When did they started showing ads on Google Images?

What keywords generated the ads? I don't see ad's on any of the searches I've performed.

http://googlified.com/files/temp/harry-potter-google-images-adwords.png
A lot of them... For example, this "harry potter" one... (not that I am looking for HP, it just a random query)

That's bizarre, I'm not getting any ads when doing a search for 'harry potter' or any other search. Maybe they are running a test right now. Are you using images.google.com? or a localized version?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1016/849508880_5406a49c41_o.png

I don't see ads either. And here's a related story from '06:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1158920,00.html

<< The engineers tell Brin and Page that they can generate extra advertising revenue by adding small sponsored links to image-search results, as Google already does with text searches. "We're not making enough money already?" Page asks. Everyone laughs. The share price has soared as high as $475, making Google, in market-cap terms, the biggest media company in the world. (The stock plummeted early this month on earnings that Wall Street didn't like, although it's still far above its 2004 IPO price of $85.) The engineers press on. Their trials predict the tweak would be worth as much as $80 million a year in additional revenue. Brin isn't moved. "I don't see how it enhances the experience of our users," he says. It probably wouldn't hurt it much either. But the Google guys reject the proposal—"Let's not do it," Brin declares, to the engineers' obvious disappointment—leaving the $80 million on the table. >>

Mabey using a proxy from china, if there is one.

I have searched on many data centers, with "hl" & "gl" parameters ="ja". I do not see that adwords :-/

> "We're not making enough money already?" Page
> asks. Everyone laughs. (...)
> Brin isn't moved. "I don't see how it enhances
> the experience of our users,"

Yeah right. And they said all that when coincidentally a journalist happened to be present. As if web search ads miraculously are incredibly great for users, whereas image results ads aren't. I want to see that same journalist be present when the Google China office's censorship support gets a call from a Chinese gov't representative. I want to see that support person use the phrasing, "Sorry sir, but we're making enough money already in China and I can't see how censoring this new human rights watch group enhances the experience of our users."

What's the real difference here? Perhaps – pure speculation – it's because Google copies images from other sites as thumbnails, and has a stronger standing in "this is not fair use" copyright lawsuits if the page is non-commercial? That could be the same reason Google News doesn't have ads, as they also use thumbnails. So maybe first, they waited till they've gone through some of those copyright trials (e.g. the Perfect 10 lawsuit, or the Agence Fress one), and then launch ads?

I think an image search engine should have image ads or at least ads that lead you to photo-related sites. If I type [Paris, France] in Google Image Search I want to see pics, not ads for Paris hotels (like in Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=paris).