The reason for the problem is that most search tools, including image search tools, don’t actually look at image, they look at the text around it. So unless the title of your work or the file name remain the same, there isn’t much hope for spotting a duplicate via traditional means.

However, in 2008, Tineye changed the game by introducing an image-based image search engine that would fingerprint images found online and match them against files uploaded to their service.

But, while Tineye’s matching technology is and always has been great, it’s been limited by Tineye’s rather small database. While that database has grown over 2x since I first wrote about the service (currently at just over 2 billion images), it hasn’t kept pace with the images being uploaded to the Web (Photobucket alone has 9.5 billion images).

However, last year Google entered into the fray, adding the ability to search for images by uploading or linking to another one, as with Tineye. The feature, which was initially an extension of Google’s previous Similar Image Search function, wasn’t very successful at first. However, over time, it appears Google has gone a long way to improving the tool as, in a recent spate of tests, it drastically outperformed Tineye in finding matching images consistently.

So, for artists looking to find their images on the Web, there seems to be a new king in town and it’s the same one authors have been using for years.

How to Use Google Search By Image

The easiest way to use Google Search By Image is to install either the Firefox
or Chrome extension, which simply enables you to right click an image to search for it.

However, barring that, you can simply visit Google Image Search and click the camera icon in the search bar.

That will open up the window that prompts you to either upload an image from your computer or provide the URL for one already online.

After you submit your image, Google will present a set of results. However, rather than being a “grid” like a regular Google Image Search, the results are ordred, first by exact matches and then by similar ones.

For example, I uploaded my recent image of the cover of Ocean’s Donkey Kong unlicensed port (from my recent article on video game plagiarism) and Google returned not only my article but other images containing that exact image.

In some cases, if there are multiple versions of the images but at different sizes, Google may suggest you look for alternate sizes of the image, as it did with the Limbo of the Lost cover from the same article.

If so it’s worth clicking the link to get a good breakdown of the other sizes (and places) the image appears. However, the real results, especially for images that have been widely copied, are below and you can see them by going through the various pages, as you would with a regular Google search.

But while Google Search By Image is cetainly easy to use, how well does it stack up against Tineye? The answer, is very well.

Comparison Tests

To test the two services head-to-head, I decided to have them both look for five different images used in recent articles on Plagiarism Today. These images are all either freely-available stock photos or are widely-used cover art for video games or records.

With that in mind, here’s the results of the tests:

Test 1: Angry Farm Image

Tineye Results: 1
Google Results: 558 (about)

Test 2: Generic Chart Image

Tineye Results: 4
Google Results: 555 (about)

Test 3: Facepalm Image

Tineye Results: 21
Google Results: 850 (about)

Test 4: Skull on Grave Image

Tineye Results: 1
Google Results: 3 (Not counting matching “Very Similar” results)

Note: Google’s “Very Similar” results were useless in this case as it just found other black and white photos without much regard for things that looked like the original.

Test 5: Bing Crosby White Christmas

Tineye Results: 173
Google Results: 883 (about)

Please note that the greatest limitation of this test is that I had to rely on both search engines to self-report how many matching images they had. However, I checked several pages of results with each test to make sure that the results were as accurate as possible.

Clearly though, the winner is Google, which found, in many cases, over 100x more matching images than Tineye. My suspicion is that, while Tineye’s matching algorithm is better (much fewer false positives), Google’s large database simply makes up the ground and then some, making it a much more valuable tool for image detection.

However, this doesn’t mean that Google’s perfect, there are still a few concerns and problems I have with it.

Limitations of Google

The biggest problem with Google is that, currently, there is no way to do a bulk search for a lot of images nor is there a way to do a recurring search. Though Google has an API for its Google Image Search, it doesn’t appear to work with Search by Image. Likewise, Google Alerts doesn’t allow you to create an alert for a Google Image Search at all, text or by image.

In short, there are no tools to make such searches easier and there aren’t likely to be any in the near future.

Meanwhile, Tineye has a very robust and well-established API that enables toe construction of just such tools.

Still, given how simple it is to use Google Search By Image, even with having to do the searches by hand, it’s still faster and easier than most methods, it’s still free and, in the end, just more effective, even more so than many paid-for tools.

