Game Over : Pinterest pirates gets 100 million $ !

[CarlssonInc]

deleted (double post)

[Tabimura]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

[gillian vann]

how about this, we all head over and start commenting on pics we find with something like this:

"This is a stunning photo of Sean's, who is an amazing stock photographer. Did you know I can't take a photo of you or your property and use it without your permission? Yet here I find Sean's pic on your board.......... this photo is FOR SALE on iStock, you may purchase it for use."

[cathyslife]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

I was wondering that as well. Does it automatically get shared or does a contributor at DT have to be opted in to the Partner Program? I looked around yesterday on DT and didn't see any mention specifically.

[antistock]

i'm just tired by all this
i can't see a way out.

and today facebook will launch its over hyped IPO in wall street, so more and more focus on social network and stolen content with nobody even talking anymore about copyright issues.

let's face it, we're the last ones left talking about copyright, even journalists have given up and some are now actively advocating and supporting readers stealing and copying their articles all over the web in the vain hope of getting some credit and recognition, how sad is that ?

it's a vortex ending up with the final devaluation of content creation, text, images, concepts, and anything in between.
and we wonder how the Huffington Post can get away hiring only non-paid bloggers, this is the future of journalism i'm afraid, working for free as a hobby, just for the sake of vanity to see your name on it while the owners running the biz make billions and don't value your work even worth 1$ !

please give me a job grilling burgers rather than stay in a business ending up like this.

[Tabimura]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

I was wondering that as well. Does it automatically get shared or does a contributor at DT have to be opted in to the Partner Program? I looked around yesterday on DT and didn't see any mention specifically.

There's a "share" button on DT and DP next to each image.

[rimglow]

Here's a blog on Dreamstime that talks about the rollout:

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2012/04/26/pinterest-and-stock-photography_art37491

[ShadySue]

Here's a link on Dreamstime that talks about the rollout:

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2012/04/26/pinterest-and-stock-photography_art37491

What makes them imagine that most of the people using pinterest are in the market for buying images? If someone targets e.g. hair styles to show their hairdresser; fashion pics to give them ideas when they're shopping, crafting ideas, recipes to try out, ideas of where to go or what to do on holiday, or, in the case of my pic pinned from flickr, specific tartans for a shortlist to be selected from, is there any more than the remotest chance that they'll actually buy an image?

Also, that DT blog gives details about the nopin thing, but does DT allow you to insert a 'nopin'? Even if they did, who with a port of more than about 20 images has time to go and insert this on every file page (same for all the agencies).

[Sean Locke Photography]

I think I'm going to write a blog post today with lots of hotlinked/embedded images from Dreamstime/Pinterest.

[cathyslife]

I think I'm going to write a blog post today with lots of hotlinked/embedded images from Dreamstime/Pinterest.

Gee, thanks.

[cathyslife]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

I was wondering that as well. Does it automatically get shared or does a contributor at DT have to be opted in to the Partner Program? I looked around yesterday on DT and didn't see any mention specifically.

There's a "share" button on DT and DP next to each image.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

edit: I just started a thread in the DT forum asking for my images to be opted out.

[cathyslife]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

I just sent an email to DT asking them to remove the Share button from my images. Maybe others here could do the same?

[WarrenPrice]

^^ Agree with everything.

Did anyone contacted Dreamstime or Depositphotos regarding their "feature" of sharing our work on Pinterest?

I just sent an email to DT asking them to remove the Share button from my images. Maybe others here could do the same?

I'm looking but can't find a "share button."  I also want OUT.  Where do you find the "feature", Cathy?

[rimglow]

I'm looking but can't find a "share button."  I also want OUT.  Where do you find the "feature", Cathy?

[stockmarketer]

It's not the kind of "good" I want.  For instance, I shouldn't care when my image: http://pinterest.com/pin/202943526928682144/ gets put on 100 blogs for free using the embed code on the side?

Is that really happening? Do you know it's been posted on any blogs, let alone 100? I ask because there have been a lot of out-of-proportion worst-case scenarios discussed regarding Pinterest, and I'm just wondering if this is another one. 

As for whether you should care of not, well, if it's my image, I personally don't care. It's watermarked, for starters. I think the usefulness of it in any situation is greatly diminished due to the watermark. But if someone is inclined to post a watermarked istock image on their blog, I doubt they'd have been a buyer anyway. I don't view it as a lost sale or anything. And of course the lack of intention to license the image doesn't grant a license to use the watermarked version for free, but it does make a strong argument for the "why should I care" side of things.

Obviously you care enough to justify taking the time to pursue any unlicensed use of your images, from Pinterest or anywhere else it seems. I don't have the time, nor do I care enough, to pursue tiny little infringements like these. I let this stuff go, along with misuses like Hero Turko and such, because they're not lost sales, they don't really matter, and they don't have any negative impact on my earnings. And as mentioned, in the case of Pinterest I view these things as positives, providing some promotional value.

+1.

Look at the case of the person with the community garden pictures.  That person would have never bought dozens of photos for the purpose of putting together a page of pics he/she likes.  And if someone else stumbles on this and likes some shots, they can either embed the watermarked version and look like an idiot (and this person also would likely never buy a shot anyway) or the person will follow the link and properly buy the picture.  To me, it seems like a net positive, and Pinterest has driven sales that you wouldn't normally get.

Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective.  There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.

[Anyka]

Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective.  There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.

It also only works if it is watermarked.  You assume most people search their Pinterest photos at stock agencies.   If a Pinterest member is interested in - let's say - food recipes, he/she will not visit Dreamstime, but recipe sites.  There he'll find our unwatermarked images, and whoever clicks on those images will never be redirected to a stock agency.

[Sean Locke Photography]

+1.

Look at the case of the person with the community garden pictures.  That person would have never bought dozens of photos for the purpose of putting together a page of pics he/she likes.  And if someone else stumbles on this and likes some shots, they can either embed the watermarked version and look like an idiot (and this person also would likely never buy a shot anyway) or the person will follow the link and properly buy the picture.  To me, it seems like a net positive, and Pinterest has driven sales that you wouldn't normally get.

Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective.  There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.

So, you're saying that anyone who uses images that are freely offered for use (by Pinterest) would not have licensed them anyways?  I fail to see the logic there.  And of course, what of non-watermarked images that people decide to "pin"?

[cathyslife]

I'm looking but can't find a "share button."  I also want OUT.  Where do you find the "feature", Cathy?

Took me a while to find it too. Thanks for posting the pic, Rimglow.

[Microbius]

Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective.  There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.

It also only works if it is watermarked.  You assume most people search their Pinterest photos at stock agencies.   If a Pinterest member is interested in - let's say - food recipes, he/she will not visit Dreamstime, but recipe sites.  There he'll find our unwatermarked images, and whoever clicks on those images will never be redirected to a stock agency.

Exactly. What makes you think they will be linking to a watermarked version? Just as likely, if not more likely they will be linking to a non watermarked version on the site of the one guy who actually bought an image.

On a related note, here's an idea, a subs agency that stores the files and lets people hotlink to them using their unique customer code as long as they keep up their subscription. End subscription and all your hot linked images disappear. I now want a cut when this happens.

[stockmarketer]

Now, this theory only holds if the watermarks are effective.  There are a bunch of worthless getty watermarks that could be easily cropped out of those garden shots.

It also only works if it is watermarked.  You assume most people search their Pinterest photos at stock agencies.   If a Pinterest member is interested in - let's say - food recipes, he/she will not visit Dreamstime, but recipe sites.  There he'll find our unwatermarked images, and whoever clicks on those images will never be redirected to a stock agency.

Exactly. What makes you think they will be linking to a watermarked version? Just as likely, if not more likely they will be linking to a non watermarked version on the site of the one guy who actually bought an image.

On a related note, here's an idea, a subs agency that stores the files and lets people hotlink to them using their unique customer code as long as they keep up their subscription. End subscription and all your hot linked images disappear. I now want a cut when this happens.

The example given in the post shows all watermarked images.  I figured this was mainly what was happening.

But after searching Pinterest for some of my more popular images... yep, they're on there without watermarks, with sources like "Google.com" listed.  I'll also be filling out the form and submitting.

[cathyslife]

I just want to make sure I am searching correctly. I go to www dot p i n t e r e s t dot com and do a general search for my image. Is that the only way to search? When the results come back with all the images "pinned" and you scroll to the bottom, is that the extent of the search and that shows ALL images for that search term? I also went to the Photography section and did a search there, but it seemed to return the same results. Am I missing anything?

[stockmarketer]

I'm just using the search bar at the top left.

Searched a few of my more popular images, and I'm finding NON-WATERMARKED versions all over the place.  Multiple times each.

This is going to be a HUGE PROJECT to come up with a complete list, and I'm sure I won't get everything.  Looks like I will have a list a mile long.

I am copying the URLs and doing screen captures.  I plan to submit both with my required form.  Looks like you can provide multiple examples with one form.

If anyone is up to looking into a class-action lawsuit, COUNT ME IN.

[Anyka]

I haven't finished my list yet, but I'm certainly not even trying to make a complete list.  Just long enough to make a point.

[ShadySue]

Has anyone - like Sean for instance - contacted CR at iStock about pinned photos?
I've just found, with great ease, two photos there pinned from, presumably, a legitimate buyer's site, each with several repins.
I'll contact CR. We were told to contact them first, so I'll do it to see what their response to this is.

[michaeldb]

...let's face it, we're the last ones left talking about copyright... it's a vortex ending up with the final devaluation of content creation, text, images, concepts, and anything in between...

Too true. We creatives are in the process of losing our intellectual property rights.

The big companies which make billions in profit by providing access to the content of others - while paying the others nothing - are cynically supporting the 'free-shairing' anti-copyright movement (remember when Google and social networking sites et al protested SOPA?).  While those companies are quick to sue to protect their software patents.