Google Services & Alamy Photos

[losdemas 2,977]

Bit of a cheek this, I thought.  Doing searches for towns/villages, Google throws up a little sidebar giving an overview of the location c/w a snippet from Wikipedia, the current weather, etc. along with a mini-map which links to Google Maps....and a photo thumbnail.  It appears that they've now started using Alamy thumbnails.  Example here.

 

Is this good or bad?  Promotion for our images or just a handy link for abusers?

[York Photographer 7,496]

I've noticed that on several searches. Typical google, using other people intellectual property to embellish their products to their customers, without paying anything for it, and then selling advertising around it!

Great business model for them!

[AndrewP 35]

If you click on the image and then click on the 'Visit' link it takes you directly to the Alamy page for that image. Google will argue that using an Alamy image within their search results will be good for Alamy.

[Matt Ashmore 1,163]

1 hour ago, AndrewP said:

If you click on the image and then click on the 'Visit' link it takes you directly to the Alamy page for that image. Google will argue that using an Alamy image within their search results will be good for Alamy.

 

And you can also click 'Save image as...' and in the case of the example cited by the original poster, I think the alamy watermark would unfortunately be easy to remove :-(

[Thomas Kyhn 51]

2 hours ago, Matt Ashmore said:

And you can also click 'Save image as...' and in the case of the example cited by the original poster, I think the alamy watermark would unfortunately be easy to remove :-(

 

You can save watermarked images from the Alamy website too. I do indeed understand the point that there's something dubious about Google making use of copyrighted material in this way. But in practice, does it make that much of a difference, except that the images in question get extra exposure (though I have no idea if this results in extra sales)? People who bother to save a watermarked image probably wouldn't have spent money on a legit version of it anyway.

[Matt Ashmore 1,163]

1 hour ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

You can save watermarked images from the Alamy website too. I do indeed understand the point that there's something dubious about Google making use of copyrighted material in this way. But in practice, does it make that much of a difference, except that the images in question get extra exposure (though I have no idea if this results in extra sales)? People who bother to save a watermarked image probably wouldn't have spent money on a legit version of it anyway.

 

Alamy have fairly recently blocked the "save image as..." in browsers from their own site but there is no protection against people taking a screenshot.

But yes, you make a valid point. (I guess there are the people that still don't realise that you can't just take pictures off the internet (and might pay if they did realise) ... but i guess they are a minority).

[York Photographer 7,496]

2 hours ago, Thomas Kyhn said:

 

You can save watermarked images from the Alamy website too. I do indeed understand the point that there's something dubious about Google making use of copyrighted material in this way. But in practice, does it make that much of a difference, except that the images in question get extra exposure (though I have no idea if this results in extra sales)? People who bother to save a watermarked image probably wouldn't have spent money on a legit version of it anyway.

 

The value to google, is their users can picture the place, making google's services more valuable to users, and encouraging them to use google more. They need to pay for that!

[Thomas Kyhn 51]

3 minutes ago, York Photographer said:

The value to google, is their users can picture the place, making google's services more valuable to users, and encouraging them to use google more.

 

Yes, that's definitely a valid point.

[RedSnapper 1,046]

1 hour ago, Matt Ashmore said:

Alamy have fairly recently blocked the "save image as..."

 

no need to 'save as..'.
Drag and drop onto the desktop works fine.....

 

 

km

[Niels Quist 708]

1 hour ago, York Photographer said:

 

The value to google, is their users can picture the place, making google's services more valuable to users, and encouraging them to use google more. They need to pay for that!

 

Yes, indeed.

[Allan Bell 2,615]

 

Maybe, just maybe, Alamy have given Google associate status.

 

You know where you get 30% of a sale if it comes from someone who looked at it on Google.

 

Allan

 

 

[Sally 1,725]

3 hours ago, Niels Quist said:

 

Yes, indeed.

I don't see how this is any different to scam websites copying watermarked images from Alamy, which I ask them to take down if there is contact information available (and we can ask Alamy to pursue if the website falls within their remit). Yes, it may be good advertising, but it's also copyright theft.

[Cryptoprocta 784]

20 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Maybe, just maybe, Alamy have given Google associate status.

 

You know where you get 30% of a sale if it comes from someone who looked at it on Google.

 

Allan

 

 

That's what I wondered, maybe Alamy could clarify if this is the case, and if not what their position is on Google profiting from our works.

Interesting AndrewP's post above which said clicking on the image takes you right to the Alamy page for that image. Often clicking on a link to an image via Google takes you not to that image's page, but a search on which the file which was clicked on doesn't necessarily feature.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Cryptoprocta

[Matt Ashmore 1,163]

19 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Maybe, just maybe, Alamy have given Google associate status.

 

You know where you get 30% of a sale if it comes from someone who looked at it on Google.

 

Allan

 

 

 

You mean we get 30% of the nothing that the person that saw the image on Google paid?