There’s little reason not to integrate Google Search By Image into your checks and to use it at least some in your searches.

Bottom Line

When Google first launched this product, I tested it and found it to be less-than-useful. The algorithm was too flawed (based on the earlier and more limited “similar” search feature) and the number of false positives simply too high. Clearly, Google has made some great strides in the last six months and pushed this service to the point where it’s database and accuracy combine to make it the most useful image search tool available to the public, especially for free.

In the end, while I like Tineye as a company and as an offering, their database is too small and too limited to compete right now. Hopefully though, this competition will motivate both companies to improve their offerings and create a set of solutions that make things much easier on photographers and artists everywhere.

Plagiarism Today is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA license. This means that you are free to copy and reuse content on Plagiarism Today as long as you attribute the article (with link if possible and appropriate) and that any derivative works you make based upon the article are licensed under the same terms.

This license is for both commercial and non-commercial use.

Please bear in mind that you can do this without asking for permission. Though I appreciate all of you who have written to ask my permission and I understand wanting to be doubly careful when dealing with a site dedicated to plagiarism issues (I know I would be), one of the goals I had with this site was to educate as many people and give out as much information as possible. That is something I believe this license helps me achieve and I wish to encourage the content to be distributed as freely as I can within reason.

The only caveat is that the images that are displayed with the articles are licensed under different terms. Though most are either screen grabs from relevant sites, logos or images from free stock photo sites such as Morguefile and sxc.hu, some are licensed just to Plagiarism Today. So, while the text is available for copying, please use caution with the images. The same is true for comments, which are copyrighted by the people who submitted them.

Bear in mind that I made this choice years ago because I believed it was right for myself and for this content. I don’t believe it is right for all content nor will I use the same license for every work I create. Part of being smart about copyright means looking at your work, your situation and your goals to find the right license for you.

Still, with Plagiarism Today I believe strongly, as I did when I first made the choice years ago, that this is the right move for this site and the goals I have with it.

Plagiarism Today Elsewhere on the Web

Finally, there’s also been some confusion as to where you can get access to Plagiarism Today content elsewhere on the Web, in particular what accounts are used for what purposes.

When it comes to social media, I keep two kinds of accounts, hybrid site/personal ones and strictly site-related ones. The hyrbid ones will include most site news but will also have personal updates from me. Site ones are strictly site-related and will contain no personal tweets or updates.

Here’s where you can find the various accounts:

Hybrid (Personal/Site):

Twitter
Facebook (Subscribe available)
Google+

Site Only

Facebook
Google+

There is no site-only Twitter feed at this time as I’ve had issues in the past with RSS posting. If there’s interest in such an account, I will create it.

All in all, if you want just the site updates, you can add the site-only social media feeds. If you don’t mind my bad jokes and personal postings, you can add any of the hybrid ones.

Hopefully that clears up those two issues and I return you to your regularly scheduled posting on Monday! Have a great weekend!

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Megaupload Data Could be Deleted Starting Thursday

First off today, according to government sources, Megaupload’s data, including the files of its millions of users, could be deleted by Thursday. The move comes as the government says that it is done accessing the data that formerly made up Megaupload’s site and the contractors that were helping host the site can not be paid as the company’s assets are frozen. As such, they’ve asked permission to delete the data to make room for other customers. However, Megaupload’s attorney is hoping to find a way both use the files in Megaupload’s defense and to make the files available again to the users who uploaded them, so they won’t be lost forever.

2: Copyright Industry Calls For Broad Search Engine Censorship

Next up today, in the UK, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave a proposal to the major search engines including Google, Bing and Yahoo to ask them to de-rank or remove search results for sites that routinely infringe copyright and to bolster the ranking of legitimate sites. According to the proposal, such an effort would already be in line with their existing policies on favoring sites meet certain quality standards. Critics of the proposal, however, are calling this a form of search engine censorship. However, the proposal is non-binding at this time and is merely a suggested set of guidelines for the search engines to follow.

