As if Pinterest wasnt bad enough, Microsoft launched a BETA of their new social app, a sort of Pinterest for photos, video, and search queries :

http://www.so.cl/


No idea if they will keep the actual name, brand, logo, url, or if the whole project will be killed or merged with MSN, but it shows the trend keeps going on about stealing content as pinning seems to be the next big thing in copyright abuse and theft ... would like to hear Corbis commenting on that

you are just trads who can't accept changes.

theft isn't a "change"

nonsense. americans used to be regarded simply as criminals defecting from the monarchy, punishable by death. thats how the nation was born. yankee was a dutch slang term for thief / pirate.

It's just appalling hyporcrisy from a company who sues at the drop of a hat. (M$)

Sigh.   So now I have to find out what "pinterest" is all about - I've been avoiding it.  Let me guess: more 'social' cr@p that does nothing but waste your time.  Exactly how many ways does the world need to "share photos and videos"?

Sigh.   So now I have to find out what "pinterest" is all about - I've been avoiding it.  Let me guess: more 'social' cr@p that does nothing but waste your time.  Exactly how many ways does the world need to "share photos and videos"?

Exactly. More social cr@p. Just what the world needs.

Quote from: drugal on May 21, 2012, 11:28

Quote from: jsnover on May 21, 2012, 09:00

theft isn't a "change"

nonsense. americans used to be regarded simply as criminals defecting from the monarchy, punishable by death. thats how the nation was born. yankee was a dutch slang term for thief / pirate.

as much as i'm strongly anti american you just sound like a pathetic troll.

what we have here instead is a clear trend where IT/ICT and stock companies are desperate to increase profits in the actual negative economic downturn and don't give a sh-it about long term, even microsoft seems to be ready to shoot Corbis in its own foot to make space for yet another social project in its arsenal, and wait for the launch of the new Windows 8, WinMobile, and Windows RT with built-in apps all focused on sharing photos, text, and videos, and who cares if 99% of these contents are ripped off and the copyright owners don't get a penny for that.

and take a look at the many VC web site like TechCrunch, VentureBeat, WeekendHacker, etc... i see almost new startups every day all dealing with so called user generated content in one way or another and we know very well how much of this junk contents are gonna be legal and licenced !

so we're now absolutely powerless, the future will be more and more about theft up to the point where one day theft will be taken for granted
and socially accepted.

and yet i can tell you that stock is not gonna die soon, as web sites and mobile networks have never been our client base and never will, so all this doom and gloom scenarios are only a small part of the whole story.

what this has to do with being anti american your troll? I tell you one scheme where others live off content generated by users for free: forums. : )

I'm thinking of starting an antisocial network for people who hate the internet. Complete with a dislike button obviously.

Ther are several I think. I remember some hatebook thing with hate buttons.... you could choose between hate and dislike people were grouped up by hating each other. It's like a workplace.

Quote from: bhr on May 21, 2012, 14:46

I'm thinking of starting an antisocial network for people who hate the internet. Complete with a dislike button obviously.

Ther are several I think. I remember some hatebook thing with hate buttons.... you could choose between hate and dislike people were grouped up by hating each other. It's like a workplace.

LOL

"What are you lot on about???"

Read a bit.  Don't make us repeat all the issues yet again.

I have read most of it from the other thread. And mostly its fear mongering and bs. Read what I said!

Yes, congrats on uploading images under a user agreement you don't have permission to use.  We get it - it's a visual bookmarker that you want to use despite the fact you don't have the rights to the content involved.  And you're okay with granting rights to anyone who wants to use that content for free even though it isn't yours.

Dang it, I've repeated myself again.

LOL - look, I get what you are saying but I don't understand why it would concern you given the images are linked back to your agency and are copyrighted!

And yes, it's a marvellous way to bookmark images and create multiple agency lightboxes. it really is a useful tool (for me at least).

LOL - look, I get what you are saying but I don't understand why it would concern you given the images are linked back to your agency and are copyrighted!

Maybe that's the way you use them, but in many cases our unwatermarked images are placed on pinterest by people lifting them from possibly legal buyers' sites, claiming that they own the copyright over them enabling them to do so.

