4 ms·
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
by 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 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.