Google Plus

[r.e.]

I signed up for it a couple of weeks ago. Works quite differently from Facebook Pages. So far I like it. Curious to know whether other people here are exploring Google+ and your impressions.

Cheers.

P.S. While Google+ is theoretically not yet public, each member has 150 invitations to give out and there are said to be about 25 million people signed up already.

[Kirk Gittings]

just curious why this is posted here rather than the Lounge. Is this headed for a discussion of Google+ as a marketing venue?

[r.e.]

just curious why this is posted here rather than the Lounge. Is this headed for a discussion of Google+ as a marketing venue?

Yes.

A couple of months ago, I set up Tumblr, Facebook Page and Twitter accounts for a friend who was starting a business. I am at this point convinced that social media are an extremely important part of marketing. They provide a platform for marketing and communicating with current and potential clients that is qualitatively different from what can be done with a static web site or blog. Google+ is Google's attempt to take on Facebook, and I think that anyone who is using a Facebook Page (as distinct from a personal page) for marketing should be exploring it. One of the early trends on Google+ is that it is attracting a lot of photographers, possibly because it is more graphic friendly than Facebook.

However, if you want to move this to the Lounge, it is of course up to you.

Cheers

[Darin Boville]

Can someone invite me? I'd like to check it out. I do a little "marketing" on Facebook which has been fun.

--Darin

[r.e.]

Re Facebook, maybe I should explain what a Facebook Page is. They are used by businesses and individuals who want to create a Facebook presence that is public. Facebook Pages are completely different from the traditional Facebook site, which is essentially a site for oneself and one's friends.

Google+ handles this differently. So far, at least, it does not distinguish between private and public accounts. Members have one account, with the option, on a post by post basis, of restricting their content to particular groups of individuals that they have defined, or making their content public.

[Sean Galbraith]

Me on google plus:
https://plus.google.com/108306073756639379939

If anyone wants an invitation, send me your email address and I'll send you one.

[r.e.]

Note Mr. Galbraith's URL. Google+, unlike Facebook Page, is not yet offering individualized URLs, e.g. plus.google.com/SeanGalbraith. It is likely that Google will offer this when Google+ goes public.

In the meantime, I think that Google+ members should establish a Google account/profile using the name that they want in their URL, especially if nobody else has their preferred name. There are a couple of workarounds for a short URL for Google+ (including a web service specifically created to make these URLs), but I think that there are drawbacks and personally I've decided to wait for Google to offer them.

[r.e.]

This shows the layout difference between Facebook Pages and Google+ re the basic info page (you can also see the difference between the Facebook Wall/Google+ Post pages, although in this case the Google+ Post page is very new/more sparse). The Facebook site was started about 10 weeks ago, the Google+ site over the last week or so.

https://www.facebook.com/stewwadden?sk=info
https://plus.google.com/108236377903318101246/about

[Kirk Gittings]

I am at this point convinced that social media are an extremely important part of marketing. They provide a platform for marketing and communicating with current and potential clients that is qualitatively different from what can be done with a static web site or blog. Google+ is Google's attempt to take on Facebook, and I think that anyone who is using a Facebook Page (as distinct from a personal page) for marketing should be exploring it.

I completely agree BTW.

[r.e.]

I completely agree BTW.

The problem is that Website plus Blog plus Facebook plus Twitter plus Google+ equals lots of time.

While there are ways to post the same content to all these platforms at the same time, I am convinced that it is a mistake to do that. I think that Facebook and Google+ are the only case where identical content makes sense.

The overarching problem is that the social media are content hungry, and that the content that seems to work is image content. Which means lots of image processing. Not surprisingly, for the site on which I was working with a friend, the image processing (selection of photographs and Photoshop) is about to be farmed out.

For people with limited time/resources, I am beginning to think that Facebook (or Google+ if it is a success) plus a simple, image friendly blogging platform like Tumblr may make more sense than a static web site. I'm still trying to figure out whether Twitter adds value.

[Sean Galbraith]

Apparently, I can just give out this sign up link:
https://plus.google.com/i/09XZVNwZBlE:OdOYvixP_QU

[Kirk Gittings]

Got it, thanks.

[Darin Boville]

Thanks, I signed up. Looks interesting. I like (as far as I understand it) the fact that you can keep your personal and professional life separate.

--Darin

[Frank Petronio]

Tumblr is probably the best actual platform for promoting photography, except the audience seems to be mostly hipster college brats instead of clients. It's a lot of porn and recycling... it's a shame, the interface is great, the pages can be unique and personalized, the images are large and nice looking. It's also based on sharing images, which is good and bad in terms of copyright and usage... I'd love for art directors to be sharing my coolest images, but when it's a Tumblr called "F@#kYeah Pretty Blondes" reblogging my stuff it doesn't exactly help me.

And even if their terms and conditions are tolerable, it still promotes a culture of image appropriation, not something I want to encourage.

Facebook seems to have crested and I am so sick of seeing everybody's status updates and such that I've been ignoring it more and more. Even the potential client updates are getting really tedious and boring... too much information. They are finally losing members and my sense is that after the initial surge, Google Plus will experience the same thing.

Most of the people liking and friending me on Facebook are other photographers... i.e. competition. Hmm... so how many jobs have I gained thanks to Facebook versus lost to poachers and people offering similar alternatives, etc.?

I'm not sure that the benefit isn't just breaking-even and now declining. Perhaps the early adopters got the benefits but where are they now?

Twitter? No.

Granted I admit it probably makes sense to maintain a Facebook presence, and now a Google Plus one. But why spend so much time posting and why friend every damn photographer in the universe?

[Darin Boville]

Is there a way (yet) to post to Google+ and Facebook at the same time?

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

Hootsuite allows me to post on FB LinkedIN and Twitter at the same time. I am hoping that they add Google+ in the near future.

[brianam]

Darin - a quick search turns up at least a couple different ways of simultaneous posting to fb, G+ and also twitter.
Seems there's a Google+ "bot" named Agent G+, and a Chrome extension.

[Darin Boville]

For reasons that are completely unclear to me, Agent G+ is now called...ready..."Rob McGee." Or perhaps "Shraga Malachi." Very strange.

Here is a post explaining how to link the two.

http://www.survivalguide4idiots.com/google-plus-tips-posting-directly-from-google-plus-to-facebook.html

You go first! :)

--Darin

[r.e.]

Darin - a quick search turns up at least a couple different ways of simultaneous posting to fb, G+ and also twitter.
Seems there's a Google+ "bot" named Agent G+, and a Chrome extension.

Just for your info, there are suggestions on the internet that the existing apps to post to Facebook and Google+ at the same time are malware.

[r.e.]

Tumblr is probably the best actual platform for promoting photography, except the audience seems to be mostly hipster college brats instead of clients. It's a lot of porn and recycling... it's a shame, the interface is great, the pages can be unique and personalized, the images are large and nice looking. It's also based on sharing images, which is good and bad in terms of copyright and usage... I'd love for art directors to be sharing my coolest images, but when it's a Tumblr called "F@#kYeah Pretty Blondes" reblogging my stuff it doesn't exactly help me.

And even if their terms and conditions are tolerable, it still promotes a culture of image appropriation, not something I want to encourage.

Facebook seems to have crested and I am so sick of seeing everybody's status updates and such that I've been ignoring it more and more. Even the potential client updates are getting really tedious and boring... too much information. They are finally losing members and my sense is that after the initial surge, Google Plus will experience the same thing.

Most of the people liking and friending me on Facebook are other photographers... i.e. competition. Hmm... so how many jobs have I gained thanks to Facebook versus lost to poachers and people offering similar alternatives, etc.?

I'm not sure that the benefit isn't just breaking-even and now declining. Perhaps the early adopters got the benefits but where are they now?

Twitter? No.

Granted I admit it probably makes sense to maintain a Facebook presence, and now a Google Plus one. But why spend so much time posting and why friend every damn photographer in the universe?

It is possible to use Tumblr for its platform without associating with the Tumblr community. Use your own URL and, if you like, remove "Powered by Tumblr" at the bottom of the page. Tumblr's decision to support static pages opened up a lot of possibilities. Here are a couple of examples of Tumblr sites that use their own URL, both incidentally based on the same theme by a fellow in New Zealand: http://www.stanleychowillustration.com/, http://stewartwadden.com

I think that it is important to distinguish between public Facebook pages and private Facebook pages. I think that the former are for many businesses and individuals an important marketing tool. They provide a way to engage in two-way communication with one's current and potential clients that is more informal and less cumbersome than a blog + comment box. Re Google+, the more that I play with it, the more I am getting the sense that is not just a copy of Facebook, but a somewhat different animal.

[r.e.]

Thanks, I signed up. Looks interesting. I like (as far as I understand it) the fact that you can keep your personal and professional life separate.

--Darin

Yes, it will do that.

Post to the public = a Facebook public account
Post to one or more Circles = a Facebook private account with fine tuning.

Note that you don't have to use their pre-defined Circles. You can delete them and make up your own.

Note also that one of the pre-defined Circles is labelled "Following". This seems to amount to a suggestion that Google+ users emulate one of the characteristics of Twitter, and it is diametrically opposed to how a private Facebook account works, where all relationships have to be mutual. At the same time, a fair number of people are using Google+ to write extended posts, which can't be done on Facebook or Twitter. Some people are essentially using Google+ as a blogging platform.

[Frank Petronio]

It is possible to use Tumblr for its platform without associating with the Tumblr community. Use your own URL and, if you like, remove "Powered by Tumblr" at the bottom of the page. Tumblr's decision to support static pages opened up a lot of possibilities. Here are a couple of examples of Tumblr sites that use their own URL, both incidentally based on the same theme by a fellow in New Zealand: http://www.stanleychowillustration.com/, http://stewartwadden.com

You've hit it... this is what most photographers should be doing instead of their clunky websites and it's mostly free... they are so much better sites from the user's perspective than what we have been saddled with for the last 15-16 years.

Sure the FB Biz pages are necessary, just like being in the phone book used to be. And you could post your latest success stories or someone could maybe take advantage of overlapping travel news ("I'll be LA the 20-24th and available for a booking on the 23rd").

But... I am still skeptical that people are benefitting as much as the hype wants us to believe. For example, I still can't figure out how Chas Jarvis benefits from spending 20 to 30% of his time and resources making videos aimed at other photographers? (I am just guessing at those figures.) I know he may be setting himself up to be the next Dean Collins or Arron Jones down the road when his assignments drop off, in which case he is brilliant, but in the shorter term, year-to-year, how does all this sharing help him with Nike or a snowboard client?

[cdholden]

You've hit it... this is what most photographers should be doing instead of their clunky websites and it's mostly free... they are so much better sites from the user's perspective than what we have been saddled with for the last 15-16 years.

All of these social media and free image hosting sites do have a benefit, but also a limitation. When a photographer starts their own "clunky website", they are free to define the licensing/usage terms of their images however they see fit.
Under Facebook, Tumbler, Flickr, etc, the user is at the mercy of someone else's rules and regulations and must decide a go/no-go as to whether or not to sign up for the latest internet fad.

[Frank Petronio]

All of these these social media and free image hosting sites do have a benefit, but also a limitation. When a photographer starts their own "clunky website", they are free to define the licensing/usage terms of their images however they see fit.
Under Facebook, Tumbler, Flickr, etc, the user is at the mercy of someone else's rules and regulations and must decide a go/no-go as to whether or not to sign up for the latest internet fad.

Good point.

I guess the thing that appeals to me about the Tumblrs, not to mention the LiveBooks and other "pre-rolled, easily customized, minimalistic" sites is that they are almost always so much better user interfaces than the lone site kludged together with Dreamweaver or worse, the big $$$$ Flash site that the bigger photographers impose on us. Nothing says you can't roll your own but follow them as a model.

[r.e.]

All of these social media and free image hosting sites do have a benefit, but also a limitation. When a photographer starts their own "clunky website", they are free to define the licensing/usage terms of their images however they see fit.
Under Facebook, Tumbler, Flickr, etc, the user is at the mercy of someone else's rules and regulations and must decide a go/no-go as to whether or not to sign up for the latest internet fad.

As far as I can see, just about every major corporation and institution that deals with the public has a Facebook business page. These people know plenty about intellectual property rights, and they are apparently not concerned. Of course, one should read the terms oneself, which I have, and which in the case of Tumblr, Facebook business pages and Twitter don't concern me.

I don't think that the concept of social media is a fad, although particular platforms may come and go. It seems clear enough that there is a demand for the kind of interaction that social media provide. From a marketing perspective, social media have very real benefits when it comes to targeting one's desired audience and communicating with that audience. The analytical information alone that one gets from a social media provider (e.g. the demographics of the people who are interested in you) is extremely useful.

Two of the considerable benefits of platforms such as Tumblr, Facebook business pages, Twitter and Google+ are that sites are extremely easy to set up and maintain and they don't require a financial investment. Facebook business, Twitter and Google+ can be set up in a couple of hours. A Tumblr site can be up and running, complete with content if it is ready, in a few hours. The Tumblr theme used in the links that I provided above costs $9, and coding, if you want to do it yourself, is pretty simple relative to the alternatives. To my mind, the issue isn't intellectual property rights, but rather having the resources/time to feed the beast. Social media sites are content hungry.

As an aside, for those who may not be aware of it, Twitter now has image hosting built into its dashboard, which makes it very convenient to publish a tweet with a link to a photograph. This was introduced in June. The actual hosting is with Photobucket.

[chiphotography]

I've signed up as well and had a few users add it on my page, but I don't think it will be any immediate impact. I know they are just trying to do everything they can to erode Facebooks user base. Long term don't think it will last.

[Kirk Gittings]

From workshops I have attended about using social media for marketing, the experts expect Google+ will become very important to businesses because of the impact it will have on your Google rankings.

[Brian C. Miller]

Me on google plus:
https://plus.google.com/108306073756639379939

I normally run with JavaScript turned off, and that Google page came up blank! I thought there would have been some content, but there's nothing! Wow, all of the content is behind JavaScript.

[SamReeves]

After the initial release of G+, I have only one friend who is still posting there. Google tried this before, and didn't make it when Facebook rolled out another update of features.

Too much social networking!!

[Mike Anderson]

I normally run with JavaScript turned off, and that Google page came up blank! I thought there would have been some content, but there's nothing! Wow, all of the content is behind JavaScript.

I bet when it's really released (not beta or "field testing") it will have some functionality w/o JavaScript. Of course it will be fairly crippled, but there will be something there.

...Mike

[r.e.]

From workshops I have attended about using social media for marketing, the experts expect Google+ will become very important to businesses because of the impact it will have on your Google rankings.

This is an interesting question. It is true that Google+ pages (more accurately, Google Profiles) get indexed immediately. My sense, with about ten days of experience with the Google+ site that I have been working on, is that it is helping search results on Google. I need to check whether the same is happening on Bing and Yahoo. This may not be the result of blatant favouratism from Google. I am inclined to think that Google, from a competition/anti-trust perspective, has to be careful about favouring its own products in search results.

[r.e.]

I've signed up as well and had a few users add it on my page, but I don't think it will be any immediate impact. I know they are just trying to do everything they can to erode Facebooks user base. Long term don't think it will last.

I think that it is more accurate to say that Google wants to take over Facebook's user base. Nothing wrong with that. Competition in social media is good. I don't know whether Google+ will succeed, but I do know that if one wants to be in the social media game, one needs to have a public/business Facebook page, and that it is pretty much a no-brainer to copy the same content to Google+.

Have a look at who in the tech world is using Google+. They have an awful lot of CEOs using the platform, including, not surprisingly, all the heavy players aligned to Android.

For some interesting data on Google+, including info on who is using it, have a look at http://findpeopleonplus.com.

[Mike Anderson]

...
For some interesting data on Google+, including info on who is using it, have a look at http://findpeopleonplus.com.

:) That page sequences the list of people by the number of followers they have. Mark Zuckerberg is #1. My man William Shatner is page 2 of the list.

...Mike

[r.e.]

:) That page sequences the list of people by the number of followers they have. Mark Zuckerberg is #1. My man William Shatner is page 2 of the list.

...Mike

Drill down a bit and you will find lots of data. But yes, Messrs. Zuckerberg and Shatner figure prominently :) Isn't it interesting that Mark Zuckerberg has the largest number of followers on Google+.

The data generally show significant participation by younger males involved in tech. Perhaps not surprising given that it is not yet "public", although it seems pretty clear to me that Google is essentially marketing Google+ via what amounts to a chain letter. If being "in" means that one can make 150 invites, that adds up fast. Plus, they have had open periods for people to register. The net result is that the current number for a "non-public" resource is apparently around 25 million members.

[Mike Anderson]

Drill down a bit and you will find lots of data...

Here's the current breakdown by occupation:


Student (272,493)
Engineer (55,554)
Software Engineer (53,761)
Manager (24,525)
Photographer (23,670)
Software Developer (23,021)
Web Developer (20,488)
Designer (19,878)
Marketing (19,558)
Graphic Designer (19,108)

23,670 photographers. Really?!?!?

...Mike

[Frank Petronio]

How many "unemployed"?

[r.e.]

:) That page sequences the list of people by the number of followers they have. Mark Zuckerberg is #1. My man William Shatner is page 2 of the list.

...Mike

Number 15 is a photographer: https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts

[Steve Smith]

means that one can make 150 invites

Invite is a verb. You can't make or send an invite. Google+ needs to change its wording to invitation.


Steve.

[r.e.]

Invite is a verb. You can't make or send an invite. Google+ needs to change its wording to invitation.


Steve.

Have a look at the Oxford English Dictionary. You are in for a surprise. Invite, as a noun, has been in colloquial use for over 400 years. W.H. Auden, no less, used it as a noun in one of his best known works: "O for doors to be open and an invite with gilded edges". It's informal, to be sure, but it isn't wrong, at least as far as the OED is concerned.

I spend a lot of time in Cowes. What part of the island are you from?

[Steve Smith]

Have a look at the Oxford English Dictionary. You are in for a surprise. Invite, as a noun

I won't accept it as such - it just sounds wrong!


I spend a lot of time in Cowes. What part of the island are you from?

Ryde - just round the corner from Cowes!


Steve.

[r.e.]

Ryde - just round the corner from Cowes!

There are some beautiful houses in Ryde. There's also a good butcher shop (only remember that it was on a steep, narrow street) from which we purchased a pheasant for Christmas a couple of years ago. Great fun searching for shotgun pellets :)

[Steve Smith]

There's also a good butcher shop (only remember that it was on a steep, narrow street)

I can't think of a butcher's shop on a steep, narrow street. However, being vegetarian, I don't visit them very often!!

I will have a think about this and see if I can work out where you mean.


Steve.

[brianam]

..., although it seems pretty clear to me that Google is essentially marketing Google+ via what amounts to a chain letter. If being "in" means that one can make 150 invites, that adds up fast.

Hah, that's funny. There were some published articles a couple years that 150 is about the mean number of genuine friends&family that one can keep track of in life, and on these social networks.
It's true many users do now have 500, or 1000 or more friends. But in all likelihood most are acquaintances, if they've even met at all.

Very shrewd count of invitations on Google's part. (as if Google being shrewd --possibly even "evil"?-- is any surprise.)

[r.e.]

I don't think it is already available for non-US residents.

Yes, it is available to non-U.S. residents. You need an invitation from someone who is already on Google+. There is also a link that someone posted earlier in this thread that may make an invitation unnecessary.

[QT Luong]

Yesterday G+ became available to everybody without requiring invites.

As far as a marketing venue, for photography, I am skeptical so far. I have a respectable number of "circlers" (if interested, check my stream at http://www.gplus.to/qtluong), however, I've noticed that the click-through rate is very low.

It could be because the demographic currently is mostly photographers. Some of the folks who make their living through photo education (eg Colby Brown) have reported some success, which makes sense, but it seems a lot of work/promotion/pandering is required to keep the audience engaged.

[Richard Mahoney]

As far as a marketing venue, for photography, I am skeptical so far. I have a respectable number of "circlers" (if interested, check my stream at http://www.gplus.to/qtluong), however, I've noticed that the click-through rate is very low.

I had a look around today when I should have been otherwise engaged. Curious, though the lack of functionality did surprise me a little. All clean and simple but it felt a limiting and restrictive. That said, I did put together a page or two with a brief overview of what I'm up to -- http://gplus.to/rmahoney -- though can't say I'll be wanting to allocate much time to `feeding' the beast.

Best regards,

Richard

[SamReeves]

Yesterday G+ became available to everybody without requiring invites.

Here we go, social network wars! :D

[Mike Anderson]

Never mind. Upgraded Chrome and it works now.



...http://www.gplus.to/qtluong...


...http://gplus.to/rmahoney...

Strangest thing - on the pages linked above, in Chrome (Mac) some of the photos don't show up (there's a blank space big enough to accomodate the photo). In Firefox they do show up and look fine. Back in Chrome, I do "Inspect element" on the blank space where the image is and the image magically appears.

Bug in google+ I bet.

...Mike

[r.e.]

Really interesting piece on The New Yorker web site today called "What Facebook Really Wants": http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/09/what-facebook-really-wants.html

This morning, The Guardian ran "Google evangelist warns Facebook could be the next AOL or IBM": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/21/google-facebook-vint-cerf The comment about Twitter struck me as especially interesting.

Meanwhile, Facebook, at its developer conference, made major announcements today, which I expect will be both widely covered and closely analyzed over the next few days. The Guardian, which ran today's story on Facebook/AOL/IBM, ran another story late today in which it said that it is one of Facebook's new partners: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/22/facebook-transform-entertainment-hub

[Richard Mahoney]

I had a look around today when I should have been otherwise engaged. Curious, though the lack of functionality did surprise me a little. All clean and simple but it felt a limiting and restrictive. That said, I did put together a page or two with a brief overview of what I'm up to -- http://gplus.to/rmahoney -- though can't say I'll be wanting to allocate much time to `feeding' the beast.

Just a quick follow up ... It has been asked if it is likely that Google Plus would be privileged in Google search rankings. I'm sure we will never know for certain. What I can say though is that only a week or so after putting up what could only be described as a bare minimum of material my Google Plus pages are appearing well up the rankings. A simple search for `9780473177911' -- the ISBN of a catalogue I've recently published -- gives three Google Plus results in the first six pages, the first result appearing on the second page. Although this is pleasing, I'd say these results are definitely out of proportion with the extent and importance of the material I've provided. Although all of this is conjecture and granted one will never know for sure it does seem that setting up a page or two on Google Plus -- the work of only an hour or two -- is probably worth the effort. (Assuming Google search rankings matter to you at all.)