BTW, it's a truly stupid agreement. There can't be all that many instances (relatively) when people are using it to pin their own images.

Quote from: Noodles on May 21, 2012, 17:06

LOL - look, I get what you are saying but I don't understand why it would concern you given the images are linked back to your agency and are copyrighted!

Maybe that's the way you use them, but in many cases our unwatermarked images are placed on pinterest by people lifting them from possibly legal buyers' sites, claiming that they own the copyright over them enabling them to do so.

BTW, it's a truly stupid agreement. There can't be all that many instances (relatively) when people are using it to pin their own images.

Un-watermarked stock images are stolen and should be reported but you can't blame Pinterest for that.

and yes, I pin my own images

Quote from: Noodles on May 21, 2012, 17:26

...
Un-watermarked stock images are stolen and should be reported but you can't blame Pinterest for that.

Well, yes, I can, because it's not really intended primarily as a place where you can pin your own images (though you can). That's not the point of the site. It's not purporting to be like Flickr and the like.
From their About page:
"Pinning 101
What is Pinterest?
Pinterest is a virtual pinboard. Pinterest allows you to organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web. You can browse pinboards created by other people to discover new things and get inspiration from people who share your interests.
People use pinboards to plan their weddings, decorate their homes, and share their favorite recipes."

Actually, although I'm not a social media person, I can see that this is a very good idea (unlike eg FB or Twitter IMO). Sadly, I can also see that it infringes copyright, much of the time.

I do not use FB or Twitter - I have tried both but they just didn't do it for me. How you use Pinterest is up to you. I'm not sure how well its monitored for copyright infringement. That is open for discussion but I have no issue with my (linked back to source) watermarked images being pinned on there by anyone - why should I?

As I and others have said, that's hardly the issue. The target market is women in the 20s and 30s. They suggest using it for "planning weddings, decorating homes and sharing recipes". How many of the target market using the site in the suggested ways are going to go to a stock site to find images? They're going to look at wedding dress sites, home decoration sites, recipe sites, or women's magazine sites, and that's where they may pick up 'your' (=someone's) unwatermarked pics, not linked back to the agency.
I don't actually use the site at all, but say 'I' was going to use it to 'pin' some hairstyles I wanted to show my stylist, so visited some magazine sites to research hairstyles, then I realise the copyright implications (most people would not give this a thought). How likely is it that 'I' (=most of the relatively few people who considered copyright) would then do a GIS to see if I could find the legitimate source of the image, then buy credits or pay money to license the image? If it was me, I'd just go earlier to the hairdresser and flick through the mags in her waiting area.

we are talking about a scrapbook on line not pirating stolen music or stock images - besides, there are a zillion blogs out there that do the exact same thing. Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

Ok I spent 30 seconds looking at Pinterest and I think I get it.  To some extent it seems like the early days of Napster - it's a blindingly easy way to share content that, legally speaking, you shouldn't be sharing.  Noodles is saying - what's the problem, if the images link back to your agency source?  The point is that if you create a Pinterest page for a purpose - showing a design concept, for example - and send people a link, and they look at it, comment, etc. - excuse me but you're now USING those images, whether or not they have visible watermarks. 

And with the embed feature, your image can end up on any website. 

If you file a DMCA notice the way Pinterest wants you to (pin page URL), they don't actually delete the image, only the page, meaning that your image can still be embedded in other websites AFTER a DMCA take down has occurred.

I filled out the DMCA notice and the image was taken down within a couple hours, surprisingly fast.  But having to fill out your name, address, email, and phone number to report it seems a bit much, I couldn't help but think that pinterest is collecting all this info from DMCA takedown requests and selling it to advertisers.  Maybe that's the business model?  The image pinterest had stored seems to have been removed along with the pinned content though.

They remove the SINGLE REPORTED PAGE that calls the pinned image.  Unless they changed the way they operate, they don't remove the repins, nor do they remove the actual image from their servers.

All DMCA take down request require information to identify you in case your take-down notice is countered.

As I and others have said, that's hardly the issue. The target market is women in the 20s and 30s...

