Author Topic: Getty suing Google in the EU over image search (Read 17194 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **on:** April 26, 2016, 19:12 »

http://wherewestand.gettyimages.com/advocacy/?esource=2016_4_ALL_GI_GoogleComplaint_EN_SEG

I received e-mail about this from Getty. I don't see any articles about it yet.

I guess the earlier strategy of embracing sharing but trying to make money from it via the embedding in blogs for free, the Yahoo metadata deal or the Google Drive deal has been abandoned?

Rose Tinted Glasses · « **Reply #1 on:** April 26, 2016, 19:27 »

On one side of the coin I am happy Getty is doing this and is pretty much the only agency that always takes action on infringement and copyright etc.

On the other side of the coin they embedded our images and gave them away for free to no benefit or gain to the very contributors they claim they are protecting.

Confused as ever.

anathaya · « **Reply #2 on:** April 26, 2016, 19:53 »

"Defending intellectual property and working to ensure a fair marketplace for content creators"

What a big joke that is... They only think how to maximize their own profit.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2016, 00:43 »

Quote from: anathaya on April 26, 2016, 19:53

"Defending intellectual property and working to ensure a fair marketplace for content creators"

What a big joke that is... They only think how to maximize their own profit.

With the mountain of debt they took on to pay the vulture capitalists they almost certainly don't have any other option.

anathaya · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2016, 02:50 »

Somehow, I wish google lose this time.

skyfish · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2016, 03:04 »

Agencies when they sue copyright infringers, always do publishers to think. Yes, they have to calculate correctly their budgets, and have less hope that they will not be cought. Yesterday witnessed a case when one online newspaper published a short article illustrated with world's airport photos. In between of normal sized photos from different agencies there was a thumbnail screenshot with reference number from Alamy. In 30 min it was removed along with several other photos. Propably there was a person between editors who understand that such type of use can be costly.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2016, 03:10 »

Will be interesting to see what happens and how fairly Getty compensate the people who supply them if they win.

goober · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2016, 04:32 »

During good times people turn a blind eye to infringements but when the bad times set in they look for someone to blame.

oporkka · « **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2016, 13:51 »

Its good news. I hope the case catches attention and raises awereness of copyrights.

Lähetetty minun D6503 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

chairboy · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2016, 14:58 »

I was deeply moved by how much they care for Jane.

r2d2 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 27, 2016, 15:40 »

Evil against another evil.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #11 on:** April 27, 2016, 19:26 »

board meeting...
CEOs (thought bubble)... "we cannot reduce commissions , since there is already peanuts left for monkeys"
Accountant Executives (thought bubble)... "we cannot fire the dead-weight CEOs either,
since they are children of cousins' cousins' cousins of the main shareholders".
dead-weight CEOs who are the children of cousins etc.. (no need for thought bubble... they
are dumb enough to voice their quick-fix solution to safe-guard their position in the company)...
"why don't we bleed those who have been bleeding the contributors at large, who have not be bled by us???"

gasping sound deafens the boardroom... "Waaaa, you are all so intelligent. No wonder we have you on board !!!" (salivating all over the boardroom).

*sorry, no video available*

Minsc · « **Reply #12 on:** April 27, 2016, 19:34 »

Getty is getting desperate.

Google shows Getty images with watermarks. It's not like they remove the watermarks and let people steal images.

Google implemented bigger previews (which they get from Getty) because it's user friendly. Got forbid that a company tries to make it easier on the user. Getty only want google to show their tiny thumbnails so the users click to Getty to get a bigger preview, which makes the user experience lousy. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Maybe they can request Google to not spider their site at all...that will take care of all the problems.

everest · « **Reply #13 on:** April 27, 2016, 23:38 »

Google is playing with rotten cards in this affair since long....not only in our industry......the news got hit hard by their practices but in many cases they have won litigations and have arrived to agreements with the big brother.

There must be some "easy" way for Google to display images and clearly indicate that those are copyrighted. Redirecting to the original source for bigger previews is needed and the biggest issue of course is stop the scraping and downloading of high resolution content. I hope that EU will not only punish economically (which at the end of the day will only benefit investors and not creators) but also take more effective measures.

What I find insulting is that it is only Getty that is taking a stance.......were are the others......mighty Adobe........contributor "friendly" Shutterstock.....etc.......no voice heard from that part of the wall.

From:

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/google-faces-eu-competition-case-over-image-search-116042700613_1.html

" Getty said it had approached Google three years ago with its concerns.

"Google's proposed solution was no solution at all: accept its presentation of images in high-res format or opt out of image search. This would mean allowing the harm to continue, or becoming invisible on the Internet," it said."

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2016, 04:59 »

The other sites might be frightened of losing an expensive legal battle with Google and finding they have sunk without trace in the search results. I think governments should be dealing with Google. Copyright laws are quite straightforward and should apply to everyone. Other internet businesses that have allowed people to flaunt copyright laws have been dealt with by governments. Taking on Google in the courts must be a daunting task because they have such deep pockets. Getty might be thinking that Google will want to settle this quickly to avoid bad publicity.