Kind regards,

Richard

[Richard Mahoney]

Just following up on the previous posts regarding Google+ ... I've just noticed, to my dismay (understatement), that Google appears to have migrated all of my images from Google+:

http://gplus.to/rmahoney

to my own `special' page on their Picassa Web Alblums here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/103151169282950538741

And if this in itself wasn't enough, they seem to be kindly providing viewers of Picassa with the opportunity to purchase prints of my images through various suppliers. Is my reading of this accurate, and if it is, am I alone in finding this reuse of copyrighted materials somewhat -- well -- hard to credit?


Kind regards,

Richard

[Darin Boville]

Hey Richard,

Now way! For a test I just ordered one of your prints--for 19 cents! Thanks!

Remind me to NEVER post high resolution images to anywhere...thanks for bringing this to my (our) attention, Richard. Sort of amazing.

--Darin

[Frank Petronio]

I successfully - I hope - deleted all of my Google, Facebook, Tumblr, and other social networking sites. I still am logged into here and RFF, as well as useful sites like my bank, Blurb, etc.

But to Hell with social networking and all the security and privacy issues they provoke.

I dumped my smartphone too, and now I find time to read books instead of mouth-breathing at some stupid screen.

From a marketing level I don't think it's worth it for a photographer now that everyone is doing it.

It's just noise.

Let me know how many jobs you get truly because you were on Google or Facebook....

[QT Luong]

And if this in itself wasn't enough, they seem to be kindly providing viewers of Picassa with the opportunity to purchase prints of my images through various suppliers. Is my reading of this accurate, and if it is, am I alone in finding this reuse of copyrighted materials somewhat -- well -- hard to credit?


Here's the setting to change to prevent that:
http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/#ordering



Let me know how many jobs you get truly because you were on Google or Facebook....


Not sure about those two, but I know a few photographers who were discovered on Flickr and got good sales/jobs.

[Brian K]

Just following up on the previous posts regarding Google+ ... I've just noticed, to my dismay (understatement), that Google appears to have migrated all of my images from Google+:

http://gplus.to/rmahoney

to my own `special' page on their Picassa Web Alblums here:

https://picasaweb.google.com/103151169282950538741

And if this in itself wasn't enough, they seem to be kindly providing viewers of Picassa with the opportunity to purchase prints of my images through various suppliers. Is my reading of this accurate, and if it is, am I alone in finding this reuse of copyrighted materials somewhat -- well -- hard to credit?


Kind regards,

Richard

Richard if they are offering to sell your work then it's not Google who did it but a pirate. A few years back this happened to me and a bunch of other photographers, and my work wasn't even on google, they stole it off my web site.

[QT Luong]

Brian, the default setting on Picassa allows other users to order prints from your uploaded images.

[Brian K]

Brian, the default setting on Picassa allows other users to order prints from your uploaded images.

QT, the point is I never uploaded ANY images to Picasa and neither did the other photographers who's work appeared there under someone else's name and NOT credited to the actual photographers.......

[r.e.]

It should not surprise anybody that Google is using Picasa servers to store and serve up Google+ photos. It owns Picasa. Similarly, Twitter is using Photobucket (which it doesn't own, but is in partnership with) to store and serve up Twitter photos. As part of Google's use of Picasa, there is talk that Google intends to integrate Picasa further into Google+ and that it might even do away with the brand name.

In addition, one can use Google+ settings to determine whether photos appear at all via Picasa and, if so, whether they are private or public.

Surely people here know that a photo uploaded to Google+ that has been made public can be downloaded by anyone, at will and for free.

I can't imagine why anybody in his right mind would pay for a copy of a photo that has been uploaded for public consumption to Google+. That said, I haven't looked at the issue of whether a print of the rather low resolution photos that I make public on Google+ can be purchased, how the money gets channeled and how one opts out.

It took me a couple of tries to replicate what Mr. Mahoney is talking about, but in the end I was able to. According to Mr. Boville, the price of a print of one of these low resolution photos that one can download anyway is 19 cents, presumably plus postage :) Perhaps someone else here knows the ins and outs of this. Maybe it's the initial infrastructure for a system in which people can market high resolution copies of the low resolution images that the post to Google+? In which case, sounds like a good thing.

