Google removed the image viewing feature

[WinterHold]

If they don't want you to use a picture they can put a redirect in so you get something you weren't expecting.

Blocking the right click is possible. Offering smaller dimensions of the picture is also possible.

---

Anyone who wants to protect their "copyright" should not be posting those things on the web in the first place.


Besides, use Alta Vista or something other than google.

It is a public network. Google is judging every person wanting to "view an image" as being a thieve or an A.I search engine.

---

Sites should be able to protect links and resources from being indexed by search engines quite easily, I don't see how Google has to go out of its way for this, but then again, Google is a private organization and can do whatever they want within their services. Also, I don't see this as censorship, rather corporates being stupid as usual.

It will reinforce surveillance and internet censorship furthermore. The decision has a very heavy political weight.
With this move; other tech companies will follow.

It's a private company, but very infamous for its reputation as a violating trademark for users. Just like Facebook.
There are images that have "no copyrights". At least let us view those?

---

Anyone who wants to protect their "copyright" should not be posting those things on the web in the first place.


Besides, use Alta Vista or something other than google.

I disagree. I make my living off creating content for the Internet, for the most part. I own my copyrights. Sure, I've had pieces stolen, but that doesn't mean it's my fault for posting it on the Internet. Should I just not get paid for my work?

The connection allows private havens for the images and photos wanted to secured to be.
It's not just the images; even other files.

Right click in the browser, and hit "view source".
That's the website's code.

The internet was never meant to be a place of locked doors. It's open from day one; except the small parts that people need to use privacy in. The sources of your "work" is different than the "sample". The src is an 3500X4000 pixles; for example. The public display is a 350x400 pixles. See the difference of the quality?

---

I disagree. I make my living off creating content for the Internet, for the most part. I own my copyrights. Sure, I've had pieces stolen, but that doesn't mean it's my fault for posting it on the Internet. Should I just not get paid for my work?

If you leave $1,000 cash on a table on your front porch and somebody steals it, it is partially your fault for affording the thief such an easy opportunity.

Some may forget and put it. Blame on the human memory in this case; the thieve should steal.

But that is on the money example you provided; not the internet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're not talking about charging the artist. We're talking about people's right to share public knowledge. If you make it public, expect it to be shared.

You just blamed the artist for a theft! Do you not read your own posts?

[WinterHold]

If you leave $1,000 cash on a table on your front porch and somebody steals it, it is partially your fault for affording the thief such an easy opportunity.

I don’t think so one bit. That’s just victim-blaming nonsense. It might not have been responsible, but fault is another story altogether. Moreover, putting creative arts out into the world to make a living is hardly equivalent to leaving money on your porch. If a person is savvy enough to use images in ways that violate copyrights, they should be savvy enough to know they’re breaking the law.

A table on the front porch is not a group of pixels on the screen. There are millions of images online; that doesn't even compare to a visit to the local painting store, searching in that sea of pixels just to find an image that is not copyrighted is daunting and just terrible ! the internet is not the physical world.

---

I can sympathize with you guys. But each and every "creator of original stuff" is faced with a predicament. Do I put my stuff out for public consumption and eschew the profits to make my work known? Or do I charge for the privilege and thereby speak to a smaller audience?

I still believe that the internet is a different case; especially the images.
Removing the mere "viewing" is a killer for the user. Especially when we consider the huge number of search results.

This an intro for more stripping of the basic internet features.

---

I don't get your problem, Atlas.
Is it the little link that said "View image" or whatever it said that gave you the image directly?
Now, you can right click the image on google images and select "view image", like you can do with any other image on the internet, and your browser will show you the image.
You can also copy the link... and it no longer links to a stupid google temporary file.


Or maybe my google is different from yours....

Not Google; but the browser you're using.
If you use "Chrome-Firefox-Edge" then you can do what you did. But only on these browser.

[Minimalist]

Anyone who wants to protect their "copyright" should not be posting those things on the web in the first place.


Besides, use Alta Vista or something other than google.

I disagree. I make my living off creating content for the Internet, for the most part. I own my copyrights. Sure, I've had pieces stolen, but that doesn't mean it's my fault for posting it on the Internet. Should I just not get paid for my work?

