6 ms·

Google was sued by Getty and had to make the change. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-get

Google was sued by Getty and had to make the change. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after-google-removes-view-image-button-bowing-to-getty/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...

capableweb 7y ago
The only thing they would have to change to make Getty happy is that when you click on the image, it takes you to the place where the image was used, instead of the direct url of the image. All the rest of the design choices was Google's, and we rightly blame them for purposefully degrading the experience of using Google Image search.
- spiderfarmer 7y ago
  As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.
  - capableweb 7y ago
    I agree, feels more fair towards site owners than hotlinking the image, which been frowned upon on the internet since... At least I started using the internet. What is not fine, is to use that as a reason to completely screw up the rest of the design, when a small change could have been enough.
  - Ygg2 7y ago
    As an image search user. The number of times I went to the site only to find it either doesn't have the picture or requires a login would just make me mad.
    - hanniabu 7y ago
      Yup, the amount of times I've clicked on the image up follow through to the site hasn't changed between either version either. This just makes things more of a hassle.
    - tudorw 7y ago
      Looking at you Pinterest! Their search results are irritation incarnate!
      - neop1x 7y ago
        Getty should sue Pinterest! Their whole business is based on sharing 3rd-party pictures. And forcing you to register in order to browse. I don't understand how they still can continue doing business...
        spiderfarmer 7y ago
        Why is Image Search OK, but Pinterest not?
    - spiderfarmer 7y ago
      That’s something Google should improve then. I think the argument can be made that Google caches that image illegally, if the owner decided to remove it from its site. And Google could also decide to block websites, like Pinterest, that are gaming their search algorithms. That would be beneficial for everyone.
- herf 7y ago
  And, if only it didn't make a new tab every time.
anonytrary 7y ago
I remember that, and I am a still a tiny bit salty about how it impacted me as a user. Ever since, it has been so unnecessarily tedious get the raw image link from Google. Half the time, I end up with a data url, sometimes I get taken to the backing website, who usually don't know anything about accessibility, sometimes I get the image. It's all just so much worse now. That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to source data from your site, then use that to add value to their site, without giving you any click-through traffic. Tangentially, it would be great if Google sent like $1 (edit: or < $1; the amount isn't my point) per 1000 clicks out to websites whose search results get clicked. They already have an ad-engine that does all of this. This would mean that you would get paid to have good SEO, or to be a central hub. The websites that comprise the entire web should negotiate better terms with central data brokers like Google.
- dvdkon 7y ago
  $1 per 1000 clicks is ridiculous. Google make a lot of money, but that's because of their scale, not because they have somehow made search a miracle source of income. Would you also argue that, say, indexes of literature or libraries should pay the authors money per item viewed, because the data isn't "theirs"? Paying websites with good SEO would make filtering out abusers of search engines (no meaningful content, scraping other websites and republishing, clickbait...) even harder, as there would now be a direct ROI on SEO.
  - DailyHN 7y ago
    > Would you also argue that, say, indexes of literature or libraries should pay the authors money per item viewed, because the data isn't "theirs"? At least someone has to pay for the book to be in a library.
    - dvdkon 7y ago
      Yes, because the author didn't make its contents available for free. Websites can do the same, and many do. They could even disallow other sites from crawling them and processing their contents through the (mostly) respected robots.txt. But publishing something for free, not forbidding crawling through well-understood mechanisms, and then demanding payment is ridiculous.
notyourday 7y ago
I'm not a fan of Google but the solution to the Getty problem for Google is to drop all links to Getty domains from the index. Getty is a relic of the past power that still has not adapted to the Internet.
natch 7y ago
Just remove Getty or maybe all stock images from the index. There are too many watermarked images in search results anyway. These images could still be made searchable through some other dedicated search with a conforming UI for users who really want a cross-vendor stock images search.

capableweb 7y ago

The only thing they would have to change to make Getty happy is that when you click on the image, it takes you to the place where the image was used, instead of the direct url of the image. All the rest of the design choices was Google's, and we rightly blame them for purposefully degrading the experience of using Google Image search.

spiderfarmer 7y ago
As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.
- capableweb 7y ago
  I agree, feels more fair towards site owners than hotlinking the image, which been frowned upon on the internet since... At least I started using the internet. What is not fine, is to use that as a reason to completely screw up the rest of the design, when a small change could have been enough.
- Ygg2 7y ago
  As an image search user. The number of times I went to the site only to find it either doesn't have the picture or requires a login would just make me mad.
  - hanniabu 7y ago
    Yup, the amount of times I've clicked on the image up follow through to the site hasn't changed between either version either. This just makes things more of a hassle.
  - tudorw 7y ago
    Looking at you Pinterest! Their search results are irritation incarnate!
    - neop1x 7y ago
      Getty should sue Pinterest! Their whole business is based on sharing 3rd-party pictures. And forcing you to register in order to browse. I don't understand how they still can continue doing business...
      - spiderfarmer 7y ago
        Why is Image Search OK, but Pinterest not?
  - spiderfarmer 7y ago
    That’s something Google should improve then. I think the argument can be made that Google caches that image illegally, if the owner decided to remove it from its site. And Google could also decide to block websites, like Pinterest, that are gaming their search algorithms. That would be beneficial for everyone.
herf 7y ago
And, if only it didn't make a new tab every time.

anonytrary 7y ago

I remember that, and I am a still a tiny bit salty about how it impacted me as a user. Ever since, it has been so unnecessarily tedious get the raw image link from Google. Half the time, I end up with a data url, sometimes I get taken to the backing website, who usually don't know anything about accessibility, sometimes I get the image. It's all just so much worse now. That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to source data from your site, then use that to add value to their site, without giving you any click-through traffic. Tangentially, it would be great if Google sent like $1 (edit: or < $1; the amount isn't my point) per 1000 clicks out to websites whose search results get clicked. They already have an ad-engine that does all of this. This would mean that you would get paid to have good SEO, or to be a central hub. The websites that comprise the entire web should negotiate better terms with central data brokers like Google.

dvdkon 7y ago
$1 per 1000 clicks is ridiculous. Google make a lot of money, but that's because of their scale, not because they have somehow made search a miracle source of income. Would you also argue that, say, indexes of literature or libraries should pay the authors money per item viewed, because the data isn't "theirs"? Paying websites with good SEO would make filtering out abusers of search engines (no meaningful content, scraping other websites and republishing, clickbait...) even harder, as there would now be a direct ROI on SEO.
- DailyHN 7y ago
  > Would you also argue that, say, indexes of literature or libraries should pay the authors money per item viewed, because the data isn't "theirs"? At least someone has to pay for the book to be in a library.
  - dvdkon 7y ago
    Yes, because the author didn't make its contents available for free. Websites can do the same, and many do. They could even disallow other sites from crawling them and processing their contents through the (mostly) respected robots.txt. But publishing something for free, not forbidding crawling through well-understood mechanisms, and then demanding payment is ridiculous.

notyourday 7y ago

I'm not a fan of Google but the solution to the Getty problem for Google is to drop all links to Getty domains from the index. Getty is a relic of the past power that still has not adapted to the Internet.

natch 7y ago

Just remove Getty or maybe all stock images from the index. There are too many watermarked images in search results anyway. These images could still be made searchable through some other dedicated search with a conforming UI for users who really want a cross-vendor stock images search.