CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)

CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
GOOGLE IMAGES SURVEY MAIN RESPONSES
1
14.09.2015
73 answers, all territories, all business models
SEO DEPARTMENT
D) Does your company have an SEO department?
E) Does your company work with a SEO agency?
Gesamt D)
YES
NO
76
21
55
76
76
27,63%
72,37%
100,00%
Gesamt E)
YES
NO
74
15
59
74
74
20,27%
79,73%
100,00%
LICENSING AGREEMENTS
1) Does your company have any licensing agreements or any other similar agreements concerning the use of your images with Google Images and/or ot
2) If YES, please specify and summarize the main terms and conditions of these agreements and/or initiatives.
3) Are you aware of any agreement or initiative with visual content providers launched by Google and /or other players active in online image sea
4) If YES, please specify the names of the companies involved and summarise the main terms and conditions of these agreements and/or initiatives
1) Does your company have any licensing agreements or any other similar agreements concerning the use of your images with Google Images and/or ot
Gesamt
68
68
YES
0
0,00%
NO
68
100,00%
100,00%
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
3) Are you aware of any agreement or initiative with visual content providers launched by Google and /or other players active in online image sea
Gesamt
68
68
YES
12
17,65%
NO
56
82,35%
100,00%
68
COPYRIGHT
10) Do you believe that Google is infringing your intellectual property rights when it displays your images in the Google Image search results ?
11) If YES, have you taken any initiative to prevent it?
Please clarify your point of view.
10) Do you believe that Google is infringing your intellectual property rights when it displays your images in the Google Image search results ?
Gesamt
67
67
YES
34
50,75%
NO
19
28,36%
NO OPINION
14
20,90%
100,00%
67
WHY AND HOW?





As mentioned above, google brings us business
They are using the material we do represent the IP in their own profit, out of context and without any compensation to us, and furthermore, it
'promotes' the piracy of OUR images
Where our image are licensed for web use Google prints them without © attribution
Their business profits from the use of my work and that of others but tey do not have permission to use my work in any way.
It's good they find the images used or marketed legally with embedded metadata but bad that they find illegal uses with no metadata. It's an
imbalance that needs correcting.
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
2
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
















Whenever only our images are shown without any information about our agency as the source and the copyright protection of our images.
They are using thumbnail pictures of my clients pictures without any authorization. There is a courtcase up i Supreme court in Sweden showing that
using thumbnail pictures is not allowed. Google also make stills of videos without any authorization to do so They change a film into stills in that way
they are without authorization altering the copyright owners pictures.There are courtcases in Sweden against that. Google does not properly say
that the picture could be copyright protected. It is only mentioned later on in the search instead of giving that information from the beginning.
Google also show the picture several times befor showing where you can find the original instead of showing that from the beginning.
no opinion - yet!
Sometimes yes, as reported before
It is a search platform. However, they could encourage Google users to navigate to the website displaying the image found to reduce copyright
infringement and encourage enterprise
We do not use robots.txt to prohibit Google Images crawler to index our images, therefore no breach of copyright. We also only provide
watermarked images, with information on where the image was taken from. Which is a decent marketing tool.
If a client wants to publish our images he needs to pay a fee for covering the costs and work of the photopgrapher and the agency. Google is
grabbing our imaages without asking and without paying. Google owns i.e. Youtube and there they pay rightholders depending on clicks/views
Our images have been stolen and used without our permission, the individuals cite ' finding them on Google'.. the text which Google advises about
image rights is hardly visible
Google Seach/Images for us is an intermediate, helping people finding content. Same as our searchable database: By displaying images from artists,
artwork or persons, we do not finally publish the images but offer for publishing.
Yes, if without permission or if not respecting robot.txt (which they do)
they are often displayed without any information about the source.
Yes, they have not asked permission to display the images in context of Google Images (which is a marketing tool for Google). Our images are being
used to raise its profile. They are also complicet in allowing third parties to abuse our copyright by providing a link to just the image/digital file
itself, out of context of its original location on the internet.
Not as long as they provide a credit and a link to our site when displaying our content.
not, just by displaying. but yes because it gives the impression that they are free to use.
If someone wants to see imagery re a specific topic the person should pay for it. Google offers such view free of charge without the permission of
the agency/photographer.
Google indexes only the thumbnails and watermarked previews. Those are accessible to anybody through our websites anyhow. They also mention
on their site that copyrights may apply to the images.
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
3
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)




