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2016, 11:07 »

well, i guess someone will win, and someone will loose.
and, maybe, someone will get some money...

but don't bother yourself and be nervous - nor rich/vulture shareholders are going to loose their money. these people will be safe and well (in their expensive apartments/real estates/on their expensive yachts etc...) - somehow - common people will pay all the bills at the end, i am pretty sure about that

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2016, 11:47 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 28, 2016, 04:59

The other sites might be frightened of losing an expensive legal battle with Google and finding they have sunk without trace in the search results. I think governments should be dealing with Google. Copyright laws are quite straightforward and should apply to everyone. Other internet businesses that have allowed people to flaunt copyright laws have been dealt with by governments. Taking on Google in the courts must be a daunting task because they have such deep pockets. Getty might be thinking that Google will want to settle this quickly to avoid bad publicity.

very wise person !!!
it's like the undesirbles in the old colonial days taking on the rajas or colonials. or modern day
asians or africans or brazilian favelas vs mafia,etc..ietaking on the corrupted rich backed by the govt.
it takes a very big person or an idiot like those movie legendaries eg david,maid of orleans, robin hood,etc ie. you must be either very brave or very stupid... to challenge a giant.

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2016, 13:23 »

google has been sued over this before and won, not expecting a different outcome this time. however i do agree that google should do more to prevent theft and stimulate image purchasing from the source. not expecting that to change either, googles goal is to make all data available in the world to everyone for free

Minsc · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2016, 13:46 »

Here's what I see when I do a google search for Getty images. I get a preview of an image with a Getty watermark on it, so I don't know what they're suing for.

Maybe this lawsuit is related to something else, like people having access to a high resolution image without a watermark. But this again is the fault of Getty. It's their responsibility to prevent anyone from scrapping their website and access the high res images without paying. Maybe if they spend some time on improving their system (starting with iStock) instead of being complacent, they wouldn't be suffering in the first place.

Minsc · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2016, 13:58 »

Or maybe it's related to something else, like Google indexing images that were previous bought by someone else, who puts it on their website and gets indexed by Google without the watermark. Then someone else downloads it and uses it on their website without paying Getty.

If that's the case, then it's pretty complicated. The person who download the image probably never had the intention of paying Getty in the first place. But do we place the blame on Google? I mean why stop there? Why not any search engine who can index images? I've seen my own images on search engine without watermarks, but never at super high resolution and I rely on people to know what is legal and what is not legal and I would never blame Google.

op · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2016, 13:59 »

I think it's about google video scanner. I have 640x360px watermark free frames of my videos all over google..

Dumc · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2016, 15:24 »

Isn't suing about search position?

everest · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2016, 23:56 »

Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

Quote from: Minsc on April 28, 2016, 13:58

Or maybe it's related to something else, like Google indexing images that were previous bought by someone else, who puts it on their website and gets indexed by Google without the watermark. Then someone else downloads it and uses it on their website without paying Getty.

If that's the case, then it's pretty complicated. The person who download the image probably never had the intention of paying Getty in the first place. But do we place the blame on Google? I mean why stop there? Why not any search engine who can index images? I've seen my own images on search engine without watermarks, but never at super high resolution and I rely on people to know what is legal and what is not legal and I would never blame Google.

Minsc · « **Reply #23 on:** April 29, 2016, 00:44 »

Quote from: everest on April 28, 2016, 23:56

Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.

op · « **Reply #24 on:** April 29, 2016, 03:04 »

Quote from: Minsc on April 29, 2016, 00:44

Quote from: everest on April 28, 2016, 23:56
Read the articles again and don't take out speculations of your hat.

Offering images to download at any available size without the authorization of the source is illegal. The WWW is not a place were anything that goes online is available to grab or facilitate to third parties without the approval of owners of copyright. For that you have Creative Commons but the reason of copyright to exist is because authors or their representatives have the right (as the word clearly hints.....Copy...Right) to decide who can or cannot download a file. Google is clearly violating this right that benefits them, pirates, customers that don't know about copyright BUT it clearly benefits NOT the creators.

And those images are all watermarked. Getty provide watermarked images in small and large sizes, Google merely indexes them. If someone downloads an image with a watermark on it and use it on their website, it's not the fault of Google.

No, they are not watermarked! Not mine so I guess, I'm far from alone.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty suing Google in the EU over image search (Read 17194 times)

Jo Ann Snover

Rose Tinted Glasses

anathaya

BaldricksTrousers

anathaya

skyfish

sharpshot

goober

oporkka

chairboy

r2d2

etudiante_rapide

Minsc

everest

sharpshot

Dr Bouz

etudiante_rapide

Microstockphoto

Minsc

Minsc

op

Dumc

everest

Minsc

op

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors