Digital collection question

[hiroh]

I have been collecting photographs digitally for almost two decades. I would download whatever I found interesting and keep it organized as much as possible. However, with over 300,000 photographs on my hard drive now, it is far from perfect. Currently, if I want to learn more about a particular photograph, I upload it to Google Image search to find out more. I am now looking for an app that can do this automatically. Does anyone know if something like this exists? Essentially, I am seeking an app that can perform reverse image searches on the entire library or a selected folder locally?

 

[Pieter12]

Shame on you. Have you no respect for intellectual property and copyright?

 

[hiroh]

Please explain your statement. These photos were never left my hard drive, and were for my eyes only. It's the same as when I visit an individual website to watch them; I just collect them all in one place so I can access and view them more easily and frequently. This is not piracy by any means.... shame on you for early judging....

 

[koraks]

Shame on you. Have you no respect for intellectual property and copyright?

As long as he doesn't re-publish the files, there's absolute nothing wrong with downloading them. If you open a web page with images on it with your browser, it actually downloads the images to your computer so they can be displayed. Legally speaking there's no difference between that (i.e. surfing the web) and filing the images away somewhere. It's also the same as taking clippings from newspapers and magazines, or picking up flyers from the street. All the content in those media may be copyrighted, but the act of collecting this information does not constitute a breach of copyright.

 

[logan2z]

Shame on you. Have you no respect for intellectual property and copyright?

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't his use of the photos for research/education purposes fall under the terms of fair use?

 

[Pieter12]

I don't give a F* about the legality. It is an ethical issue. The attitude that anything on the internet is up for grabs.

 

[hiroh]

As long as he doesn't re-publish the files, there's absolute nothing wrong with downloading them. If you open a web page with images on it with your browser, it actually downloads the images to your computer so they can be displayed. Legally speaking there's no difference between that (i.e. surfing the web) and filing the images away somewhere. It's also the same as taking clippings from newspapers and magazines, or picking up flyers from the street. All the content in those media may be copyrighted, but the act of collecting this information does not constitute a breach of copyright.

I am downloading the photos I like in the same way I bookmark articles that I enjoy. If I hadn't downloaded some photos 18 years ago when I discovered them, I probably would never see them again. Websites come and go, and I am glad I have them. I don't see any other way. By the way, I am sure the majority of these photos are in the public domain, as I am mostly interested in historical photos.

 

[hiroh]

I don't give a F* about the legality. It is an ethical issue. The attitude that anything on the internet is up for grabs.

I have around 700 photo books in my physical library, which means I purchased 700 books with my own money. How many photo books did you purchase?

 

[koraks]

The diversion about ethics aside - have you looked into the desktop app of Google Lens? Haven't tried it, but it seems like it might be fit for your purpose.

I'm not aware of any other photo/image organization software that has this feature integrated into it. I'm sure it's just around the corner, though, and it's most likely already in full use in corporate and government systems.

 

[hiroh]

The diversion about ethics aside - have you looked into the desktop app of Google Lens? Haven't tried it, but it seems like it might be fit for your purpose.

I'm not aware of any other photo/image organization software that has this feature integrated into it. I'm sure it's just around the corner, though, and it's most likely already in full use in corporate and government systems.

Hmm, where did you find the desktop version? I only see mobile (iOS and Android) and web (Chrome).

 

[Pieter12]

I have around 700 photo books in my physical library, which means I purchased 700 books with my own money. How many photo books did you purchase?

Only a few hundred. I'm picky. And some I just can't afford.

 

[koraks]

Hmm, where did you find the desktop version? I only see mobile (iOS and Android) and web (Chrome).

Well, yes, it works as a plugin to Chrome. Maybe that's not what you intend. Btw, from a technical viewpoint, many smartphone apps are really nothing more than websites displayed in a browser without a navigation bar...

 

[MattKing]

I'm with koraks and the OP on this one - the ethical and legal questions only arise when you use something that is available on the internet, and even then, only when that use involves sharing with others.
There might be an issue with images that came from a source behind a paywall, if the original, paid for access is no longer available to the user, but that is an issue relating to the terms of a paywall.
I would caution the OP though - don't let others use your archive, and don't make any use of your archive in any published or shared research without obtaining all necessary permissions.

 

[xkaes]

I don't give a F* about the legality. It is an ethical issue. The attitude that anything on the internet is up for grabs.

It's exactly like photographing anything that is out in public. Of course it's legal -- but you can't do anything you want with it. There are some restrictions depending on where it is, and where it goes.

 

[Pieter12]

Look, when I worked as a graphic designer and later as an advertising art director, I had file cabinets (we called the morgue) full of clippings and promotional material from illustrators and photographers. And bookshelves lined with directories and stock photo collections. These were for inspiration or to be able to show as examples of a style when selling an idea to creative directors and clients. The artists and photographers whose work was used in this manner (if the idea made it through the whole process) were usually hired to do the job and at very generous rates. But collecting images for one's own use just seems sketchy to me, like someone is avoiding more legitimate avenues to acquire the material. Images that are on the internet come from somewhere, sources can be located.

