3 ms·

Couldn'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 sea

by ax0ar 9y ago

Couldn'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 ago
Since the change is motivated by legal reasons, I expect logic didn't have much of a voice in the decision.
- jenthoven 9y ago
  Right. 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 ago
    And 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  That all sounds like a Getty problem.
  - nkristoffersen 9y ago
    Which 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 ago
        But 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 ago
I'm sure they just didn't think of that option.

by ax0ar 9y ago

Couldn'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 ago

Since the change is motivated by legal reasons, I expect logic didn't have much of a voice in the decision.

jenthoven 9y ago
Right. 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 ago
  And 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 ago

No, 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 ago
That all sounds like a Getty problem.
- nkristoffersen 9y ago
  Which 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 ago
      But 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 ago

I'm sure they just didn't think of that option.