So far we haven't had any problem.
Not enough information is given to the searcher to help identify the copyright of the images
no infringement but the user/person that downloads the image
Images are not properly credited and not copyright protected. People believe these images are free to use and steal them.
Yes, because it is not really easy to see the source behind. It looks, like all images are from Google.
It is an overwhelming job and we would like to be part of a group that would have this done for us.
Displaying the images is fine. Offering them for free download is not.
Google is indexing, displaying and allowing the download (even indirectly) of contentes/images to which they don´t have any IPR
There is a "yes" and "no" answer to this. Yes and no. Yes, as they are not officially licensing the pictures to appear in their search results (images and
general search) as part of their service and non-licensing users can obtain plenty of information in Google general search that is scraped from
Magnum’s site. But we increasingly need Google Images to point users to the source of our pictures for subsequent licensing purposes.
google can be also good promotional/sales tool
By caching best available resolution images, displaying them and making them openly accessible directly from google images servers, therefore with
no traffic referred to one's own site, google is engaging in unauthorised use.
We believe that Google is not infringing our rights by displaying our images in their directory, but by how their visitors access these images. Since
there are not enough warnings and traffic is not directed to the original website (as in the previous version of Google Images), their visitor is
unaware that he/she is infringing the photographer's and agency's rights.
No copyright information along with images. No license agreement.
Displaying them is not the issue. It's the lack of clarity as to where the images originate and education of the Google user.
We feel that Google gives the feeling that the images can be used without constraints
if googe images show previews without a copyrigt advise and in a size which allows web and also small print solutions they support the infringement
of copyright all over the world
But it wouldn't if a click on the image would lead immediately to our own website. Which is currently not the case.
Pas d'atteinte réelle dans le sens ou c'est le plus souvent des images créditées qui apparaissent parce que versions numériques des quotidiens ou
mensuels en lignes. Quelques images issues de flikr mises par des clientes iconographes mais avec le crédit.
OUI CAR NEUTRALISE LES METADONNEES. PERTE D'INFORMATION
Les images diffusées par Photononstop sont régies par un contrat spécifique avec les auteurs. Seuls Photononstop et ses clients sont en droit de les
diffuser. Chaque photo diffusée doit donner lieu à une autorisation expresse précisant le contexte d'utilisation, la durée et la zone de diffusion
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
4
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)




permettant de calculer montant des droits à reverser à l'auteur. Google utilise ces images en violation des droits des auteurs que nous avons sous
contrat.
Evidemment, Google se valorise sans reverser quoique ce soit aux sources, c'est à dire les agences qui ont vendu les photos à des éditeurs en ligne.
C'est compliqué: nous avons besoin de google pour être référencés. Nous avons des consignes en tant qu'institution de favoriser l'open data.
Pourtant nous devons gérer et défendre le droit d'auteur. Nous devons absolument travailler sur la notion d'exif et rendre les données sources
incraquables car elles démontrent la volonté d'un auteur photographe, emettent le copyright et parfois indiquent le contexte d'une commande,
d'un reportage.
Dans un sens général oui puisque Google image accrédite le fait que les images sont "libres". Il y a bien un onglet "outils de recherche" sur le
Google. fr avec la possibilité de faire un filtre appelé "Droit d'usage" qui semble efficace mais cela n'est pas très visible.
Le problème n'est pas que Google Images affiche des images s'il ne s'agit que d'affichage et si elles renvoient au site d'origine. Le problème vient du
fait que les images sont téléchargeables (parfois en haute définition), et stockées on ne sait où.
NEW FEATURES IN JANUARY 2013
12) In January 2013, Google Images rolled out new display features. Have you seen any material impact evolution, business, traffic or otherwise a
ALL
YES
NO
NOT AWARE GI changed display
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
59
15
24
20
59
59
25,42%
40,68%
33,90%
100,00%
All without Germany and France
YES
NO
NOT AWARE GI changed display
37
14
12
11
37
37
37,84%
32,43%
29,73%
5
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
USE OF ROBOTS.TXT
5) Does your company uses, or have used in the past, the (robots.txt) exclusion robot facility
provided by Google Images in order to disable the their crawler to index your images in Google Images?
6) If YES, what is the material business impact for your company?
7) If YES, How does it impact the appearance and ranking of your images both in the general search results and in the Google Images search result
8) If NO, why do you not use the (robot.txt) exclusion robot facility provided by Google Images?
9) Do you use any other means for you to exert control over (e.g. size, quality) or to prohibit the use of your images in Google Images than robo
5) Does your company uses, or have used in the past, the (robots.txt) exclusion robot facility provided by Google Images in order to disable the
ALL responses
YES
NO
64
11
53
64
64
17,19%
82,81%
100,00%
G) Do you think that Google Images is affecting your business in a negative way?
59% Yes – 41% No – (On 102 responses)
H) If YES, can you specify how?






Google Robots are indexing our pictures for google Picture search. We get more than 50% of our new customers through google. This is actually a
statement that google is affecting our business in a positive way.
Providing images out of context and with quality enouf to 'promote' piracy
They present our pictures to their customers without attributing copyright
Potential buyers use the Google image unlawfully instead of licensing from me.
Illegal and legal uses of images are found through their image search and reused thus perpetuating infringement globally.
Images are stolen, illegally used and published by media, bloggers and other persons (business or private).
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
6
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)















Clients' perception that an image is 1) free, 2) is available for (any) use and 3) often low visual quality is the standard. When prices are then charged
for covering applicable rights and strong visual communication, client-budgets don't meet the cost. To meet budget, clients start turning to Google
Images as a source of images, thus deflating the imaging sector by decreasing the demand for high end imagery. These images are needed to serve
much larger areas like education, scientific research or press. Google Images therefor endangers not only the imaging sectors, but more importantly
the sectors these images serve.
Whenever our images are shown on Google in a form where Google users do not see the proper credit where the images come from including the
information that they are copyright protected.
Google makes profit from our clients pictures with their search. They also provide illegal pictures. Pictures that are put up on internat without
authorisation from the copyrightowner.
Sometimes yes because it might provide direct link to fraudulent web site offering download of commercial images, for free
Reducing traffic to our website and increasingly the likelihood of unauthorised use, but displaying large images without users having to navigate to
our website
Yes and no. They bring us a lot of traffic, which we certainly rely on, but they are also "The Pirate Bay" of images. It's where most users go to find
images, unaware of any copyright. It could easily be resolved if Google added Copyright information + information on how to license the image in
their search results / popup.
Consumers and B2B clients find images on Google and just download them for their own purposes. Some do not know that that this a copyright
infringment, others just risk it.
Our images have been stolen and used without our permission, the individuals cite ' finding them on Google'.. the text which Google advises about
image rights is hardly visible
Exposes our photos, but in a rather uncontrolled way. As I perceive it, Google does not verify rights to images.
Google Images don't index pictures from East News web site, however it happens quite often that East News pictures licensed to different Internet
customers appear in Google Images search results, from where they are often downloaded and used without a license, which brings some losses
difficult to measure.
People have stated to us directly that they have found the image on Google Images, and used them, even though the photography that they have
used is copyrighted to Tate. Google do not emphasise the copyright status in photography directly to people who search for images on-line. People
think that if it’s on Google Images then it is usable without permission. We have also come across Chinese websites who have harvested our
photography in its entiroty for blatant commercial purposes.
I am unsure how Google is negatively affecting our business.
With the image search, it is far too easy to just download the image, specially with the option 'view image'
Google Images makes it easy for companies to find and use images without the copyright owners permission. Our business is built on ensuring
that images are only used in accordance with the copyright holders wishes. Inevitably this involves a license cost. Google Images makes it possible
for images to be used with a license being granted.
many picture user are using google as source and don't use picture libraries any more.
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
7
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
