 

[koraks]

Look, when I worked as a graphic designer and later as an advertising art director

Kind of a different ballgame/context. Your work was in a professional/commercial context, and this was also true for the image database you had there. This is a private individual perusing material that's published online and maintaining their own cabinet of (digital) clippings for their own, private use.

Images that are on the internet come from somewhere, sources can be located.

To the extent the content was published online by an entity that didn't have the right to do so, it's the publisher you should be scolding. Not the guy who saves an image to his hard drive.
The material was published in a freely accessible place. It's there to be consumed. There's nothing sketchy about actually consuming it.

I understand your objections with your professional background in mind, but this is really a very different situation.

Also, let me ask you this: do you empty your browser cache every time you navigate away from a web page? Because your browser is archiving copyrighted content all the time. Your average phone or desktop computer can easily contain hundreds of MB's up to several GB's of copyrighted data, mostly images. If you feel that what @hiroh does is a problem, I've got bad news for you: you're doing it, too.

 

[Pieter12]

Kind of a different ballgame/context. Your work was in a professional/commercial context, and this was also true for the image database you had there. This is a private individual perusing material that's published online and maintaining their own cabinet of (digital) clippings for their own, private use.



To the extent the content was published online by an entity that didn't have the right to do so, it's the publisher you should be scolding. Not the guy who saves an image to his hard drive.
The material was published in a freely accessible place. It's there to be consumed. There's nothing sketchy about actually consuming it.

I understand your objections with your professional background in mind, but this is really a very different situation.

Also, let me ask you this: do you empty your browser cache every time you navigate away from a web page? Because your browser is archiving copyrighted content all the time. Your average phone or desktop computer can easily contain hundreds of MB's up to several GB's of copyrighted data, mostly images. If you feel that what @hiroh does is a problem, I've got bad news for you: you're doing it, too.

However, what my computer does is not readily accessible nor on my hard drive through a voluntary action on my part to capture it. I know enough talented artists, photographer and writers who struggle to earn enough money to get by or who have to work menial jobs in order to survive that it irks me that people think whatever appears on their screen is public domain.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Do people still cut photos out of magazines?

 

[Pieter12]

Do people still cut photos out of magazines?

Collagists do.

 

[Bushcat]

OP, GoogleImageShell is a third-party program that adds online image search to Windows File Explorer. It's not been updated in a while, and I don't know if/how well it currently works. But it may be worth checking out.

 

[koraks]

. I know enough talented artists, photographer and writers who struggle to earn enough money to get by

Ah, so that's what it's about. Go think a while if people like @hiroh downloading pics are really the reason why these people struggle. And no, my argument is not that "it's their own fault" etc. But you're now blaming @hiroh and 'the internet' for a characteristic of society that has been with us since probably forever: there's a higher willingness to produce art than to pay for it. Supply outstrips demand. It's a valid topic to discuss, but in this thread, it's decidedly offtopic as it has nothing to do with @hiroh's question.

 

[Don_ih]

But collecting images for one's own use just seems sketchy to me, like someone is avoiding more legitimate avenues to acquire the material.

Given his large collection of photo books, I'd be more inclined to assume the digital collection inspired the purchase of at least some of the books.

There is room for an argument that at least some of the images scraped from online sources were not legally and rightfully made public in the first place. Perhaps the webpage maker put the image there without permission. Finding out whether or not that is the case would be difficult - if not practically impossible - for the average person. That introduces the possibility that you are encouraging theft by viewing the stolen image (let alone by copying it). The upshot is, if one wants a clear conscience, one should not look at images on the internet.

 

[koraks]

There is room for an argument that at least some of the images scraped from online sources were not legally and rightfully made public in the first place.

Yes, but can you blame someone archiving such materials any more than someone merely viewing the content, with the archiving being limited to the background process of browser caching? From my point of view, it's really the same thing, and the problem is not with the viewer, but with the publisher. To me, it's not constructive or ethically justifiable to blame the consumer for a mistake made by the provider of the content, provided the viewer acts in good faith.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, but can you blame someone archiving such materials any more than someone merely viewing the content, with the archiving being limited to the background process of browser caching? From my point of view, it's really the same thing, and the problem is not with the viewer, but with the publisher. To me, it's not constructive or ethically justifiable to blame the consumer for a mistake made by the provider of the content, provided the viewer acts in good faith.

But doesn't the viewer/consumer shoulder some of the blame, like buying stolen goods?

 

[Pieter12]

Ah, so that's what it's about. Go think a while if people like @hiroh downloading pics are really the reason why these people struggle. And no, my argument is not that "it's their own fault" etc. But you're now blaming @hiroh and 'the internet' for a characteristic of society that has been with us since probably forever: there's a higher willingness to produce art than to pay for it. Supply outstrips demand. It's a valid topic to discuss, but in this thread, it's decidedly offtopic as it has nothing to do with @hiroh's question.

If those images were not on the internet for someone to download willy-nilly, would that person purchase books? Or is the collection only motivated by the fact that it costs nothing more than the price of storage media (that they seem to be willing to pay for)?