4 ms·
I think this will lead people to search for better alternatives. Removing the core part of a major product won't do any good to google. The view page button is
by ax0ar 9y ago
I think this will lead people to search for better alternatives. Removing the core part of a major product won't do any good to google.
The view page button is often broken and shows a page which doesn't even contain the searched image.
- lovelearning 9y agoI don't think Google likes it either. "These changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week."
- ax0ar 9y agoCouldn't they just introduce a change that would only affect certain websites such as getty? That would be more logical than completely destroying how image search is meant to be.
- lovelearning 9y agoSince the change is motivated by legal reasons, I expect logic didn't have much of a voice in the decision.
- jenthoven 9y agoRight. I was a PM on Google Image Search and, from what I experienced on the team, would assume this is related to the Getty Relationship, not for users’ benefit
- y03a 9y agoAnd I assume the reason they don't just say the Getty battle is the reason for this is due to other legal concerns about libel and slander. Even if we find alternatives to Google Image search, the alternative will get stuck in the same impossible situation eventually :/
- lambda 9y agoNo, because Getty is in the business of licensing their images to other sites. If an image appears on a news article, it could be from Getty. If it's on a blog post, it could be from Getty. You could have some protocol by which sites indicated that it can't be linked; but then everyone who embeds a Getty image would have to change their site to adopt that, and that would probably involve Getty having to change their licensing terms to require that, which would be a huge hassle for their customers who probably wouldn't bother doing it because it's difficult and doesn't help them out at all. Or you'd have to do some kind of watermark embedding. Anyhow, while it would be technically possible to do one of these things, I suspect that legally it was just a lot simpler to get Google to remove the feature.
- ericd 9y agoThat all sounds like a Getty problem.
- nkristoffersen 9y agoWhich is why they sued. To solve that problem.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago> Which is why they sued. To solve that problem. Except that they didn't solve the problem at all, they only foisted it onto everyone else, who now have to deal with an inferior interface even when they aren't dealing with Getty images.
- CobrastanJorji 9y agoBut that is NOT a Getty problem. Getty's iStockPhoto has its own image search, which is under its control and contains only its own images that are for sale. Crippling other image search products is good for Getty.
- salvar 9y agoI'm sure they just didn't think of that option.
- shiado 9y agoI had a feeling the internet copyright fun police had to be involved somewhere. No way Google decides to cripple their product that badly without some kind of legal pressure. It would be funny albeit highly abusive of their position for Google to completely delist Getty from their services, not to damage their business but to prevent copyright infringement of course.
- fjsolwmv 9y agoThis morning everyone hated Google for hosting news pages on their AMP cache, tonight everyone hates Google for NOT hosting images on their image cache.
- throwaway2048 9y agoThe view image button took you to the image hosted on the non-google webserver, it had nothing to do with an image cache (which is still there, its what google shows you in the results).
- shiado 9y agoTo add to this I wonder what exactly this "new partnership" with Google entails. http://press.gettyimages.com/getty-images-and-google-announce-a-new-partnership/ http://press.gettyimages.com/getty-images-and-google-announc...