"Photo-and-idea sharing site Pinterest has been battling its way through copyright complaints practically since it was formed, even going head-to-head with image giant Getty over the way their images are being used and distributed throughout the site.

Now, they’re rolling out a way to make attribution and tracking easier for both the user and the owner of the copyrighted material.
Pinterest is working with Flickr in the project, enabling shareable images with a “pin it” button; in turn, pins from Flickr now have an attribution disclaimer, giving credit to the image source. That credit shows up right below the photo and is a clickable link to its origin."

http://www.webpronews.com/pinterest-rolls-out-attribution-for-flickr-2012-06


This new flickr 'pin-it' button is no solution to Pinterest’s copyright issues.   It's just another band-aid attempt to appear as if they're doing something positive, while continuing to encourage breach of copyright on a massive scale.  There should be no new button - in fact there should be no button at all since Flickr hosts a good portion of copyrighted content.  Adding attribution and giving credit to the image source while copying and hosting the image on their site does not waive copyright laws.  The U.S. Copyright Office states:  "Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

When the license of an image on flickr states ©All Rights Reserved, this is a clear message to the public not to use the image in any way without the direct permission of the creator.  From a Pinerest user's point of view, the 'pin-it' button and attribution implies that they have permission to 'pin'.  Perhaps what Pinterest should do during the 'pinning' process is have some text box pop up asking the user to mark one of two check boxes.  For instance:

- I am {the creator’s name} and am the rightful owner of this image; or
- I have obtained permission from {the creator’s name} to use the image.

The other thing to note about this new attribution/credit line is that it doesn't help creators find their images because the credit line is not picked up by Pinterest's search engine.  Take this image as an example.  The 'pin' attributes and gives credit to 'monika & manfred on Flickr'.  If I search for 'monika & manfred' the image does not appear anywhere in the search results.  Only images with 'monika & manfred' in the description (or the alt code) will be found.  Allowing the search to include the credit line would be at least handy for creators to find where their images have been infringed.  It is likely, however that Pinterest doesn't want infringed content to be found.

Currently it is difficult and a lot of times impossible for creators to find their images on Pinterest.  There are some tools that exist that can help a little but there is nothing solid out there yet.  We have ImageExchange which is promising but that's hardly useful for individual creators because they can’t search for their own images.  Then there's Google's reverse image search, which is by far the best way to find infringements, however there's a lag between the images being 'pinned' and Google indexing them.

As image creators, one way to help combat the issue is to educate people, most of which aren't even aware that what they're doing is illegal.  We can hit them where it hurts the most – their pockets – by directing them back to the source site requesting they purchase a license.  Or for those who host their gallery on their own websites, they can alter their .htaccess file so that pinners unknowingly 'pin' a different image to the one they think they're pinning.  Various images and codes can be accessed from hummingbird's blog here. 

Instead of encouraging copyright infringements by adding a 'pin-it' button on our images, Photo stock sites and sites like flickr should stop being so lenient towards Pinterest and start supporting their contributors.  They should block all pinning on their sites or should change their .htaccess files as mentioned above.  It seems that they're conflicted over doing what's best for their creators and leveraging on Pinterest's marketing potential.  It's disappointing to see them opting to ignore our basic rights and devalue our property, all for a few clicks that are unlikely to be converted into sales.

at this point it's a lost battle and a lost war.

it's just too easy to steal content nowadays.
and Flickr itself doesn't give a sh-it about copyright infringment, which says it all.

You're right. They went from a blanket No Pin sitewide policy for copyrighted images to this new scheme

Reference link to their old position back in February

http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/24/flickr-pinterest-pin/

I took all of my images off of Flickr last month. It was mostly local travel landmarks. I got tired of freeloaders wanting free use and those stupid Schmaps travel people bugging me at least a couple of times a week. The images I had on Flickr were not much more than decent travel snapshots, but they were of value to some because I shot some of the more obscure stuff that no one else took. They can all go screw themselves and I'll find something else to do with the images. No great loss for me as far as any time investment on Flickr.

Does Flickr put a PIN IT button only on the Creative Commons images, or does it stupidly put it on the "all rights reserved" images, too?

Could you tell me where the PinIt button is on CC images on Flickr? I don't see one on my own photos (which aren't CC, and as I don't allow sharing, the FB and Twitter icons are greyed out if I'm not signed in, as they should be), so I tried a random CC photo, but couldn't see the PinIT button on that page either. To be honest, I wouldn't recognise one if I saw it.

.  Perhaps what Pinterest should do during the 'pinning' process is have some text box pop up asking the user to mark one of two check boxes.  For instance:

- I am {the creator’s name} and am the rightful owner of this image; or
- I have obtained permission from {the creator’s name} to use the image.

that is a good start.

