21–30 of 391 posts
Browser extension that restores functionality by end of the week? (At least Bing has really good image search.)
This is why I'm scared of Twitch getting big enough to draw itself into publishers' crosshairs and have similar controls for copyright and stuff as YouTube does.
You can still get to the original image from the results without an extension. If you select an image in the search results and right click on it, you can (in chrome at least) select "Open image in new tab" to get to the full image.
Edit: It looks like they've changed it back to the actual URLs.
I'm going to play devils advocate here and say this is a good change. If google was scaping the text of sites and only displaying that, would we think that was ok? Just like google search, this is about giving you a preview, then go to the source. If you want the image, we all know how to find it, get it. How big of an annoyance is this?
Google does exactly that through "view cached/text only". You need to specifically opt your site out of the caching thing. I guess they could have done exactly that with images for those who complained.
You can still get to the original image from the results without an extension. If you select an image in the search results and right click on it, you can (in chrome at least) select "Open image in new tab" to get to the full image.
But that gives you a url-encoded version of the image, not the actual URL of it, IIRC, which is sometimes annoying. Edit: It looks like they've changed it back to the actual URLs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Google likes it either. "These changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week."
Couldn't they just introduce a change that would only affect certain websites such as getty? That would be more logical than completely destroying how image search is meant to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Google likes it either. "These changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week."
Couldn't they just introduce a change that would only affect certain websites such as getty? That would be more logical than completely destroying how image search is meant to be.
You could have some protocol by which sites indicated that it can't be linked; but then everyone who embeds a Getty image would have to change their site to adopt that, and that would probably involve Getty having to change their licensing terms to require that, which would be a huge hassle for their customers who probably wouldn't bother doing it because it's difficult and doesn't help them out at all.
Or you'd have to do some kind of watermark embedding.
Anyhow, while it would be technically possible to do one of these things, I suspect that legally it was just a lot simpler to get Google to remove the feature.
I'm going to play devils advocate here and say this is a good change. If google was scaping the text of sites and only displaying that, would we think that was ok? Just like google search, this is about giving you a preview, then go to the source. If you want the image, we all know how to find it, get it. How big of an annoyance is this?
>text of sites Google does exactly that through "view cached/text only". You need to specifically opt your site out of the caching thing. I guess they could have done exactly that with images for those who complained.
There is no hit-and-miss experience with the "View image" feature -- you get access to exactly what you came looking for, and in a more convenient and speedy way.