Meanwhile, I'm not planning on having apoplexy over this.

[QT Luong]

The images you upload on G+ are automatically transferred to Picassa, so if you are using G+, you'd better figure out how Picassa works, if only to avoid the kind of surprises mentioned by Richard. Although professionals know better, many users of photo sharing sites (inc. Picassa) upload their images at full resolution.

[Darin Boville]

According to Mr. Boville, the price of a print of one of these low resolution photos that one can download anyway is 19 cents, presumably plus postage :) Perhaps someone else here knows the ins and outs of this..

Actually there's no postage at all. I had "my" print sent to the local Walgreens One-Hour lab where it was printed that same day and is waiting for pick-up. Total is 21 cents.

My plan is to pick it up later this week and make a judgement about the print quality given the low resolution of the original. After that I'll either mail it to Richard (no charge!) or destroy it if he prefers.

I don't think having a low resolution image online really matters but to have it available for 21 cents *from the photographer* cheapens (literally) a work beyond all reason.

--Darin

[r.e.]

I don't think having a low resolution image online really matters but to have it available for 21 cents *from the photographer* cheapens (literally) a work beyond all reason.

How?

Anyone who has an elementary understanding of the internet knows that the image can be downloaded, and printed, for nothing.

[Sevo]

QT, the point is I never uploaded ANY images to Picasa and neither did the other photographers who's work appeared there under someone else's name and NOT credited to the actual photographers.......

You can't blame Picasa for that. And no, there is no solution to image theft other than going after image thieves after the fact. Tight authorization control would imply allowing image publication only to registered/licensed photographers or publishers and forbidding it to consumers/individuals, which does not only have severe civil rights implications, but is effectively impossible in the internet age.

[Darin Boville]

How?

Anyone who has an elementary understanding of the internet knows that the image can be downloaded, and printed, for nothing.

It's not a question of practicality. It's a question of legitimacy. That fact that I'm buying it directly from the artist confers upon it a status that my print made from printing something I googled doesn't have. It has a pedigree.

--Darin

[Richard Mahoney]

The images you upload on G+ are automatically transferred to Picassa, so if you are using G+, you'd better figure out how Picassa works, if only to avoid the kind of surprises mentioned by Richard. Although professionals know better, many users of photo sharing sites (inc. Picassa) upload their images at full resolution.

Apologies for the delay in getting back, I'm traveling.

Yes, the trouble was that I -- ignorantly? -- hadn't been aware of the connection between Google+ and Picassa, though I would not be against the redistribution of my images by Google under the same terms. What did bother me though were the default terms that Google had -- automatically? -- associated with the images they migrated from Google+ to Picassa.

Google+, strangely, does not seem to have any easy to find way to manage rights, a basic feature of any decent content management system -- although it would be reasonable to expect that material uploaded to Google+ is covered by Google's standard terms of service, which to my knowledge respects copyright. Piccasa, on the other hand, lets one set the rights for each image, although with very few options: no reuse (All rights reserved.) and reuse (Creative Commons). The issue I have with the migration of my images from Google+ to Picassa is with what appears to have been the modification of the image rights.

My images as uploaded to Google+ are `Copyright © &c.. All rights reserved.' The images that Google kindly published for me through Picassa defaulted to Creative Commons with the additional option of allowing viewers to order prints of my images from external suppliers (with whom I have no association).

Although some people on this list appear to be trying to play down the significance of this migration and what appears to have been the attendant `adjustment' of the image rights, I believe it is an issue which should cause us great concern. Unless one can be assured that one will always have the ability to manage the rights associated with all material provided to external web sites I think it would be very imprudent to use them.


Kind regards,

Richard

[Darin Boville]

>>The images that Google kindly published for me through Picassa defaulted to Creative Commons<<

Oh my! So I can incorporate your work on web sites and products, heck, web advertising without even telling you, the photographer, let alone paying you? Google+ is Plus indeed!

--Darin