PhotoDude.com

Wed. Sep 05, 2001

Now You Know The Rest Of The Story

Do Search Engines Expedite the Theft of Digital Images? – The New York Times asks the obvious. ”The search engines, they argue, are enabling computer users to pilfer online art, since they can use the search sites to view and download images without setting foot on the artists’ sites.” We get a bit of both sides. ” ’This is not just about finding a picture,’ said Michael Lyons, the founder of Ditto.com. ’This is getting information visually.’ ” So, when will Ditto.com begin offering a chance for their visitors to get the New York Times visually, in its entirety, and how will the lawyers at the NYT react to that? Why are my images in some way considered differently? Perhaps because I don’t have a barrel of lawyers in the closet just waiting to pour out?

I did say they give a bit of both sides. ” ’It totally violates the concept of prior permission,’ said Reid Stott, the editor of a Web log called PhotoDude. ’These companies are saying, ’We will take your copyrighted image until you specifically tell us we shouldn’t.’ I already do that on every page with a copyright disclaimer.’ ”

Hmmm. I give her about 800 words on the topic, and I get ”editor of a Web log called PhotoDude”? OK, I see we need to go into this deeper…

For the sake of information, and to give you an idea of how the sausage is made, here’s my original e-mailed answers to the questions from the reporter. They’re a bit more revealing than what got used in the article. And, for the record, while ”editor of a Web log called PhotoDude” might be technically correct in the way that Japanese instruction manuals translated to English are often ”technically correct,” saying I am a ”photographer and web designer with a site called PhotoDude.com” would have been more accurate and descriptive (and given me a chance at some traffic). Call me picky. But hey, what do you want for free? On with the interview:

1. Are you upset by image search engines like Ditto.com and Google’s new search site? Why or why not?

Not as much as I once was, but the basic reasons for my concern haven’t changed. Images are removed from the context of their original site where the author placed them, often without any warning, and placed on another site, often stripped of all copyright info, often with advertising associated.

And almost always, there is wording or a link at the bottom of the page about that Corporation’s copyright policies, and how you may not use their logo, trademarks, or other intellectual property in any way without prior permission. It is the ultimate irony that they demand that which they do not offer in return.

2. And are you still upset with Alta Vista’s image search engine? Has it made any major changes that assuage your concerns?

They’ve changed drastically from when they launched, but still offer no copyright info with displayed search results. At least they now link to the image in the context of its original page, whereas when they started, it was completely disassociated from its context, and therefore, its author. They also originally had no method for you to ”opt-out.”

I’ve left the original page about their image search engine online, as it provides some basic information, techniques, and rationale that seem to apply to most of these situations.

3. Are there any other image search engines that have caught the ire of photographers and artists? If so, what are they?

Google’s Beta of the Image Search has certainly gotten my attention.

It’s still a beta, and they have may a few minor changes since I made the entry in my web log (which was inundated with hits from behind Google’s corporate firewall, so I know they’re listening).

4. Search companies say that artists can block the search bots. Do most artists do so? Are they resigned to this as the only solution?

Yes, you can usually block the search bots, but to do so often requires knowing the name of the bot, if you want to use the most effective method. You often don’t know that until the bot has surfed all the images in your site, and only then shows up in your stats. Some of the methods will block all search bots from your site, which is not the desired result either. And a few of these bots (like Alta Vista’s vscooter) read proprietary meta tags that say ”go away,” but the other bots don’t support the

same tag.

Most artists do appear to be using these methods as a defense, and we are certainly doing so at a new community PhotoLog I am launching September 1, www.pixelpile.org It’s been an expressed concern by those involved, so we add the meta tags, robots.txt, and other methods. It’s the most effective thing we can do, but it totally violates the concept of prior permission. These companies are saying, ”we will take your copyrighted image until you specifically tell us we shouldn’t.” I already do that on every page with a copyright disclaimer. Much preferable would be a means for people to submit their images to these search engines, just as they are now able to submit pages from their sites. This would provide choice, and prior permission.

5. Have you had any of your images lifted without your permission? What are some examples? And do you know if they were found by people using search engines?

I have some images on my site of young boys playing in the Olympic Fountain at Centennial Park. Someone placed them on a site for pedophiles called ”Wet Boys,” and even had the gall to draw them off my server. As you can see, when an image is taken from the author’s original intended context and placed elsewhere without their permission, it can be a true violation in more than just a legal sense. Context is very important to this author.

I doubt that they were found as the result of any search engine. But the fact remains, there are people out there doing it to random images they stumble across, and a search engine not only makes it easier for them, it often seems to offer a form of corporate endorsement; it was OK for Alta Vista to take the picture from this guy’s site, so it must be OK for me.

6. Some people might argue that artists should like image search engines because they drive business to the artists’ Web sites. Do you agree?

No. The web is all about links, and search engines have been a historic driving force in the web’s growth. They have provided links to the information we seek. But they have not been providing the actual information in its entirety, until now. The Miami Herald is happy for Google to provide a text link pointing to Dave Barry’s column on the Herald site when someone searches his name. But if Google were to reproduce Barry’s entire column, outside the context of the Herald site (and its advertising) with a bare link pointing back to the original from Google’s reproduction, how many lawyers at the Herald would bump their heads on the ceiling leaping into action?

I’m not Dave Barry, nor a lawyer at the Herald, but I’m just as offended by Google reproducing my entire work, instead of just linking to it.

7. Some people have likened image search engines to Napster. Do you? Why or why not?

I’m not sure that’s a fair analogy. Many people argued that with Napster, it was ”The People” taking power from ”Big Corporations,” with only ”The People” profiting. With these image search engines, it is the ”Big Corporations” who are taking power from ”The People” (individual creators), with only the ”Big

Corporations” profiting. It’s not like Napster. It’s far worse.