Google Images seeems to invite image viewers to download any image without informing (or warning) potential infringers about the copyright being
protected by law.
It facilitates the piracy of our images, by allowing na easy search over all our client´s base websites
The google image search is even used by professional art-buyers to find seemingly or really licence-free images, which displaces the use of rights
managed content.
The main negative points are prioritising companies that either pay google for preferential ranking or companies can invest heavily in SEO to
improve their rankings. This leaves SMEs at a disadvantage to big business. In saying this google does drive traffic which may not otherwise find you.
By offering images, Google gives the feeling to the users that images can be used for free
Clients will use Google images and do not mind the copyright
- Google images offers images in a web -and small pint size, the researchers often use that previews instead licence the image by the photographer /
stockagency - there is no protection against " right mouse click - safe the file " also if the images ar
google images peut donner l'impression que nos images sont trouvables ailleurs, peut aider des clients indélicats à repérer sur notre site des
documents qu'ils vont acheter sur des sites tels que delcampe ou ebay, mais dans l'ensemble nous n'estimons pas cette perte économique comme
très importante. Le principal problème est que ce flux d'images dévalue et l'image et le travail de recherche des professionnels de l'image aux yeux
des éditeurs. hors la plupart des images disponibles sur google images sont sans crédit ou sans source. Un des problemes des iconographes est que
les auteurs repèrent des images non sourcées sur google images et leur demandent de les retrouver absolument. Pour la majorité cela se révèle
impossible. De plus nous assistons à des cas ou les professionnels commencent à utiliser des images trouvées au hasard du net ou sur facebook sans
vraiment donner le temps aux iconographes de clearer les droits...
Google moissonne
1) les internautes utilisent des images trouvées sur Google Images sans s'acquiter des droits qui y sont attachés, en violation des droits d'auteurs et
des droits des tiers. 2) La présentation des images laisse à penser que ces images sont gratuites dans la mesure où le site d'où elles proviennent
n'est pas clairement identifié
Publication par Google sans reversement de droits d'auteurs aux ayant droits ou à leur mandataires (comme les agences de presse photo).
Objectivement je n'en sais rien...
Oui car Google/ facebook nettoient les Iptc. Nous conservons les fichiers originaux au format tif avec toutes les métadonnées. Métadonnées qui
seront bientôt les seules preuves d'intention de l'originalité d'un photographe.
les éditeurs se contente de ce qu'il trouve sur google ils ne prennent plus la peine de faire les recherches sur les sites des agences il y a souvent de
gros problèmes de droits sur google il y a aussi énormément d'erreur dens les légendes google nous empêche de faire notre travail et de proposer à
nos clients des photos qui ne sont pas sur google et qui n'ont pas évidemment des problèmes de droits
Les utilisateurs internet ont l'impression que Google images est un immense réservoir photographique dans lequel on peut piocher sans se soucier le
moins du monde de la source de l'image, de sa légende et des droits de l'auteur ou des personnes représentées et cela est d'autant plus accentuer
pour la représentation des œuvres d'art "tombées dans le domaine public", Le propriétaire ou l'auteur du fichier est "oublié".
Google Images est une formidable source d'information, mais donne surtout l'impression aux gens que les photos sont faciles à produire, et gratuites.
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
8
CEPIC SURVEY ON GOOGLE IMAGES (RFI 2015)
ADVERTISING
9
ADVERTISING
14) Does your company spend money on Internet advertising?
54
54
ALL responses
YES
19
35,19%
NO
35
64,81%
100,00%
ADVERTISING II
(i) Does your company spend money on search advertising on Google?
ALL responses
YES
NO
54
39
15
54
72,22%
27,78%
(ii) Does you company spend money on search advertising on other online platforms?
ALL
responses
100,00%
YES
NO
55
12
43
55
21,82%
78,18%
100,00%
(iii) Does your company spend money on online advertising other than search advertising? (please specify approx. amount/year),
55
55
(iv) Does your company spend money on offline advertising such as TV advertising? (pleas
ALL responses
YES
NO
13
42
23,64%
76,36%
ALL
responses
100,00%
THE END -
Document for CEPIC members and internal use only
YES
NO
55
10
45
55
18,18%
81,82%
100,00%