I worked on with incrediBill ), and any other visitors*.. Google crawl the site entirely, beginning over a year ago, but the site is not in their index..even for it's own name as "verbatim"..Bing , DDG, Qwant etc have no problems about putting the site in their indexes..All search engines were blocked from the image folders ..IA ( the internet archive was blocked from everything )..Given how Google are hand in glove with Pinterest, I'm not holding my breath that they respect image creators IP anymore than they have to date..no matter what their PR dept says..

For me far too late, horse bolted and gone ages ago thanks to Google's theft.

A few years ago we used to serve 100,000+ PVs per day, these days when we serve 500 we look to see who's scraping us, it's usually one of the popular "ISPs" pretending to be something else.

However saying that though, as a business we are sending thousands of images and video files a week to existing and potential customers, architects and specifiers alike by WhatsApp, in fact we generate far more enquiries and new business these days via WhatsApp and traditional trade shows than the regular Net does.

Interestingly these images and videos, so far, have never end up on "another" website from where they could be scraped, the recipients are using them for exclusive product sales leverage presentations ... excellent stuff:-)

@leosghost blocking Google from image indexing or any other sites from hotlinking SVGs is extremely easy. Simply display the SVG embed in the HTML document or use an <object> tag instead of an image tag. Google will still index the site, in fact the contents of the SVG will count towards the page contents (assuming there is some text in the svg).

You miss the point entirely , Google has been blocked from indexing the SVG images ..
and still will does not index the pages..The only difference between this and other sites is that Pinterest users have also been totally blocked..This fact , that Google then chooses to not index the site at all, does not worry me..it is an observation..

Oh and to clear up any misunderstanding ..on this particular site..there is plenty of text both in the image descriptions , titles, and on page text..( around 200 to 500 words depending on the pages )..But if one ruthlessly blocks the "pinners", Google will not index the site at all despite crawling all of it..
The "pinners" will stay blocked..the site is cartoons in strips / panels ( think "Peanuts" type of format, but with descriptive text on page for the partially sighted or blind ), once "pinned", no reason at all to visit the site..

You miss the point entirely , Google has been blocked from indexing the SVG images ..

No I'don't miss the point. On my sites where I embed my SVG my images are not appearing in image search or on Pinterest and my pages are indexed by Google. This solves your problem.

Or was your point to bash Google for bashing Google's sake?

The point is the pages are not indexed by google, the text part ( which is not embedded in the SVG descriptions ) is not indexed by Google..Because I deliberately and explicitly blocked Pinterest users from using "pin" ..When one does that..Google does not index anything of the site..Observation, fact..Not "bashing"..

Although one can surmise as to Google's motives, Given that pinterest was Google's way of getting at images that they themselves were directly blocked from..

[edited by: engine at 7:35 am (utc) on Sep 29, 2018]
[edit reason] Please see WebmasterWorld TOS [/edit]

"Image Credits" on/to Google? Lets assume that one image could spark someones entire career of being an Awesome photographer! Clinical/Cynical , isn't it?

One at a time.

This is progress for all creative people

Good. Yet... it doesn't solve things out. Hate to say this...

DRM and quite effective processes were applied to Music, while Images are more used (and abused) on the internet, who would have said huh? and there is really till this day no way to protect them.

The new layout fits seamlessly with that new row of shopping ads above all images. Seamless integration. I'm sure that the new layout has nothing to do with looking similar to the ads. Give you credit and we will add (no pun intended) our monetization in exchange. Search images for products and see for yourself. Most people won't know they are clicking a shopping ad. That row in the #1 to #6+ image result now in a lot of cases. Some people might see the new image details as a positive but the reality there is a new fork between your image traffic and that diversion is eating searches that might have resulted in site owner making money.

And this is NOT the way to solve image abuse, rather a way for Google to (1) give its use of web images cover while (2) appearing proactive.

As mentioned by others previously exif data can be removed. It can also be added.

Until now there was little incentive to add, just remove. However, now Google has told me that if I can replace your exif data and/or watermark (for instance) they will consider it mine. And that means that they've shifted all the onus on you to prove otherwise.

Now, my images are both well watermarked (most web images are not) and are copyright registered - plus I've disallowed SE image use almost since forever. However, I see a whole new image scraping industry popping up. You think seeing your scraped content outranking your site was irritating? Thanks again G!