3: Triple Town developer Files Copyright Infringement Suit Over Yeti Town

Finally today, the gaming company Spry Fox has filed a copyright infringement suit against competing game maker 6Waves LOLAPPS over a case of alleged plagiarism. According to Spry Fox, they were in talks with 6Waves LOLAPPS to have the latter publish a game created by Spy Fox named “Triple Town”, which was already a popular Facebook game. However, according to Spry Fox, 6Waves LOLAPPS took the opportunity to develop a clone of the game named “Yeti Town” and then publish it to the iOS App Store, beating Spry Fox to that market. Finally, also according to Spry Fox, 6Waves LOLAPPS sent a message via Facebook to break off negotiations about Triple Town the day Yeti Town was published.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Google Protest of Anti-Piracy Upends Lobbying

First off today, with the SOPA/PIPA “blackout” protests behind them, anti-SOPA advocates are tallying the results. So far, that includes 9 co-sponsors of the bills, including 5 in the Senate and four in the House, that have withdrawn their support for the bills. The two bills, which were being rewritten prior to the protests, would both have allowed copyright holders and the Attorney General to obtain court orders requiring ISPs to block access to “rogue” websites existing primarily for the purpose of copyright infringement. Copyright holders also could have ordered payment processors and advertisers to stop giving money to such sites. The bills are both being redrafted following a rebuke from the White House on the site blocking provisions.

2: Grooveshark Forced Offline in Germany by Copyright Organisation

Next up today, music streaming service Grooveshark has been forced to disable access to German listeners due to a protracted legal fight against the local music rights group GEMA. According to Grooveshark, “disproportionately high operating costs” in the country are forcing the move and the site, in its notice of closure, is asking its users to send a “polite” letter to GEMA over the matter. Grooveshark will continue to serve other countries, including the U.S., where it is being sued by all four of the major record labels over its service. Grooveshark, however, claims to be protected by DMCA safe harbors as the music it streams is uploaded by users.

3: Oracle Offers to Drop Patent Charges Against Google, to Speed Trial

Finally today, Oracle, in a filing made Tuesday in its ongoing case against Google, has offered to put on hold its patent claims if the court will hear its copyright ones more quickly. According to Oracle, Google misappropriated elements of the JAVA language in building their Android operating system, including both patent and copyright violations and is seeking both damages and an injunction against Google. However, disputes and challenges over damage estimates in the patent portion of the case has slowed the case to a halt, thus prompting the move. Google strongly denies the allegations.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Putting SOPA on a Shelf

First off today, the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) has, for now, been put on hold. In what was a whirlwind weekend for the act, it first saw key supporters moving to remove the most heated element of the act, the provision that could be used to order ISPs to block access to “rogue” websites. Shortly thereafter, the White House released a statement that, while acknowledging the problem of piracy, declined to support the legislation in its current form. Shortly after that, supporters of the bill withdrew a proposed vote, putting the legislation on hold. However, the PROTECT-IP Act, very similar bill, is still alive in the House and attention of supporters and opponents alike are turning to it in the face of SOPA’s shelving.

2: CD Projekt RED Ceases Hunt For Pirates

Next up today, CD Projeckt, the maker of the popular “Witcher” series of video games, has called off their hunt for pirates after getting negative feedback from the gaming community. The company, which has long opposed DRM on video games, saying it does nothing to stop piracy and harms consumers, had been getting information on and threatening to sue suspected pirates over alleged downloads of “The Witcher 2: Assassins Of Kings”. However, CD Projeckt said that piracy hurts them as developers and the industry as a whole ask asked its fans to not “be indifferent to piracy” and speak up if they see someone playing a pirated game, any game.

3: Copyright Troll Refuted in Fair Use Appeal

Finally today, Righthaven, the company that formerly filed suit over content copied from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Denver Post, is facing some additional opposition as it seeks to overturn a fair use ruling that have helped to put their litigation campaign on hold. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Google, Public Knowledge, and the Digital Media Law Project at Harvard University all filed briefs in a Righthaven appeal that hopes to overturn the fair use ruling in one of its more notable cases, where a judge ruled that the use of an entire article was a fair use, in part, because Righthaven didn’t have a legitimate interest in the work. Other organizations, including the RIAA, have filed briefs in favor of Righthaven’s fair use position, but not on other issues, such as copyright ownership, which could still cause Righthaven to lose.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

One of the factors they look at is how well the search engines are at ranking original texts over the duplicates. This, of course, is of great interest to anyone who posts original content online as, inevitably, it will be copied (legitimately and otherwise) and it’s important that the search engines do a reasonable job favoring the original author.

