Google removed the image viewing feature

[Shell B]

Just to clarify, I'm not being an apologist for copyright theft. (My money on the porch example wasn't the best.) If someone uses another's material for profit that is bullshit and needs to be stopped.

All I meant was, once you make your work public, expect it to be shared.

Yes, sharing is to be expected, with attribution.

[WinterHold]

---

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?

Protecting the ownership over personal products like articles, software and music is totally fine and all of us actually do it.
But images in the internet are a different case.

The uproar is that "media productions" -take songs for example- are used by almost everybody; who buys CDs in this age when you have MP3s and youtube video converters? In the place I live in; nobody knows that CDs even existed with albums of songs..I remember an old box called "walkman" that used to play cassettes of "copyrighted songs". In this regard; images differ from a historical article.

The fat cats owning the market tried to limit music in the past, but technology failed them.
I expect the same fate for all "media" mediums; like images and videos -leaving youtube out of it-. A writer is needed; his/her writings will be traded for cash if they were talented, but they will fail if they attempt to squeeze people for extra money using the shield of law as a rope.

---

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?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ld/413389/

And those are just numbers from a handful of social-media companies. Weibo, What’sApp, Tumblr, Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram all add to the pile. In 2014, according to Mary Meeker’s annual Internet Trends report, people uploaded an average of 1.8 billion digital images every single day.

You know; the political goal is that sharing on the internet, was able to bring down the police state the likes of Trump and Kim are trying to build.
Saudi Arabia blocked lots of its google images and websites since the 90s for a reason.

But for Europe and the world; a little script have to played in front of the media to activate the same oppressive shitty move.
The fat cats cannot just get away with transition this easy, so the script have to be played to justify the actions leading to it.

---

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.

But where are the "proper channels"?
Programming wise; the image is taken from "a source". What displays after clicking "view image"; is what the owner of the site uploaded and put by their own free will on the website. If like Min said; no license was provided -and let's be honest:millions of these images don't", then ?

1.8 Billion images uploaded on average, searching that sea is not just a needle in a pile of grass: it's a needle in a galaxy.

Photographers can use sites like
https://pixabay.com/
https://www.flickr.com/

And more and more. Not counting sites like instagram.
But for somebody, to put their image in a river without a single clue of the license; and block me from using the whole river, just for the sake of somebody's laziness?

I'm not being over dramatic, Magi. But lots of experts talked about this coming; since Trump came to the white house. It's the beginning of more bans and constraints.

---

Noting:

Images can be stored through "save picture as" -even using internet explorer- in their original dimensions.
With this sentence under the image:

Images may be subject to copyright

If the image's dimensions were not affected by the removal of the button; then me joining the anger wave has no meaning.
Apologize me; I think I made a wrong move in my judgement of the situation.

Not that Trump is innocent. Or corrupt business men seeking to milk humanity of its wealth do not exist. But this case specifically, is obviously not how I viewed it to be.

[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.

But where are the "proper channels"?
Programming wise; the image is taken from "a source". What displays after clicking "view image"; is what the owner of the site uploaded and put by their own free will on the website. If like Min said; no license was provided -and let's be honest:millions of these images don't", then ?

1.8 Billion images uploaded on average, searching that sea is not just a needle in a pile of grass: it's a needle in a galaxy.

The "proper channel" is you visiting the site where the image originates from, and then depending on licensing, obtain it with a fee or download it.

Yes there are loads of images and yes you need to search through them, and google IS letting you search through them and it is also helpfully linking to the site/page from where you are supposed to obtain it legally. So where is this censorship?