Ouch, you ppl are effed. Women of that age (or somewhat older too) are the cult sacred cows of western society. The prime consumers. Anything they do in mass is labeled cool and justified, and if you have anyhing against it you are a sycho jerk. They will change laws anytime for that crowd.

It's beyond ironic that Microsoft, which makes huge efforts worldwide to prevent piracy of its products, is gung-ho to clone Pinterest.   DMCA takedown? Don't make me laugh.  Actually, it probably makes people at Pinterest laugh.

Quote from: ShadySue on May 21, 2012, 18:45

As I and others have said, that's hardly the issue. The target market is women in the 20s and 30s. They suggest using it for "planning weddings, decorating homes and sharing recipes". How many of the target market using the site in the suggested ways are going to go to a stock site to find images? They're going to look at wedding dress sites, home decoration sites, recipe sites, or women's magazine sites, and that's where they may pick up 'your' (=someone's) unwatermarked pics, not linked back to the agency.
I don't actually use the site at all, but say 'I' was going to use it to 'pin' some hairstyles I wanted to show my stylist, so visited some magazine sites to research hairstyles, then I realise the copyright implications (most people would not give this a thought). How likely is it that 'I' (=most of the relatively few people who considered copyright) would then do a GIS to see if I could find the legitimate source of the image, then buy credits or pay money to license the image? If it was me, I'd just go earlier to the hairdresser and flick through the mags in her waiting area.

we are talking about a scrapbook on line not pirating stolen music or stock images - besides, there are a zillion blogs out there that do the exact same thing. Anyway, I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one

How is a "scrapbook on line" any different than a playlist online? Except of course, it consists of images rather than music.

If you replace the word "Pin" with "Grab" when speaking of the site features (because that is in effect what it does) you may see it from another perspective. To grab, with permission, a watermarked image image that links back to a microstock site is very different than to grab a licensed image from a blog -- even with the blogger's blessing. Perhaps the blogger holds a proper license, but the pinner/grabber does not.

If you are a photographer, and own a website, or have produced slideshows for customers, would you consider grabbing copyrighted music without proper license to use in the background? If your answer is "yes", you will likely never understand what we are concerned about here.

I admit I could be wrong about this, but it was my impression that legitimate radio stations, on line or not, still had to pay royalties each time a song is played.

Quote from: jbryson on May 22, 2012, 16:51

If you replace the word "Pin" with "Grab" when speaking of the site features (because that is in effect what it does) you may see it from another perspective. To grab, with permission, a watermarked image image that links back to a microstock site is very different than to grab a licensed image from a blog -- even with the blogger's blessing. Perhaps the blogger holds a proper license, but the pinner/grabber does not.

If you are a photographer, and own a website, or have produced slideshows for customers, would you consider grabbing copyrighted music without proper license to use in the background? If your answer is "yes", you will likely never understand what we are concerned about here.

Yes, the pinner/blogger example is a good one. But I just don't see the harm in allowing pinning. For example, my youngest daughter had to prepare a project for school, in the form of a small A3 poster, about dolphins. We used google to source some images (no doubt all copyrighted) and printed and glued them on to the poster. I highly doubt this is an uncommon practise. I guess its not legal to do so but if common sense prevails there is little harm done by it. This "politically correct" world we now seem to live in is awful sometimes.

It's not particuarly the use you outline that's objectionable, though some would think it is.   Arguably, as it's a non-profit educational use by a pupil, it's fair use. (Here, it would be a discipinable offence for a teacher to require a child to pay to license an image for a project, but they do have Glow as a resource.)
However, it's giving image thieves somewhere (else) they can easily find and steal copyright images on a particular topic. (I haven't looked into the site. It may be you can prevent others seeing or pinning images on  your pinboard.

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 21, 2012, 22:50

I filled out the DMCA notice and the image was taken down within a couple hours, surprisingly fast.  But having to fill out your name, address, email, and phone number to report it seems a bit much, I couldn't help but think that pinterest is collecting all this info from DMCA takedown requests and selling it to advertisers.  Maybe that's the business model?  The image pinterest had stored seems to have been removed along with the pinned content though.

They remove the SINGLE REPORTED PAGE that calls the pinned image.  Unless they changed the way they operate, they don't remove the repins, nor do they remove the actual image from their servers.