How does that work, Shell?  Youtube routinely pulls videos because someone makes a DMCA claim.  The copyright holder has to take some action to protect its rights.

How does what you write differ?  If you put it on the web and someone reads it was that not your intention?  What part of this am I missing?

[Shell B]

We're not talking about charging the artist. We're talking about people's right to share public knowledge. If you make it public, expect it to be shared.

Sharing something is different violating copyright law. You can share a link to my work any time. You can't steal it and credit yourself. Or just copy and paste it somewhere, especially for your own profit. We shouldn't have to expect someone to steal from us. People shouldn't steal, ideally. The onus is on them.

---

I can sympathize with you guys. But each and every "creator of original stuff" is faced with a predicament. Do I put my stuff out for public consumption and eschew the profits to make my work known? Or do I charge for the privilege and thereby speak to a smaller audience?

That depends on whether you're creating for your own gratification or you like doing what you do so much that you want to earn a living doing it. Still, it's not a predicament. You're not eschewing profits. When I put myself out there, I fully intend to, and do, make a profit. I simply don't want anyone else to make a profit off it too. It belongs to me unless I sell it to you. That's all there is to it.

---

The connection allows private havens for the images and photos wanted to secured to be.
It's not just the images; even other files.

Right click in the browser, and hit "view source".
That's the website's code.

The internet was never meant to be a place of locked doors. It's open from day one; except the small parts that people need to use privacy in. The sources of your "work" is different than the "sample". The src is an 3500X4000 pixles; for example. The public display is a 350x400 pixles. See the difference of the quality?

A library isn't necessarily a place of locked doors. That doesn't mean you can steal from it or that people should complain that it isn't easier to steal from it.

---

I disagree. I make my living off creating content for the Internet, for the most part. I own my copyrights. Sure, I've had pieces stolen, but that doesn't mean it's my fault for posting it on the Internet. Should I just not get paid for my work?

How does that work, Shell?  Youtube routinely pulls videos because someone makes a DMCA claim.  The copyright holder has to take some action to protect its rights.

How does what you write differ?  If you put it on the web and someone reads it was that not your intention?  What part of this am I missing?

Oh, certainly. The goal is to have people read it. I thought the discussion was about people taking and using your work (in this case photos) without permission. For example, if someone copy pasta'd an article I'd written and used it on their own site without a link to me/paying me, they're in the wrong. Yes, I would have to submit a takedown myself or hire someone to do it. I've done it before. Once, in the case of a popular "list" site, I got them to pay me to keep the list up. In another instance, a Jewish group used an article I'd written about Holocaust Denialism. I didn't even contact them because I didn't mind. Had they asked, I'd have given them permission in writing.

---

A table on the front porch is not a group of pixels on the screen. There are millions of images online; that doesn't even compare to a visit to the local painting store, searching in that sea of pixels just to find an image that is not copyrighted is daunting and just terrible ! the internet is not the physical world.

Second language, eh?

[Minimalist]

I thought the discussion was about people taking and using your work (in this case photos) without permission.

Ah, okay.  The issue then becomes one of practicality.

I pulled this photo of a moose off of Yahoo.



Now I sure as hell am not getting close enough to those antlers to take this picture.  Bastard might be having a bad day or something.  But it did not even carry the standard disclaimer on the page that "the images may be subject to copyright."  It certainly did not even give a suggestion of who I would contact for "permission" to use it.

And if someone comes along with a DMCA claim they had best hurry because I only have two hours to edit the post!

[Aoi Magi]

oh stop being so overdramatic Atlas, google isn't stopping you from viewing images. It is a search engine, and you are meant to use it to discover images, which you still can, but if you want to grab that image then you just have to go through the proper channels.

[Tiberius]

In this thread: people who have no idea how copyright works.

[Rev. Rye]

What's weird is it removed the "image view" button, but kept the "save image" button. There is no logic here.

[Minimalist]

Want something even stranger, Rev?



I took this from Google just now.  Right click on the photo and the View Image option is right there.