However, the results from AnalyzeThis.ru are, simply put, less than inspiriting. Google, according to the site, gets it right about 57% of the time according to the most recent survey. Even scarier, this is after a year of drastic improvement, up from under 10% in June of last year. Even more discouraging is that Google is easily the best, way ahead of Bing, which is currently hovering at 7%.

To be clear, I take these numbers with a good deal of skepticism. The site doesn’t clearly explain how it obtains its data but, even if the tests aren’t perfect, they highlight the point that Google isn’t either. Even after it’s updates, in these tests, Google still managed to barely get half of the cases right. Even if we assume this test generated 90% false positives in this area, that still leaves just under 5% of all works being mislabeled by Google as duplicates.

It’s easy to see how, with so many content creators and so many different works, this can become a very big problem very quickly.

Google’s Problem

For Google (and other search engines) the problem of duplicate content is a thorny one. When a user enters a search query. They don’t want to see ten pages with the same content, they usually want a variety of links to choose from. So, if a lot of pages on the Web have the same content, Google has to decide which one is the original and give it preferential treatment.

However, finding the original is easier said than done.

Google uses a variety of factors to determine which is the original such as the trust it has with the domain, the age of the site/page and the number of inbound links. However, these metrics aren’t perfect and, inevitably, Google gets it wrong from time to time.

Spammers, in turn, count on this. They often copy large amounts of content hoping that Google will believe at least some of it is original. Sadly, it’s a numbers game and the spammers, despite improvements, are still winning.

If these numbers are remotely accurate, it’s easy to see how, while Google has definitely made things harder on the spammers, they can still find great success copying content.

This further emphasizes how important it is for webmasters and content creators to be vigilant with their content and not put their faith in Google to keep them ahead of the bad guys.

Bottom Line

Just to be clear, I’m still very skeptical about these exact numbers. Without knowing more about the methodology, it’s impossible to be sure that they are accurate.

However, even with imperfect results, they highlight just how flawed Google is, even after the recent (and significant) improvements.

This makes it clear that, despite what Matt Cutts said, the scenario of a duplicate outranking an original work is not “highly unlikely” and seems to happen fairly regularly.

Obviously, this is a tough problem for search engines to crack and, until they do, webmasters need to be vigilant with their content.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Supreme Court Hears Copyright Cases

First off today, in Canada the Supreme Court will hear testimony on five copyright-related cases. The cases all deal with the issue of fair dealing, Canada’s equivalent to fair use, and may have a drastic impact on the amount Canadian’s pay for certain types of copyrighted content. One of the key cases deals with music samples in iTunes, which are currently offered for free and limited to 30 seconds. SOCAN, a rights group representing authors and publishers, thinks there should be a royalty affixed to those samples while Apple and other believe it to be an example of fair dealing. In another case, colleges are seeking to overturn a previous ruling that found copying short excerpts of copyrighted works for educational uses was not protected under fair dealing. Rulings on these cases are not expected for many months though testimony will be heard both today and tomorrow.

2: Vostu Pays Undisclosed Sum to Zynga to Settle Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Next up today, social game maker Zynga has settled their ongoing litigation with Vostu, a Brazilian company they accused of ripping off several of their games. Under the terms, Vostu will pay an undisclosed sum of money, make changes to four of their games and will drop a counter-claim they had filed against Zynga. The settlement puts an end to both lawsuits, one in Brazil and one in the U.S. and ends the dispute between the two companies.