All DMCA take down request require information to identify you in case your take-down notice is countered.

They do remove the repins.  I'm not sure about the image from their servers though.  We'll have to test that.  Next DMCA I send, I'll take note of the image URL before sending it through. 

Maybe that's the business model? 

They claim to make no money, even though backed by some $135 million in venture capital.

On one of those business profile sites used by investors they are listed as a "mobile shopping service". I don't know where that definition came from. Was it the business site who possibly chose to list the profile that way or was it pinterest who made a submission of their profile that way? I don't know.

I dont like all that about Pinterest but in fact I see hundreds of actually stolen images on Facebook everyday. They are liked, shared, downloaded and used all the time. As someone mentioned stealing was never easier. And it will not become socially accepted - it is already widely socially accepted.  

The public  never accepted the concept of intellectual property with regard to "entertainment" or "art" products that can be easily duplicated - music, video, still imagery.   This began with reel tape recorders in the 60s, continued with videotape and cassette - it only accelerated with digital technology and the internet.  

To the average person, a claim of intellectual property - literally a "copy right" - only has validity to the extent to which it's enforced; no enforcement means no "right".  Since it's easy to make a copy of a piece of music and give it to a friend - and no one tries stop me - I did nothing wrong.  

It's always been ok to lend a book to a friend; I paid for it, I own it, right?  If publishers now assert that it's wrong to lend an eBook, no one takes them seriously.  It might be technically difficult - for now - but it's not wrong.  The public never bought the "loss of potential sale" argument either. 

The music companies made things much worse by telling people they couldn't even make copies for their own use.   Any remaining public support for musical copyright vanished along with those hated DRM systems.

I'm confused now... if I receive a magazine in the post and like a hair style in it, and take the magazine to the barber/hairdresser/hairstylist, and ask them to eg: shave my hair similar to like in the photo, is that illegal?  If I tear out the sheet, and do the same, is it illegal? If I cut out only the photo or only the haircut is that illegal? [As of proof reading this, I've realise that copying the hairstyle might be break copyright and IP law too.  Just to play it safe, when I next shoot a model, I shall have the make-up artist sign a makeup-release  ]

( Re lending a physical book to a friend to read and then have it returned, or not, or if I sell it on, I am not aware of this being illegal, or requiring licensing.  This does not mean I'm right or wrong, so I'm asking on this? ... However, just as when we used to play football at school, and some kid brought his ball, we did not pay a rent/licence/etc to play with that ball.  He owned the ball, and we did what we wanted with it...  I draw the line at, not being able to 'reproduce' the content of the book, and then sell it.  ie: The book that I have purchased, maybe be sold on, however I'm not entitled to photocopy it, or re-write it for that matter.  However in the case of school-projects, Thesis's, etc, proper referencing/bibliographing needs to be done. )  [ If you really want to be anal about things, no original content is really original.  Where do you draw the line, on what is original content in a book, such as "how to use your camera".  Lets assume an author was taught at school/college/other about aperture and shutter and then focuses (no pun intended) on ISO in the book.  Self taught on ISO, but to describe ISO, makes reference to shutter/aperture.  Some authors credit their teachers, but not all do.  I'm not saying that its right or not too, but its practically impossible, since we learn daily thought human-interactions. .. enough of that off topic RANT ]

Back to my first example, magazine are disturbed, and the companies would be glad of us, the general public 'showing' their adverts around.  I'm hoping my hair-dressing example is not illegal, because the next scenario is a bride, tearing out sheets from various magazines, 'these are the flowers I want for my wedding', 'this is the dress style I'm going for', etc... is that illegal?

So far what I've seen of Pinterest is that, as some others have mentioned, is its a public billboard.  If you tear out a photo from a magazine, hang it on a wall in you bedroom/house, is that illegal?  What about when your friend comes over and sees that 'famous singer/actor/other' hanging on the wall.  Is that act now illegal?  Pinterest seems to link to the hosting website, and does not hold the content itself from what I've seen.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!?  Is google illegal, or google-images illegal?  It points to the hosting-site.  Pinterest can be seen as a 'google' where users pick what makes it to the page and not.  When it comes to facebook/etc. and someone downloading a photo off another site, and then placing that in their album, then that, I believe is illegal.  HOWEVER sharing/posting a site with the content I would like my friends to see, is something else, and I don't believe that is illegal.

