pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Dreamstime and Pinterest  (Read 15068 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 06, 2012, 06:51 »
0
This has been talked about in another thread, but kind of buried now. I have a specific question about it.

This link was provided by Serban:

http://pinterest.com/source/dreamstime.com/

He stated that images that come from DT can be seen here.

Today when I go there, the images are different than they were a couple of days ago. I only see one page, but there are many more pins than that. Do I have to join pinterest to see them all?


« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2012, 07:13 »
0
On Pinterest, if you type dreamstime into the search, you will get a different page from your link. Also, as you scroll to the bottom of that page, you will see photos that aren't linked back to Dreamstime, but have the word "dreamstime" in the copy.

I forgot to mention that I was logged in, so your return might look different than mine.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 07:17 by rimglow »

« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2012, 07:49 »
0
Thanks rimglow, I'll try that.

grafix04

« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2012, 08:39 »
0
Whoa, I was just checking out this page and noticed that the orange watercolor poppies have been 'pinned' twice yesterday and have received a bunch of 're-pins' each already.  I started tracking them and am quite shocked.  I feel sorry for the woman who owns this image which is here on DT:

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-stock-image-abstract-watercolor-poppies-image5951471

This is what has happened in just 24 hours or so:


First Pin
               
Chenoa Orme-Stone - 7 repins               
   Linda Ploch            
   Mayra Verzilli  - 2 repins            
      Mary Behnam         
      Beth Martin - 1 repin         
         Eileen Wiens      
   Abby Norcross - 2 repins            
      Artic Wolf         
      Susan Gardner          
   Amy Martinez            
   Monica Wright            
   Carol Grant            
   Karen Baker            

               
Second Pin               
               
Kathryn Chang - 11 repins               
   Mandy Maierhofer            
   Sharon Harris             
   Abril Townsend - 1 repin            
      Julie Brier         
   Mackenzie Berger - 4 repins            
      Leah Frandsen          
      Nicole Kruszka          
      Jo Townsend          
      Barb Ricketts Varisco         
   Mari cela Black Mouth            
   Sam Ruggles            
   Lita Sanford-Ireland - 2 repins            
      Bennett Thomas - 1 repin         
         Whitney Oller - 2 repins      
            James Madison   
            Jill Rose-Feusse   
      Desiree Osborne         
   Sarah Giannotti - 1 repin            
      Nancy Foley - 2 repins         
         Paige Boldt - 1 repin      
            Jan Ward   
         Greta Černiauskaitė      
   Unknown            
   Unknown            
   Unknown            
               

'Pins' only show a max of 8 're-pins' each so I can't see the details of the last three 're-pins' and there's no way of telling if they've been 'repinned'.
                  
This is really bad.  In just one day, this image has been 'pinned'/'repinned' at least 37 times already and who knows how many more people have infringed copyright by embedding the image on their site.  This is just the beginning.  If this can happen over 24 hours, what is going to happen to this woman's best seller after a year?  This image will be everywhere and it will lose it's value so quickly.  No buyer's going to want it.

This is crazy.  How can Serban say that contributors or DT will benefit from this?

ETA:  I added their names intentionally so that hopefully they'll find themselves here and understand how they are infringing on our copyright.  Most of them probably believe they're doing us a favor and don't realize how 'pinning' is effecting our livelihood.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 08:43 by grafix04 »

« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2012, 08:45 »
0
On Pinterest, if you type dreamstime into the search, you will get a different page from your link. Also, as you scroll to the bottom of that page, you will see photos that aren't linked back to Dreamstime, but have the word "dreamstime" in the copy.

I forgot to mention that I was logged in, so your return might look different than mine.

I did the search, as you said, and yes, I do see different results. But I still see only 1 page of posts. Isn't there any way to see ALL images that have been pinned from DT? In other words, if you do a search for an image on DT, the search returns say 20 images, but then there are more page numbers to click. Nothing like that on Pinterest?

grafix04...that is just incredible. Multiply that by what, thousands, tens of thousands daily?

« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2012, 08:50 »
0
I did the search, as you said, and yes, I do see different results. But I still see only 1 page of posts. Isn't there any way to see ALL images that have been pinned from DT? In other words, if you do a search for an image on DT, the search returns say 20 images, but then there are more page numbers to click. Nothing like that on Pinterest?

As you scroll down the results it should load more automatically. Unless you have scripting turned off.

« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2012, 08:54 »
0
What? Can they do that? :s I thought you transferred all rights to the images to Pinterest when you uploaded to them...?

« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2012, 09:06 »
0
On Pinterest, if you type dreamstime into the search, you will get a different page from your link. Also, as you scroll to the bottom of that page, you will see photos that aren't linked back to Dreamstime, but have the word "dreamstime" in the copy.

I forgot to mention that I was logged in, so your return might look different than mine.

I did the search, as you said, and yes, I do see different results. But I still see only 1 page of posts. Isn't there any way to see ALL images that have been pinned from DT? In other words, if you do a search for an image on DT, the search returns say 20 images, but then there are more page numbers to click. Nothing like that on Pinterest?

grafix04...that is just incredible. Multiply that by what, thousands, tens of thousands daily?

I contacted Pinterest asking how see more pages in my search. The emailed me this automated answer:
- Search is a feature we are working on a lot behind-the-scenes, so not all pins are being surfaced in search results. Much of this has to do with new features were putting in place to detect spam and as we fine-tune this process, we apologize if your pins are not being shown.

« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2012, 09:07 »
0
I did the search, as you said, and yes, I do see different results. But I still see only 1 page of posts. Isn't there any way to see ALL images that have been pinned from DT? In other words, if you do a search for an image on DT, the search returns say 20 images, but then there are more page numbers to click. Nothing like that on Pinterest?

As you scroll down the results it should load more automatically. Unless you have scripting turned off.

Don't think I have scripting turned off but will check.  Maybe I'm scrolling too fast for it to load? I use a font website that works that way and sometimes you have to wait for it to load. Thanks for the tip, I'll try again.

« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2012, 09:09 »
0
I contacted Pinterest asking how see more pages in my search. The emailed me this answer:
- Search is a feature we are working on a lot behind-the-scenes, so not all pins are being surfaced in search results. Much of this has to do with new features were putting in place to detect spam and as we fine-tune this process, we apologize if your pins are not being shown.

oops I posted the same time as you. They're worried about spam but not about copyright infringement? That's just great.

grafix04

« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2012, 09:12 »
0
On Pinterest, if you type dreamstime into the search, you will get a different page from your link. Also, as you scroll to the bottom of that page, you will see photos that aren't linked back to Dreamstime, but have the word "dreamstime" in the copy.

I forgot to mention that I was logged in, so your return might look different than mine.

I did the search, as you said, and yes, I do see different results. But I still see only 1 page of posts. Isn't there any way to see ALL images that have been pinned from DT? In other words, if you do a search for an image on DT, the search returns say 20 images, but then there are more page numbers to click. Nothing like that on Pinterest?

grafix04...that is just incredible. Multiply that by what, thousands, tens of thousands daily?

It's bad.  Each week the problem will be compounded.

About the pages, Pinterest doesn't have pages, just long Pinboards.  I watched a video of a guy trying to track the original photographer of an image that was 're-pinned' all over the place and he had to go through dozens of these extremely long pages or pinboards each time.  He recorded it on video and from memory, the video went on for 10 minutes or so.  But he had sped up the search on the video by 800 times and was scrolling forever.  There are some boards that are ridiculously long already and they're only going to get longer over time.  Tracking 're-pins' is going to be a nightmare.  It already is.

grafix04

« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2012, 09:14 »
0
What? Can they do that? :s I thought you transferred all rights to the images to Pinterest when you uploaded to them...?

That's correct.  Can DT do that?  Not really but they are doing it anyway. 

grafix04

« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2012, 09:20 »
0
I contacted Pinterest asking how see more pages in my search. The emailed me this answer:
- Search is a feature we are working on a lot behind-the-scenes, so not all pins are being surfaced in search results. Much of this has to do with new features were putting in place to detect spam and as we fine-tune this process, we apologize if your pins are not being shown.

oops I posted the same time as you. They're worried about spam but not about copyright infringement? That's just great.

LOL, I was about to type the exact same thing.

About the page not loading, try a different browser.  Chrome's usually fastest for me.  Firefox tends to chew too much memory and IE is a heap of crap.

« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2012, 09:47 »
0
LOL, I was about to type the exact same thing.

About the page not loading, try a different browser.  Chrome's usually fastest for me.  Firefox tends to chew too much memory and IE is a heap of crap.

Thanks I'll try that. I do use Firefox.

« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2012, 10:14 »
0
I added their names intentionally so that hopefully they'll find themselves here and understand how they are infringing on our copyright.  Most of them probably believe they're doing us a favor and don't realize how 'pinning' is effecting our livelihood.

I'd be interested if you can quantify what you think what damage this example has done to the creators livelihood. I ask because I regarded my income to be coming from business to business sales. I regard my customers to be designers from sole proprietors through SME agencies to design departments in global conglomerations. The vast majority of which will be bound by professional standards of accountability to their end users, other businesses or internal departments. I'm fairly sure that in the UK at least these end users are fairly well educated in copyright issues - if only for the publicity that Getty garnered with their infamous money demanding campaigns.

I do not see each example of pinning as some sort of lost sale, I do not really see what is predominately women's idle chit chat on a social network persuading someone in the art department of the company around the corner deciding to not pay what is still really small change for a legitimate image.

This is no Napster free for all - that was going for the same end user as the record companies - the consumer, the man in the street , but even then it was certain that one downloaded track did not equal one lost sale.

I've seen plenty hyperbole on the subject, and yes I don't think its good ethics for a company to make money ( if it ever will ) by using a questionable business model, but I would like to see some reasoned persuasive arguments that quantify the damage done to the core stock business of selling images to other businesses.

grafix04

« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2012, 10:56 »
0
I added their names intentionally so that hopefully they'll find themselves here and understand how they are infringing on our copyright.  Most of them probably believe they're doing us a favor and don't realize how 'pinning' is effecting our livelihood.

I'd be interested if you can quantify what you think what damage this example has done to the creators livelihood. I ask because I regarded my income to be coming from business to business sales. I regard my customers to be designers from sole proprietors through SME agencies to design departments in global conglomerations. The vast majority of which will be bound by professional standards of accountability to their end users, other businesses or internal departments. I'm fairly sure that in the UK at least these end users are fairly well educated in copyright issues - if only for the publicity that Getty garnered with their infamous money demanding campaigns.

I do not see each example of pinning as some sort of lost sale, I do not really see what is predominately women's idle chit chat on a social network persuading someone in the art department of the company around the corner deciding to not pay what is still really small change for a legitimate image.

This is no Napster free for all - that was going for the same end user as the record companies - the consumer, the man in the street , but even then it was certain that one downloaded track did not equal one lost sale.

I've seen plenty hyperbole on the subject, and yes I don't think its good ethics for a company to make money ( if it ever will ) by using a questionable business model, but I would like to see some reasoned persuasive arguments that quantify the damage done to the core stock business of selling images to other businesses.

I've already briefly mentioned one of the reasons why it would reduce revenue in my previous post.  An image that is posted on Pinterest becomes public domain and allows the public to then grab the code and add the image on their websites.  If an image is plastered all over the net so quickly, it will lose it's value.  Buyers (all types) won't find it appealing and will be looking for something more fresh.  Overtime, images become stale and with Pinterest now in the picture, the value of our images will diminish at a rapid rate making us all having to work harder to keep our portfolios fresh.  Our RPI is likely to drop significantly over time. 

I can't quantify the damages.  How could I?  Pinterest is still new.  We'll have to wait and see what damages it causes in the future, but will it be too late to do anything about it then?  This is only the beginning and it will get out of hand because the images are not contained on Pinterest. 

Sure, you're big corporate clients will continue paying to license our images but most of those buy subscription plans.  Credit sales will be effected, particularly from smaller buyers who can take our images directly from Pinterest, for free.  Instead of converting thieves to buyers, Pinterest will convert more buyers to thieving.  Why wouldn't they take something for free when it's there for the taking?  Pinterest is hosting large sized images which are more than large enough for web usage.

And then there's the other issues.  No one has the right to place our images in public domain, but how do we police this?  We can't.  As the image library on Pinterest gets larger, it will be harder to find them.  Even if we do find them, it will be a full time job having them taken down.

« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2012, 10:56 »
0
I added their names intentionally so that hopefully they'll find themselves here and understand how they are infringing on our copyright.  Most of them probably believe they're doing us a favor and don't realize how 'pinning' is effecting our livelihood.

I'd be interested if you can quantify what you think what damage this example has done to the creators livelihood. I ask because I regarded my income to be coming from business to business sales. I regard my customers to be designers from sole proprietors through SME agencies to design departments in global conglomerations. The vast majority of which will be bound by professional standards of accountability to their end users, other businesses or internal departments. I'm fairly sure that in the UK at least these end users are fairly well educated in copyright issues - if only for the publicity that Getty garnered with their infamous money demanding campaigns.

I do not see each example of pinning as some sort of lost sale, I do not really see what is predominately women's idle chit chat on a social network persuading someone in the art department of the company around the corner deciding to not pay what is still really small change for a legitimate image.

This is no Napster free for all - that was going for the same end user as the record companies - the consumer, the man in the street , but even then it was certain that one downloaded track did not equal one lost sale.

I've seen plenty hyperbole on the subject, and yes I don't think its good ethics for a company to make money ( if it ever will ) by using a questionable business model, but I would like to see some reasoned persuasive arguments that quantify the damage done to the core stock business of selling images to other businesses.

There are numerous threads on this topic, some of which present answers to some of your questions. And even if you want to dismiss the idea that you might be losing money, what about copyright infringement? That doesn't bother you?
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 10:58 by cclapper »

Microbius

« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2012, 11:06 »
0
This whole thing is getting overly complex. The basic point is that what Dreamstime is doing is explicitly against Pinterest's stated terms. You can only pin images you have copyright to.

« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2012, 15:18 »
0
This whole thing is getting overly complex. The basic point is that what Dreamstime is doing is explicitly against Pinterest's stated terms. You can only pin images you have copyright to.


And I see DT has an account at Pin and is doing some of the dirty work themselves

http://pinterest.com/dreamstime/

It's also so damned nice to see they are willy pinning the Editor's Choice images

http://pinterest.com/dreamstime/editor-s-choice/

And whoever mentioned Image Exchange to find images in the other Pin thread? Yeah, that doesn;t work - apparently Pin has denied access to that agent.

And an edit/update:

I wanted to test image exchange so I went on Google images and typed in a common keyword. Image Exchange is up and working. But I found a stock image that was snatched full res right off Wikipedia that was loaded to a stock site. Some sleuthing of that stock account at one of the low earners reveals several stolen items.

This is one of the reasons I gravitate further and further from micro each day.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 15:33 by stormchaser »

red

« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2012, 20:05 »
0
So. This guy has a page on pinterest that is titled "Photo(sic) that I have sold across image banks" - http://pinterest.com/mypstudio/photo-sold/

Does he think this will bring in more sales? I'm clueless about social media but I wonder if the common pinterest user cares that he is selling photos when they can "pin" them for free? I just don't get it. Oh, and it seems it was pinned using an iphone app called pinmarklet http://pinterest.com/about/goodies/#pinmarklet. I am so out of it (and glad to be).
« Last Edit: June 06, 2012, 23:24 by cuppacoffee »

« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2012, 22:38 »
0
And I see DT has an account at Pin and is doing some of the dirty work themselves

Just because a page says that it belongs to Dreamstime doesn't mean that DT had anything to do with it. Pinterest allows its users to use the trademarks and logos of companies without permission, and make the pages look like they are the official company page.
"20 B2B Marketers Losing their Brand on Pinterest"
http://b2bdigital.net/2012/02/21/b2b-marketers-pinterest/

grafix04

« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2012, 00:32 »
0
This whole thing is getting overly complex. The basic point is that what Dreamstime is doing is explicitly against Pinterest's stated terms. You can only pin images you have copyright to.


And I see DT has an account at Pin and is doing some of the dirty work themselves

http://pinterest.com/dreamstime/

It's also so damned nice to see they are willy pinning the Editor's Choice images

http://pinterest.com/dreamstime/editor-s-choice/

And whoever mentioned Image Exchange to find images in the other Pin thread? Yeah, that doesn;t work - apparently Pin has denied access to that agent.

And an edit/update:

I wanted to test image exchange so I went on Google images and typed in a common keyword. Image Exchange is up and working. But I found a stock image that was snatched full res right off Wikipedia that was loaded to a stock site. Some sleuthing of that stock account at one of the low earners reveals several stolen items.

This is one of the reasons I gravitate further and further from micro each day.


That was me on the Getty / Pinterest thread.  I've been talking to Marc Wendell of PicScout and he said that ImageExchange works on Pinterest only if you use the right-click on the image.  It doesn't though.  I let him know and am waiting for him to get back to me.  The only way to find Pinterest images using ImageExchange is to do through google by searching "site:Pinerest.com" in an image search. 

Storm, do you have a link to that stock site or portfolio?

« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2012, 02:28 »
0

Storm, do you have a link to that stock site or portfolio?

I will have to do a search and see if I can come up with it again. There are so many thieves on micro I've kind of stopped caring.

grafix04

« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2012, 04:13 »
0

Storm, do you have a link to that stock site or portfolio?

I will have to do a search and see if I can come up with it again. There are so many thieves on micro I've kind of stopped caring.

No, it's cool.  Don't go looking for it. 

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2012, 04:48 »
0
The thread on DT seems to be going on for a long time, don't DT usually get this sort of discussion shut down before it gets started? Maybe they are actually considering if it is a good idea or not and genuinely want feedback?

grafix04

« Reply #25 on: June 07, 2012, 05:45 »
0
Serban:
Quote
We're still testing this and we receive traffic so far. We will continue to monitor this and depending on visitors' typology we will decide whether it makes for a viable route to follow or not.

This thread will be updated once we have relevant conclusions.

In other words.  Depending on the traffic and whether any of it converts to sales, we will decide whether shafting you by encouraging copyright infringements to your images is worthwhile (for us).  ;D

Microbius

« Reply #26 on: June 07, 2012, 06:17 »
0
Yeah, I was thinking that post missed the point to

« Reply #27 on: June 07, 2012, 07:03 »
0
Serban:
Quote
We're still testing this and we receive traffic so far. We will continue to monitor this and depending on visitors' typology we will decide whether it makes for a viable route to follow or not.

This thread will be updated once we have relevant conclusions.

In other words.  Depending on the traffic and whether any of it converts to sales, we will decide whether shafting you by encouraging copyright infringements to your images is worthwhile (for us).  ;D

Yeah. So far, he has only reiterated how our photos are getting stolen everywhere anyway, so he says what difference does it make if Share buttons are on DT. He hasn't mentioned copyright infringement at all.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 07:15 by cclapper »

« Reply #28 on: June 07, 2012, 08:38 »
0


It's also so damned nice to see they are willy pinning the Editor's Choice images

That clears up something that I was wondering about.  One of the images in the 'pink' assignment has over 2000 views and I was wondering why it has so many more than the other images.   The image is on  Pinterest and the views must be coming from there
.

grafix04

« Reply #29 on: June 07, 2012, 09:44 »
0
Yeah. So far, he has only reiterated how our photos are getting stolen everywhere anyway, so he says what difference does it make if Share buttons are on DT. He hasn't mentioned copyright infringement at all.

Pitiful coming from top management of a image stock agency.  If DT can't respect our copyright, they're not to be trusted and what good are they?  He should be careful as he's likely to kill the integrity of the company.  That's what they built the company on, wasn't it?  Everyone seemed to respect them because they appeared to always do the right thing by the contributor.  That philosophy seems to have gone out the window. 

« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2012, 09:58 »
0
Suppose I'm an evil webmaster.

I create a website with your photos.  I figured out, in a short amount of time, how to access the full-rez image that Pinterest hides in their servers.

Now, you file a DMCA with MY HOST.  My host will tell you to get lost because the image isn't on their servers, it's on Pinterest servers, so go take it up with them.  And when you do take it up with Pinterest, Pinterest keeps some of your images after a DMCA take down.  That's what I'm hotlinking to.

You can't stop me.

grafix04

« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2012, 10:58 »
0
Suppose I'm an evil webmaster.

I create a website with your photos.  I figured out, in a short amount of time, how to access the full-rez image that Pinterest hides in their servers.

Now, you file a DMCA with MY HOST.  My host will tell you to get lost because the image isn't on their servers, it's on Pinterest servers, so go take it up with them.  And when you do take it up with Pinterest, Pinterest keeps some of your images after a DMCA take down.  That's what I'm hotlinking to.

You can't stop me.

If they want to attempt to hide behind their 'safe harbor' clause, they'll have no choice but to take it down. 

Some interesting news of late - Michael Yang, Google's hotshot legal head - has finished up with Google and was headhunted by Pinterest.  He joined them only a few days ago.  This could mean a few things.  They could be preparing themselves for an onslaught of lawsuits or he could be there to clean up their act to prep them for an acquisition.

Either way, it's positive news.

« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2012, 12:30 »
0
If they want to attempt to hide behind their 'safe harbor' clause, they'll have no choice but to take it down. 

Except that they don't.

I have documented, with screenshots of every step, and email confirmation from Pinterest, a DMCA take-down where some large versions of the image are kept on their servers... indefinitely.

« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2012, 13:40 »
0
This whole thing is getting overly complex. The basic point is that what Dreamstime is doing is explicitly against Pinterest's stated terms. You can only pin images you have copyright to.

I'm not on Pinterest so I will defer to your knowledge. However as I understand it, DT is not uploading images, it is pinning links to images. That's a big difference.

For instance if you take the Pinterest terms as you describe them to their extreme, then you can't pin a link to any website. "Hey I love Disney, here's a link to Disney.com" Certainly that's not the intention of Pinterest to block someone from doing this. In our case, some designer asks if anyone knows of any good images of gold fish jumping through rings of fire, so someone pins a link to an image at DT where one can buy said goldfish jumping through a fire ring.

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2012, 13:48 »
0
In our case, some designer asks if anyone knows of any good images of gold fish jumping through rings of fire, so someone pins a link to an image at DT where one can buy said goldfish jumping through a fire ring.
Or else they'll pin an in-use (legal or not) of the image, whereupon people can lift it willy-nilly. (OK they could do that anyway if they were so inclined, but this is just a more focussed location for same.

« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2012, 14:44 »
0
"I'm not on Pinterest so I will defer to your knowledge. However as I understand it, DT is not uploading images, it is pinning links to images. That's a big difference."

Pinning is uploading.  How have you missed that?  Just because you call it "pinning" dies not mean you are not initiating the act of the content being uploaded/copied to their servers.

"For instance if you take the Pinterest terms as you describe them to their extreme, then you can't pin a link to any website. "Hey I love Disney, here's a link to Disney.com" Certainly that's not the intention of Pinterest to block someone from doing this. "

Of course it isn't.  Pinterest's intention is to have people steal as much content and store it in their servers, despite their 'terms'.

« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2012, 14:50 »
0
Again, I'm not on Pinterest so I don't know how their system works. If I link to an article on Facebook, it does not upload the article to its own server. It saves the link, and that is it. The link is essentially "the pin" on FB.

