pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pinterest anyone?  (Read 18362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: July 01, 2012, 16:58 »
0
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
Weed out or penalise spam in the keywords.
Oh, iStock was going to do that with BM2, but they gave that up.

Istock actually the worst results for us. They are biasing results towards exclusive images, even if they are highly irrelevant or a low match to my search. Drove me crazy! The only way I could find something decent was to do a very broad search and then weed threw a few thousand shots.


« Reply #276 on: July 01, 2012, 17:10 »
0
More sophisticated and effective search is obviously a huge opportunity for the microstock industry.  Actually cleaning up existing keywording for 20 million images is prohibitively expensive; so a new agency, starting fresh while maintaining good consistent keyword standards, could eventually have a big advantage.

Searching and categorizing based on any sort of visual attributes is probably beyond anyone's capabilities today.  A breakthrough would take serious R&D investment and top technical talent, and it isn't going to come from any of today's microstock agencies.  My bet would be on a major 'search' player like Google to develop such technology and eventually make today's microstock sites obsolete.  Google won't sell the images themselves but will provide deep search and indexing into the archives of image brokers, who will pay sales commissions to Google (and maybe, still, some tiny token to the contributing photographers).

Just my own wild speculation...

« Reply #277 on: July 01, 2012, 20:06 »
0
What does the istock search have to do with pinterest? Or has this thread been derailed?

« Reply #278 on: July 03, 2012, 17:36 »
0
At your earliest convenience:

Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer

Make a statement!

« Reply #279 on: July 03, 2012, 18:18 »
0
At your earliest convenience:

Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer

Make a statement!

Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.

grafix04

« Reply #280 on: July 03, 2012, 22:19 »
0
At your earliest convenience:

Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer

Make a statement!

Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.

Yes you do.

I'm waiting for them to send me an invite and then i can re-pin.  To have any sort of real impact, we'd have to have a few people pinning all the images at the same time to fill up a page.  The thing is though, I don't see too many people here that are overly concerned about Pinterest or copyright for that matter.  It kind of feels like we're wasting our time.

I have found it strange that so many photographers not caring about their own property.  If we ourselves don't care, how can we expect our micros to care.  Why would we expect the general public or sites like Pinterest to care?  The lack of response here and everywhere has sent a clear message to Pinterest and probably the legal system that copyright isn't to be taken too seriously.

It's disappointing to say the least.

« Reply #281 on: July 03, 2012, 22:38 »
0
At your earliest convenience:

Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer

Make a statement!

Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.

Yes you do.

I'm waiting for them to send me an invite and then i can re-pin.  To have any sort of real impact, we'd have to have a few people pinning all the images at the same time to fill up a page.  The thing is though, I don't see too many people here that are overly concerned about Pinterest or copyright for that matter.  It kind of feels like we're wasting our time.

I have found it strange that so many photographers not caring about their own property.  If we ourselves don't care, how can we expect our micros to care.  Why would we expect the general public or sites like Pinterest to care?  The lack of response here and everywhere has sent a clear message to Pinterest and probably the legal system that copyright isn't to be taken too seriously.

It's disappointing to say the least.

Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.

My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.

grafix04

« Reply #282 on: July 03, 2012, 22:54 »
0

Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.

My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
[/quote]

I don't agree.  Technology isn't pushing us towards it, we're pushing us towards it.  Technology can be used to protect IP, but who's going to bother when there's such a small demand for it?  We keep sending the message out there "do whatever you want with our images, we won't do anything about it".  Even our own micros have little respect for our IP these days.  We've done this to ourselves.  Imagine if every photographer, illustrator and artist in the world banded together and packed the streets in protest over our copyright issues.  That would send a clear message to the world about how we feel about it and it would educate the world on IP and copyright.  But as a group, as a whole, we don't care.  As a group, we're too lazy to even speak up about it let alone take the streets in protest.  Every other profession would never allow something like this to happen.  Every other profession has their peers protesting together over everything and we can't even round up even 50 people on this forum to agree to protect the very backbone of our business.  There's no hope, not because of technology, but because of our poor attitudes.

« Reply #283 on: July 03, 2012, 23:57 »
0

Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.

My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.

I don't agree.  Technology isn't pushing us towards it, we're pushing us towards it.  Technology can be used to protect IP, but who's going to bother when there's such a small demand for it?  We keep sending the message out there "do whatever you want with our images, we won't do anything about it".  Even our own micros have little respect for our IP these days.  We've done this to ourselves.  Imagine if every photographer, illustrator and artist in the world banded together and packed the streets in protest over our copyright issues.  That would send a clear message to the world about how we feel about it and it would educate the world on IP and copyright.  But as a group, as a whole, we don't care.  As a group, we're too lazy to even speak up about it let alone take the streets in protest.  Every other profession would never allow something like this to happen.  Every other profession has their peers protesting together over everything and we can't even round up even 50 people on this forum to agree to protect the very backbone of our business.  There's no hope, not because of technology, but because of our poor attitudes.
[/quote]

We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.

grafix04

« Reply #284 on: July 04, 2012, 00:52 »
0
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.

So am I  ;)

Whether we agree on the above, it doesn't matter.  The outcome is going to be the same regardless of what or who is to blame.  There's no point even fighting it any more.

« Reply #285 on: July 04, 2012, 15:48 »
0
I am also evolving to a business model where my content will be more restricted; users will have to pay instead of getting it for free (though sponsored by advertisement).

Just because I see the writing on the wall and am adapting (I'm lucky I have alternative avenues, not every type of material does) does not mean that I'm going to take it lying down.  I can adapt AND stand for what is right, stand for the rights the law grants me, and stand for the community of artists.

ShadySue

« Reply #286 on: July 05, 2012, 19:42 »
0
Hmmm, a new trick they've evolved.
The last time I found a pinned image, I filled in their form, and the pics were removed.
I've found more, and am trying to fill in the form, but although I'm copying the URL from the URL line of each page, I'm repeatedly getting an answer 'invalid link to pin'.
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
It's 01:39, so it's on my ticklist for tomorrow.
I see the same image on weheartit, so there's another hassle. Wonder if it's also an iStock affiliate.
You know, I really resent having to give these companies my name, snail address, email address and phone number just to get them to remove my material.
Grrrr.  >:(
Later: I screendumped the reporting form for pinterest, and contacted them via their support page, attaching a jpg of the screendump. We'll see how that goes.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2012, 06:01 by ShadySue »

« Reply #287 on: July 05, 2012, 21:04 »
0
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.

Selling stuff on eBay?

« Reply #288 on: July 05, 2012, 22:02 »
0
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.

Selling stuff on eBay?

Far far from that....

« Reply #289 on: July 07, 2012, 09:50 »
0
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.

Selling stuff on eBay?

Far far from that....

share with us ;D

« Reply #290 on: July 18, 2012, 08:26 »
0
You have until July 25 to make a difference!

Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is asking for input from artists, musicians and assorted creators to "Help Us Shape Our Strategy for Intellectual Property Enforcement".

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=OMB-2012-0004-0002

ShadySue

« Reply #291 on: July 22, 2012, 19:30 »
0
OK, back to pinterest.
Say we have a legitimate buyer who has a page with our image on it and a pin it logo.
Then we ask for the photo to be removed, and it is removed.
And the person whose photo was removed contacts the legitimate buyer as they just followed the pin.
The LB wanted to be pinned as publicity for them, and contacts the agency (in my case iStock, in your case, whoever) and complains.
What is the agency going to say? It's may nbot actually forbidden for them to encourage pinning.
E.g. it might be against iStock's licence agreement:
You may not ...
4.10 sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Content or the rights granted under this Agreement;
11 install and use the Content in more than one location at a time or post a copy of the Content on a network server or web server for use by other users;
12 use or display the Content in an electronic format that enables it to be downloaded or distributed via mobile devices or shared in any peer-to-peer or similar file sharing arrangement;
but iStock considers them affiliates and declined to contact pinterest about the files I pointed out.

BTW, of course, the people who had pinned my images had other images there, some originating from iStock some from elsewhere. But they don't seem to think, Oh, I've had one pin taken down, I'd better check the others. In most cases, all the others are still up there.

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #292 on: July 22, 2012, 23:08 »
0

I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.

Why are you removing the end "/" ?

ShadySue

« Reply #293 on: July 23, 2012, 05:09 »
0

I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.

Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.

« Reply #294 on: July 23, 2012, 07:43 »
0
You have until July 25 to make a difference!

Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is asking for input from artists, musicians and assorted creators to "Help Us Shape Our Strategy for Intellectual Property Enforcement".

http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=OMB-2012-0004-0002


No one responded to your post, but just thought I would say that I saw it, and submitted my input.

« Reply #295 on: July 23, 2012, 07:45 »
0

I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.

Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.

I finally requested an invitation from pinterest and got it yesterday, just so I could have a look around. It all looks very confusing. Which is likely the way they want it.  >:(

ShadySue

« Reply #296 on: July 23, 2012, 08:03 »
0

I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.

Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.

I finally requested an invitation from pinterest and got it yesterday, just so I could have a look around. It all looks very confusing. Which is likely the way they want it.  >:(

I have to say that once I worked out the 'go to the single page your image is on' thing, they have been very fast at implementing takedown notices through their own scheme, even at weekends. That's my experience so far anyway.

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #297 on: July 23, 2012, 10:14 »
0
What does the istock search have to do with pinterest? Or has this thread been derailed?




I think I have a Pinterest account, can't remember the password. I just wanted to block my name.  ???

Yes I found it confusing and I still don't understand why? Is it like the people who post links to music videos on Facebook? (who I dropped, because "who cares") If it was their band or someone else, fine, but how many times can I be interested in The Turtles doing Elenore or Happy Together. Sure fine songs, but what's the point? It's not like a new discovery of some obscure fine tunes.

OK why would I pin a photo? To show that I found something, and then someone else can pin it, to say, I looked at it too. Oh Kewl Dude I pinned a picture of a cute little penguin.  :-\

« Reply #298 on: July 24, 2012, 09:11 »
0
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.

She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission.  The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media.  As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.

This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.

« Reply #299 on: July 24, 2012, 10:36 »
0
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.

She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission.  The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media.  As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.

This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.


Yes, talked about here:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2118 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 05:28
by cathyslife stockphotos.com
50 Replies
5956 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 18:33
by lisafx
2 Replies
420 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 05:56
by leaf
10 Replies
758 Views
Last post October 26, 2013, 21:21
by Uncle Pete
20 Replies
571 Views
Last post April 21, 2014, 15:41
by bunhill

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors