pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pinsdaddy is this legal?  (Read 1761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« on: April 12, 2018, 09:23 »
0
http://www.pinsdaddy.com/business_KZMU9gKUrXg5eRQCXBYgGhNXN*GyqTAn59CPSfizecs/

Oh tricky, illegal characters, the link would need to be copied and pasted. Here's Tiny URL version:  https://tinyurl.com/ybsktayx

Welcome to our Business section from here you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include, so you don't need to contribute the image authors manually. If you want, you can customize your Business embed code: resize the Business image as well as select the position in which you would like it to appear on in your article. It's then simply a case of copying the short code and pasting the Business code into your post.

Is this legal? I see some of these as crediting some site that probably paid for the use. There are also other searches with watermarks still on them Shutterstock for example.

I didn't cross search but I'm sure that people here will start to see their work or friends.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2018, 09:33 by Uncle Pete »


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2018, 09:33 »
+4
That is one juicy lawsuit waiting to happen.  You don't get to steal somebody else's license and bandwidth just because you "credit" them.

« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2018, 10:40 »
0
For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2018, 11:55 »
0
For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Did you look at the site? They clearly say "you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include" which is not true and there's no creative commons for a stolen image AND they are crediting the agency not the artist.

Google, nice straw man argument, attempt at diverting from the original question, does none of that. They run a search for people to find something on the web. There's no claim that anything is free to use. Would you make web searches illegal? But I'm nice I'll play along. Google "Note: Before reusing content, make sure that its license is legitimate and check the exact terms of reuse. For example, the license might require that you give credit to the image creator when you use the image. Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed."

And search results?



IMAGES MAY BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

Say someone is looking for something you made or you as a photographer, where do you think they will look. Google. When someone is looking for a legitimate use and wants an advanced search, that works, and can search all agencies, where will they go? Google.

Now back to the point. Pinsdaddy and their foreign language version, are linking and promoting illegal use with an incorrect claim that your work is creative commons, and all someone needs to do is, copy and paste it came from "X" agency and it's legal. Plus no watermarks.

Let me see if I understand, you defend the illegal use and the crooks, while you attack a perfectly legal search? Did I get that right?


« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2018, 12:23 »
0
http://www.pinsdaddy.com/business_KZMU9gKUrXg5eRQCXBYgGhNXN*GyqTAn59CPSfizecs/

Oh tricky, illegal characters, the link would need to be copied and pasted. Here's Tiny URL version:  https://tinyurl.com/ybsktayx

Welcome to our Business section from here you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include, so you don't need to contribute the image authors manually. If you want, you can customize your Business embed code: resize the Business image as well as select the position in which you would like it to appear on in your article. It's then simply a case of copying the short code and pasting the Business code into your post.

Is this legal? I see some of these as crediting some site that probably paid for the use. There are also other searches with watermarks still on them Shutterstock for example.

I didn't cross search but I'm sure that people here will start to see their work or friends.


Unfortunately, as a consequence of the CJEU's misguided (if you ask me) decisions regarding linking and embedding, this should be legal in the EU. Which, yeah... it sucks.

EDIT: The good thing is that users of such a service expose themselves to shenanigans like someone changing the linked/embedded photo to something obscene. That at least keeps serious business users out.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2018, 12:26 by MarcvsTvllivs »

« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2018, 22:55 »
0
You seem to be reading into this what you want.

I am not defending the actions. To be perfectly clear, it is wrong what they are doing. I am saying I think they've figured out how to circumvent getting into trouble for it.

For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Did you look at the site? They clearly say "you can click on your desired Business image and use the Business picture embed code to add to your blogs, forums, websites and other online media. The embed code contains all necessary CC attribution, that are mandatory to include" which is not true and there's no creative commons for a stolen image AND they are crediting the agency not the artist.

Google, nice straw man argument, attempt at diverting from the original question, does none of that. They run a search for people to find something on the web. There's no claim that anything is free to use. Would you make web searches illegal? But I'm nice I'll play along. Google "Note: Before reusing content, make sure that its license is legitimate and check the exact terms of reuse. For example, the license might require that you give credit to the image creator when you use the image. Google can't tell if the license label is legitimate, so we don't know if the content is lawfully licensed."

And search results?



IMAGES MAY BE SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

Say someone is looking for something you made or you as a photographer, where do you think they will look. Google. When someone is looking for a legitimate use and wants an advanced search, that works, and can search all agencies, where will they go? Google.

Now back to the point. Pinsdaddy and their foreign language version, are linking and promoting illegal use with an incorrect claim that your work is creative commons, and all someone needs to do is, copy and paste it came from "X" agency and it's legal. Plus no watermarks.

Let me see if I understand, you defend the illegal use and the crooks, while you attack a perfectly legal search? Did I get that right?

« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2018, 06:02 »
0
To be perfectly clear, it is wrong what they are doing. I am saying I think they've figured out how to circumvent getting into trouble for it.

That sums it up nicely in my opinion.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2018, 13:20 »
+2
For the actual inclusion of full (unwatermarked) images, thats a little murky because they have it like a "database" format for "search"... (i.e., google has been doing that for 20 years, and no one questions them. Just use google image search).

This site is not an image search and no it's not murky at all when they say Free To Use

since they are actually linking to the *websites* that have those images on them, and not actually hosting the images, and assuming of course those websites/businesses have licensed the image (whether cc or actual licensed stock), I don't think there is really anything that could be done about that, because "technically" it's not really wrong (again, look @ google image search).

Technically it is wrong and again, stealing bandwidth and linking to another site for materials is also wrong. Especially when they claim copywrited materials are Creative Commons and alright to use. If that's what they are doing, the url for one of the images, as an example is "data:image/jpeg;base64"

As for the cc attribution... that is different... simply because I don't know if the images they've included are actual cc (creative commons) images, or actual licenseable stock photography... if they are actually 'stock' images (and they are incorrectly identifying them as creative commons) - I don't know if anything can be done about that...

Agreed nothing we can do, a simple look and you would know that the images are NOT creative Commons. Just use that search you hate so much, which we use to find use and find abuse and find images for sale...



although I don't care for this type of site (because it seems to be circumventing the intent of stock sites for licensed photography) - since they are doing it in a search format (similar to google image search, so they are not actually the 'publisher' of content, rather just a 'forum'), not sure if anything can really be done about it...

Yes I agree, I don't like them either.

It's not a search if they are advocating illegal use with a lie. It's not just a broad search either, the site is selective.

OK you aren't defending them you are making excuses why we should just ignore and say, nothing we can do. And you are comparing them to Google Image Search which is untrue. How's that?  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
8358 Views
Last post March 11, 2008, 02:53
by leaf
6 Replies
2510 Views
Last post May 25, 2008, 20:41
by madelaide
2 Replies
2405 Views
Last post January 13, 2009, 13:20
by stormchaser
19 Replies
4496 Views
Last post March 01, 2009, 16:26
by Adeptris
24 Replies
6154 Views
Last post July 12, 2009, 03:20
by Adeptris

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors