Google Images is making it easier to license photo rights
Google is rolling out an update to Google Images designed to make it easier to license photographs or pictures that are covered by copyright. The change could help publishers, photographers, and artists get in front of their audience, while also helping users find images that they have a right to use.
Images with licensing information provided by the publisher will now appear in search results with a "Licensable" badge over the thumbnail. Clicking on that image will then bring up its licensing requirements and a link to where you're able to buy rights to it, if necessary. Licensors are able to specify a purchasing link that differs from the page the image has been surfaced from.
It'll also be possible to filter image search results by the type of license attached. For example, you could search just for images covered under a less strict Creative Commons license, or look specifically for commercial photos.
Bye, Flickr.
Also at Search Engine Land.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Monday August 31 2020, @10:59PM (1 child)
1. Post "found" pictures claiming copyright
2. Sell copies
3. PROFIT!
It's not like google and YouTube haven't enabled people to claim copyright on other people's work before.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2020, @11:25PM
Wait until this happens (you read it here first):
1. scumbag steals photos they find posted without Googly-spy-codes
2. scumbag re-posts photos as their own, WITH the new Googly-rights-DRM
3. scumbag sues original content creator (and sadly, possibly WINS)
I won't quite hold my breath, but I don't think my cold beer will have time to warm up...
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday August 31 2020, @11:26PM
"Let's see -- I've got my gmail account, an Android phone I stole, a few photos [npr.org] -- who's going to be able to tell I'm not legally able to own a copyright?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31 2020, @11:31PM
Because Google loves to track you.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday August 31 2020, @11:34PM (1 child)
I mean, if google immediately id's my pic as some porn star, what's a perverted 60 y/o to do?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @12:27AM
Is this the part "3> ..." before the profit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @12:00AM
" a "Licensable" badge "
Badgers? We don't need no stinken badgers! [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @12:21AM (3 children)
Everyone should have to register their copy protections with the LOC, and pay a fee, and the LOC should provide this information. It shouldn't be 'opt out' leaving it up to everyone to try and mitigate the ensuing mess that results.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @01:14AM (2 children)
Agreed. The little guy should have all of his ideas automatically stolen by big corporations.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @02:08AM
It was Hollywood and the big guy that lobbied for copy protection laws to be opt in and that kept on lobbying for their expansion and extension and one sided penalty structure. They didn't consult the little guy. It was done undemocratically not by the little guy but by the big guy (ie: Disney).
IP laws are not about protecting the little guy. They are about protecting the big guy. and the big guy should be ashamed of himself for trying to use the little guy as an excuse to push the interests of big corporations. But of course big corporations have absolutely zero shame.
To claim otherwise is to ignore the history of who kept on lobbying for the one sided nature of IP laws. Or it's to be intentionally misleading and deceptive and dishonest (which is most likely the case). IP laws are what they are because big corporations want them this way.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @02:14AM
Also, IP laws should not be about preventing 'theft'. Infringement is not theft. To the extent that IP laws should exist it should only exist to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts and to serve a public interest.
and the constitution does not give congress an obligation to pass IP laws. It gives them the right/ability but not the obligation. If Congress chose to completely abolish IP laws it would not be against the constitution because the constitution does not require congress to grant such monopolies. To claim otherwise either shows you don't know how to read or (more likely) you are being intentionally dishonest (which is to be expected coming from those that push for stronger and stronger IP laws. Absolutely no surprise there, I expect the same lies to be repeated over and over and over).
To the extent that IP laws are pushed for the purpose of 'protecting the little guy' then IP laws should absolutely be abolished completely. Like any other laws that exist IP laws should only be about promoting the public interest.
(Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday September 01 2020, @12:30AM (1 child)
So some shady marketers use your images online and claim they DID license it!
"See, look over here, I found it on Google and got the license from SockPuppet's Stock Photography Emporium #4. How was I to know that wasn't you? I did what I was supposed to, right? Not my fault. Can't blame me. Go get a lawyer and talk to SockPuppet."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:00AM
"I paid some scammer who said it was ok" is not actually a defense against copyright infringement. As a civil matter you don't magically get a free pass just because infringement was unintentional.
If you pay a fraudster for such a "license" you are simply out the money. Due diligence is your responsibility.
(Score: 2) by bmimatt on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:25AM (1 child)
"... The change could help publishers, photographers, and artists get in front of their audience, while also helping users find images that they have a right to use. ..."
Nope.
The change is designed to mainly help Google and that is the only reason they're rolling it out. To fatten their own bottom line by taking advantage of near-monopoly and sheer weight of the Behemoth in charge.
If someone gets some leftovers after GOOG is done taking their cut, that's fine; Google needs to take a bite first - they rolled out the lunch.
(Score: 1) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:50AM
They make no comment on what the change was designed for. The statement made is true. It adds the ability to purchase an image you're looking at, and it adds ability to only see free ones. I'm sure they get kicked back some cash from you buying the image, from the rights owner. That has nothing to do with you or their factually true statement.
How exactly are they using their monopoly here to add this ability? What does that have to do with a monopoly?
Google shopping has been around since forever, letting you search through stores. Now you can do that with images, or use the free service how you used to and not click buy. They're using their monopoly status to let you purchase an image from the store that sells it?
Next up: Apple adds ability to natively mirror screen to chromecast. You: Apple is abusing its monopoly by adding features.
(Score: 2) by Revek on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:49AM
Was useful, now its barely functional. Just a vehicle for getty images to scrape and claim.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants