Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigv
Personally I think it is a bunch of crap.
/// I RESPECTFULLY REPLY TO MY ELOQUENT GENTEEL COLLEAGUE, per below.
Google not only adhears to search engine rules they wrote most of them. They publish plenty of documentation on how things work.
/// I RESPECTFULLY REPLY TO MY ELOQUENT GENTEEL COLLEAGUE: This is a wild, nonsensical statement. I have no clue what he means about "rules." Indeed, Google is noted for keeping its search algorhythms secret. As far as documentation, they certainly haven't documented their own well kept secrets, at least not for public view.
If you don't want your work displayed don't put it online.
/// I RESPECTFULLY REPLY TO MY ELOQUENT GENTEEL COLLEAGUE: The statement is nonsensical. The learned colleague is saying that one must accept thievery as the price of publication. That isn't the way it works with books, magazines, TV, movies, or anything else. Indeed, if one takes my learned colleague seriously, it means that NO ONE has a right to protect his published creative work.
Google provides a search service, they are not charging for your images. Just because their business model does not include paying you for content you place online for public viewing does not make them crooks. It means you have a flawed business model.
|
/// I RESPECTFULLY REPLY TO MY ELOQUENT GENTEEL COLLEAGUE: The above is a bizarre misunderstanding. Google makes money off the pilfered images by using them to create traffic into Google, then making money (banner ads, clickthroughs, etc.) from the immense traffic. The fact that Google makes money via the TRAFFIC generated by misuse of images, does not make Google less of an infringer-for-profit than if they sold the images directly. As far as my learned colleagues comments that "you have a flawed business model" I do not understand the flaw. Creating art and literature, then selling it, has been a legitimate business model for centuries.