In a major blow to digital kleptomaniacs, Google is changing image search results to change the way users have downloaded photos since Google images search has existed.

In a major shift, Google is removing the “View Image” button from the set of options when you click on a picture in the search results. Users will instead be taken through the website by clicking on the “Visit” button and then may or may not be able to download the image, depending on the site’s restrictions.

Although the feature is irksome for users, it will be appreciated by photographers and illustrators who have long complained about their intellectual property being misused or stolen without information. With this, the disclaimer for the copyright attributes will be displayed more prominently in the image search.

Besides targeting reckless downloading of copyrighted material, it will also make up for the losses incurred by creators due to the missed ad revenue from the earlier implementation. It also boosts traffic to sites that sell images. Now users will have to go the extra mile by visiting the website, finding the image on the specific page, and then downloading it, which is what publishers have long been asking for.

Of course once on the site, users could use any number of ways – including the ridiculously simple right-clicking and selecting “Open image in new tab” –  but Google does not become liable for such actions. Instead it’s the website’s prerogative to block illicit use, while earlier Google was fully responsible as it showed users the direct links in most cases. Websites, often, block right-clicks and we may start seeing more of this in everyday practice than in rare cases like banks or financial websites. Of course there are plenty of other ways to get images from any website, even if there are anti-right-click measures in place.

While the latest change is likely to bring relief to photographers and digital creators, casual users are likely to be very frustrated. Google had to find a middle ground with increasing pressure from publishers on both news and images front.

SOURCEThe Verge
Comments

3 COMMENTS

  1. I think this is utterly disgusting idea as a whole!

    (Now users will have to go the extra mile by visiting the website, finding the image on the specific page, and then downloading it, which is what publishers have long been asking for.)

    and in response to that above **** off!…cause I already had to do that kind of work for some images and it was very stressful now it applies to all?…thankyou who ever you are you clearly know nothing about Google or how things are set up when it comes to browsing images…you think it’s as simple as visiting the site…hahahaha…WRONG!…cause alot of the time you don’t even find the image or your bombarded by ads/viruses instead of the image messing up your device in the process quite possibly as a risk because copyright…yeah no thanks get stuffed buddy…copyright is going way too far and here’s a little example of that…like when you buy digital music and your expected to use it through an app of the store or websites choice rather than using it through your own device on your SD card or playing through your own media player of choice even though you paid for it which means you own it and should be able to do what you like with it since you paid for it like putting it on another device or storing it on HDD you know so you don’t lose it incase the internet desided to have a meltdown one day and lose stuff like that online!…if private images which you are keeping exclusive to your site and they end up on Google images then you must be doing something wrong sorry!…images on Google images should be considered (free use and simple to access if needed) other wise they wouldn’t be on there…and they have the nerve to call this new setup as US or WE making the effort or going the extra mile?!?!…words cannot describe how infuriating that pack of lies/excuse makes me…its rubbish at that and someone at Google tries to write it off as anyone who browses images and likes one that they may like and want to save have to possibly go through hell maybe to get it when we will probably get fed up before hand in attempting it!

    But yeah long story short I do not agree with this is!…I think it’s despicable!

    • Woah! Slow down buddy! Well, deep down inside our hearts, most of us – at least the conscious ones – know that Google is not there just because Larry Page and Sergey Brin had the idea of helping the world. It indeed is helping the world, gosh it would suck going back to Yahoo search or having to use Bing. But we do pay back in form of our data, Google makes use – in only god (or DeepMind) knows in how many ways – and still has the audacity to show us ads, I think you’d agree that over the last 10 years, Google has gone from an information-first platform to a typical passionate American salesman.
      On the issue of images, yes that’s totally abusive of Google.

LEAVE A REPLY