Here's an interesting piece about Google's own, erm, 'intervention' in / insertion into the UK art world (or, rather, the places it's been allowed to go and the relationships it's been allowed to form unchallenged) - some bits / ideas there could do with fleshing-out and the "breed" pun is a bit forced / over-egged, but it's a good enough place to start. "Cultural hijacking" is a fair phrase to use, I think; though I found this a bit irritating: "...far from being a mere digitisation of museums catalogues... " Well, actually, no, there's nothing 'mere' about digitising catalogues; in fact, it's typical of Google's sense of corporate self-entitlement that they think they can casually hoover up pretty much anyone's content, be it photographs, text, etc; this is just one example of many: Google like to play fast n loose with everything from maps, pictures of your house, your photos, a novel you wrote 37 years ago...
Their mission-statement should be, "To own the world's content, by default."
I've got a bunch of thoughts that probably go beyond what this piece suggests - for example, that Google would like young digital artists to adopt the tools that they provide (so that they control the Means of Production for a new generation of artists), because this opens up all sorts of routes for cultural monetisation, backdoor content rights / ownership, blahblahblah). File under Art Business-plan. Pfft. - but too late / too tired to drill much further into this now.
Good ending sentence (though no analysis of or challenging of art patronage, or suggesting of alternatives - just a dumb acceptance of its return under the neoliberal project): "The comparison with art patronage across the centuries does not work in this case, it's just more smoke in the eyes. Renaissance art patrons didn't have a database of all your documents, pictures, chats, videos, calendar and locations."