Its a very fine line, between illegal and legal use, and it seems that people draw that line at different points.

Quote from: Chris S on May 24, 2012, 12:01

Its a very fine line, between illegal and legal use, and it seems that people draw that line at different points.

No, it really isn't.  You're just trying to stretch it to make an argument.  The personal use "license" that comes with your magazine allows you to take it and cut it apart and lend it to your friend, etc.

That has nothing to do with agreeing to upload legalities you have no right to, redistributing content you have no permission to, and commercial uses you haven't licensed the content for.

Well stated.

Quote from: Hummingbird on May 21, 2012, 22:53

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 21, 2012, 22:50

I filled out the DMCA notice and the image was taken down within a couple hours, surprisingly fast.  But having to fill out your name, address, email, and phone number to report it seems a bit much, I couldn't help but think that pinterest is collecting all this info from DMCA takedown requests and selling it to advertisers.  Maybe that's the business model?  The image pinterest had stored seems to have been removed along with the pinned content though.

They remove the SINGLE REPORTED PAGE that calls the pinned image.  Unless they changed the way they operate, they don't remove the repins, nor do they remove the actual image from their servers.

All DMCA take down request require information to identify you in case your take-down notice is countered.

They do remove the repins.  I'm not sure about the image from their servers though.  We'll have to test that.  Next DMCA I send, I'll take note of the image URL before sending it through. 

I just tested this to be sure.

They removed the pin page.

The repins are still there, the images still on their servers.

In that case, hand me a pitch-fork, and light my torch!...

However:
Silly question, but I just want to check if that 'most' of the people/users in here are 'fine' with sites that 'share/post' links.  ie: google search results, facebook posts to an interesting article, tweeting a site you found, (pinning on pinterest IF it is used as a public notice-board, AND that they don't strip & host the image/work as there own) ... (disclaimer: for facebook, etc, am referring to a post like "Wish I had thought of this for my wedding www,url,com/wedding-idea  [image thumbnail]"   ...  People copying an image into there own album is another storey...  )

I don't see copyright violation as a laughing matter. I am NOT fine with ANY site that takes my images, watermarked or not, and uses them on their website or someone else's website without paying for a license. I am NOT fine with allowing the people who steal the images in the first place to re-distribute my images, watermarked or not, because that also constitutes copyright infringement. I am not going to address what COULD be if this world was all butterflies, rainbows and lollipops, I am only addressing what is happening right now, and is getting worse every day. As for which of your above scenarios I am fine with, I think you can decide for yourself from my statement.

Silly question, but I just want to check if that 'most' of the people/users in here are 'fine' with sites that 'share/post' links.  ie: google search results, facebook posts to an interesting article, tweeting a site you found, (pinning on pinterest IF it is used as a public notice-board, AND that they don't strip & host the image/work as there own) ... (disclaimer: for facebook, etc, am referring to a post like "Wish I had thought of this for my wedding www,url,com/wedding-idea  [image thumbnail]"   ...  People copying an image into there own album is another storey...  )

If the law declares something as legal, then I don't have to have an opinion.  I'm going to be "fine" with it whether I like it or not - we're all playing by the same rules, and we know what the rules are.  We have something called "fair use" which, while nebulous to some degree, we all abide by.

The courts will need to weigh in on this, but I don't believe the massive rape of internet pictorial content, enabled by the one-click too that is the pinmarklet, is even close to fair use.

No, it really isn't.  You're just trying to stretch it to make an argument.  The personal use "license" that comes with your magazine allows you to take it and cut it apart and lend it to your friend, etc.

That has nothing to do with agreeing to upload legalities you have no right to, redistributing content you have no permission to, and commercial uses you haven't licensed the content for.

exactly.
imagine a magazine publishing hundreds of stolen AP/AFP/Getty/Reuters war images and trying to get away with that saying they were found on Pinterest and therefore considered of public domain .. hahaha