I just created an account and made my image 'all rights reserved'.  You can see the Pinterest button along with others when you click "share".  There's an option to opt out if you change your privacy setting but really, all images on flickr should be opted out by default with an option to opt in. 

We might prefer it to be so, but as Flickr identifies itself as a file sharing site, 'sharing' would logically be the default.
Side note: isn't it a bit redundant to have email, FB and twitter icons, then under share you can share again by email, FB and Twitter as well as Pinterest or Tumblr.

Is graphix04 gone now?

Hope not. Wonder what happened.

The people who whine and complain about what's going on tend to be people who have photos being passed around that they didn't get paid to shoot in the first place.

Yes.  You are right.  What's wrong with that? 

As stock producers, most of us shoot on spec, hoping to get our money back.  The more people who share your IP for free, the more difficult it is to recover your costs and make a profit. 

Seems like a pretty obvious thing to complain about. 

Quote from: sjlocke on June 23, 2012, 07:31

Is graphix04 gone now?

Hope not. Wonder what happened.

+2.  Wonder what happened there.  I enjoyed his posts and his point of view. 

I've tried to pin (my own) images from flickr, but as I've disabled 3rd party sharing in my flickr settings, pinning images from my flickr account has been effectively disabled. Both from the share option on flickr, as well as through the firefox pin it plug in.  It also prevents me pinning images from other flickr users who have disabled sharing. That's an improvement, I believe.

Quote from: cardmaverick on June 23, 2012, 15:26

The people who whine and complain about what's going on tend to be people who have photos being passed around that they didn't get paid to shoot in the first place.

Yes.  You are right.  What's wrong with that? 

As stock producers, most of us shoot on spec, hoping to get our money back.  The more people who share your IP for free, the more difficult it is to recover your costs and make a profit. 

Seems like a pretty obvious thing to complain about. 

I understand exactly what you're saying, I shoot stock myself... however, I shoot it knowing that there will be collateral damage. Watermarks have never been easier to remove before thanks to photoshop and I don't see any stock shooters protesting Adobe like they do Pinterest... Think about that.

Anyhow, see my last post above. I've moved more into higher end assignments in addition to very calculated stock media production. I think there will always be people willing to pay for higher resolution images, and hopefully with the advent of 4K monitors, larger web page layouts, etc... stealing a 500x300 pixel image just won't suffice. I doubt very few people using images without buying them ever use them in print, they simply look horrible.

Last but not least, Pinterest is just another billboard for us, but only if you make sure your images look like one in the first place.

and hopefully with the advent of 4K monitors, larger web page layouts, etc... stealing a 500x300 pixel image just won't suffice. I doubt very few people using images without buying them ever use them in print, they simply look horrible.

most of the biggest news sites like NYT.com, CNN, Guardian, TheSun, Telegraph, BBC, all use images no bigger than 600px, same for the major blogs, and same for FB and other social networks.

maybe in the future you'll be right, but for the moment you're in denial, a 500px is way more than enough to illustrate an article and to bring in visitors.

by the way, they may not print it on paper, but i've seen people doing t-shirts on POD sites with low res pics and they don't look as bad as you would expect from a 600px pic, not at all !

@cardmaverick,
Thanks for the explanation. It makes total sense and I agree with your thinking. From your point of view, as a full-time photographer shooting other things besides stock, I think you are totally right on how you are looking at things.

But some of us (like myself) shoot microstock as a side venture to make extra money or to keep our photography skills honed. That doesn't mean I think it's right for others to steal my images. I disagree with you on that point. And I especially think it's wrong when the agencies don't stand behind their contributors. Go to a supermarket and steal a pack of gum. If you get caught, it's still considered stealing and you still suffer legal consequences. And I totally disagree with you on the pinterest thing. But that's all I'm gonna say on that, because I've voiced my opinion already on multiple pinterest threads.

Some of us just have a different perspective.

I've always considered Flickr as the non-membership version of SXC or any other free image site.

People lift images from Flickr constantly, hardly any way to police this or control it in some form.

All I upload to Flickr (15 images so far) are some of my best sellers with nasty watermarks and my URL to contact me.

I have no problem people finding some of my images on Flickr but at least they cannot use them and have to contact me if they really, really want them.

I used to love Flickr but their support is atrocious and they dont care if you have paid Pro account. I am going to delete my stuff, they are a bunch of theives at Yahoo. I pay, I am a paying customer, treat me as such. But I am sure when I tell them I will not pay for another year, they couldnt care less. What is up these days, its almost like they dont want my money. Not what I learned in business school. Customers are king, but Flickr is emperor. Skrew dem.

As for being a sharing site, yes, to share with family and friends, thats what Flickr is meant for. But it doesnt mean, take my stuff, its free to use.

Someone here said its a lost battle and war, +1.000.000