3: Google Will Move to Dismiss Authors Guild Suit

Finally today, Google has indicated that it will seek dismissal in its long-running dispute with the Author’s Guild. The lawsuit, which is over Google’s Book Search tool and its scanning/indexing of books, has had two settlements be shot down. The Author’s Guild, however, is petitioning to have the settlement converted to a class action lawsuit. Even if Google wins and gets the lawsuit dismissed, it won’t be the end of the litigation as the individuals in the lawsuit would be able to continue.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: House Hearing on Stop Online Piracy Act Scheduled

First off today, the U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled a hearing on the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). The bill would allow rightsholders to get court orders to order ISPs and search engines to block access to “rogue” sites dedicated almost solely to piracy and also force payment processors and advertisers to stop doing business with such sites as well. The hearing will be at 10 AM ET Wednesday in Room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building and, most likely, will be webcast. An online protest, entitled American Censorship Day, is being planned for the same day in a bid to target the hearing.

2: RIAA: Google Refused to Remove MP3 Download App

Next up today, according to industry insiders, Google has refused to remove an app from the Android App store entitled “MP3 Music Download Pro” even though, according to labels, the app is widely used for copyright infringement. Google has removed similar apps in the past but has seemingly refused to remove this one saying that it has significant legitimate use. The controversy comes as Google prepares to announce the launch its own music store on the Wednesday of this month.

3: “Shoot the Pirate” Copyright Campaign Descends Into Real Violence

Finally today, in South Africa, the Creative Workers Union of South Africa is warning that their recent anti-piracy campaign is getting out of hand. According to the group, which represents tv and music industry members, claims that their “Shoot the Pirate” campaign has led to real-life violence against street vendors selling pirated goods. At least two brawls have erupted between vendors, artists and the police, resulting in at least two arrests and one injury. Others involved in the campaign have reported receiving death threats and one label boss claims to have hired bodyguards.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Have any suggestions for the 3 Count? Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

1: Viacom Responds to YouTube’s Interpretation of Copyright Law

First off today, YouTube and Viacom both have filed papers with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pitching their case for their interpretation of the law. At issue is specifically “red flag” takedowns, which are scenarios when a host must remove copyright infringing material despite a DMCA notice not being filed. According to YouTube, they only have to remove content when they are aware of an infringement that is obvious and doesn’t require investigation. Viacom says that interpretation is too broad and that an ISP must act if it is aware of an infringement, even if it is not aware of the specifics.

2: ‘Project Runway’ Copyright Suit Filed by St. Charles Photographer

Next up today, photographer Marcie Cobbaert has filed a lawsuit against the producers of “Project Runway” claiming that she took photos for one of the designers on the show only to have them used as part of the broadcast without her permission. The suit also accuses Lifetime, the network behind the show, of turning the photos into advertisements by including a watermark for the network over them when they were on air.

3: TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky Asked to Block Newzbin2

Finally today, UK IPSs TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky have all received letters from the Motion Picture Association (MPA) requesting that they block the Usenet service Newzbin2. The move comes after the MPA secured a legal victory against BT, a different ISP in the country, forcing them to do the same. Virgin and Sky have said they will comply with the order but TalkTalk has taken issue with elements of it, including who has to pay for the blocking to be applied.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Wednesday evening at 5 PM ET for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Friday right here on Plagiarism Today.

The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

If things go according to plan, this page will work much like Plagiarism Today’s Facebook Page in that it will be dedicated solely to posting content and relevant news from the site. My personal profile there will be both personal and business so it will include both PT-related posts as well as other updates.

If you’re using Google+ and don’t want all of my personal posts in your stream, feel free to just follow Plagiarism Today’s page and get only the site-related news.

Finally, here’s a very quick breakdown of all the places that you can follow myself and Plagiarism Today on the Web.

Google+

1. Personal Google+ Profile
2. Plagiarism Today Brand Page

Facebook

1. Personal Facebook Profile
2. Plagiarism Today Facebook Fan Page

Twitter

1. Personal/Site Twitter Profile

In addition to all of those methods, you can always subscribe to the email newsletter in the box to the right or simply add the RSS feed to Google Reader or whatever RSS reader you prefer.

I’m still working on ways to better use both the Facebook and Googe+ accounts, including possibly using Google+ Hangouts to host the Copyright 2.0 Show moving forward. I’ll have more news on those changes shortly.

Thank you for your patiences and for your support!