> The more interesting question is why google is doing this.
They got sued.
"These changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week."
They got sued.
"These changes came about in part due to our settlement with Getty Images this week."
Why would they want that?
Money from a successful lawsuit?
Lawyers are not cheap and frankly Google would lose every case because they are in the wrong.
Since Google isn’t highlighting any such absurd ruling’s specific language then there must be some other reason.
If Getty can successful sue them, then any image rights holder can do so. Making an exception for Getty images doesn't resolve the underlying general liability or infringement. That means if another rights holder were to sue them for not addressing that liability for their images, now Google are infringing wilfully and subject to punitively increased sanctions or damages. That's reason enough to apply this remedy across the board.
Thus my suspicion. What’s a little sad is 15 years ago I would give Google the benefit of the doubt, but this reminds me how times have changed.
‘Still retaining functionality’ would require assuming permissive access to images as the default, which is what has got a Google into this mess in the first place. The whole point of this is that, for sites and rights holders that don’t explicitly allow access, Google cannot assume they grant it. They have to assume the most restrictive grant of rights, and adoption of metadata to indicate more permissive access is so poorly adopted it’s just irrelevant in practice.
Try the advanced image search options, just like many other modern image search engines, as a user, you can filter for permissive licenses. I'm not sure how they gather that metadata, but the results I'm getting, it's not poorly adopted at all.
So they could in fact retain the functionality for images with the right license.
Of course, I’m sure they do this in an intelligent way rather than literally a bunch of one off kludges.