So what you are saying is Pinterest "pins" are not dynamic? For instance, if I pin a link to an article, and 30 minutes later I change that article, Pinterest will still have the original version? Maybe that is the case, but it seems like a horrible model and I don't know why anyone would implement such a concept.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2012, 14:53 by djpadavona »

« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2012, 15:10 »
0
Again, I'm not on Pinterest so I don't know how their system works. If I link to an article on Facebook, it does not upload the article to its own server. It saves the link, and that is it. The link is essentially "the pin" on FB.

So what you are saying is Pinterest "pins" are not dynamic? For instance, if I pin a link to an article, and 30 minutes later I change that article, Pinterest will still have the original version? Maybe that is the case, but it seems like a horrible model and I don't know why anyone would implement such a concept.

There is no "pinning" articles.  You pin graphic/audio content - images, videos, etc.  Things they can easily and fully copy to their servers for redistribution.  And no, if you change the image, since Pinterest hosts a copy, it does not change.

« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2012, 15:24 »
0
Thanks for the clarification Sean. Sounds like a terrible model.

grafix04

« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2012, 20:51 »
0
Suppose I'm an evil webmaster.

I create a website with your photos.  I figured out, in a short amount of time, how to access the full-rez image that Pinterest hides in their servers.

Now, you file a DMCA with MY HOST.  My host will tell you to get lost because the image isn't on their servers, it's on Pinterest servers, so go take it up with them.  And when you do take it up with Pinterest, Pinterest keeps some of your images after a DMCA take down.  That's what I'm hotlinking to.

You can't stop me.

I tested this theory out myself.  I sent a DMCA adding the URL to all the relevant 'pins' and 'repins' on an infringed image.  I also tried adding the image URL to the jpeg that was hosted on Pinterest's server and it wouldn't allow me to send the DMCA because apparently the jpeg URL wasn't a 'valid Pinterest URL'  ???  This at first made me skeptical and I thought they'd continue hosting the jpeg after removing the pins.  I then resent the DMCA without the image URL. The following day, the 'pins' and 're-pins' were removed however the jpeg was still hosted on their server.  After a couple of days however, the jpeg was also removed. 

« Reply #40 on: July 01, 2012, 16:41 »
0
Suppose I'm an evil webmaster.

I create a website with your photos.  I figured out, in a short amount of time, how to access the full-rez image that Pinterest hides in their servers.

Now, you file a DMCA with MY HOST.  My host will tell you to get lost because the image isn't on their servers, it's on Pinterest servers, so go take it up with them.  And when you do take it up with Pinterest, Pinterest keeps some of your images after a DMCA take down.  That's what I'm hotlinking to.

You can't stop me.

I tested this theory out myself.  I sent a DMCA adding the URL to all the relevant 'pins' and 'repins' on an infringed image.  I also tried adding the image URL to the jpeg that was hosted on Pinterest's server and it wouldn't allow me to send the DMCA because apparently the jpeg URL wasn't a 'valid Pinterest URL'  ???  This at first made me skeptical and I thought they'd continue hosting the jpeg after removing the pins.  I then resent the DMCA without the image URL. The following day, the 'pins' and 're-pins' were removed however the jpeg was still hosted on their server.  After a couple of days however, the jpeg was also removed. 

NOT ALL .JPGs are removed. Send me a PM if you want to test this out.

grafix04

« Reply #41 on: July 01, 2012, 21:54 »
0
NOT ALL .JPGs are removed. Send me a PM if you want to test this out.

No PMs from me.  My last account was probably hacked and deleted so PM's here aren't so private.  I'll continue to test on my own.

Poncke

« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2012, 10:19 »
0
If I read this up, and correct me if I am wrong, there are full res photos of photo we post on DT , located on Pinterest?

Where did they get those full res photos they have on Pinterest? All DT has is the small version with watermark, right?

I am confused as to how our photos are stolen without having to buy them first and then post full version

« Reply #43 on: July 14, 2012, 07:08 »
0
The following snip was posted yesterday in the DT forum here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31459_pg16

I have asked where the thread is that Serban said this, because couldn't spot it right off the bat.

Quote
From Serban
Quoted Message: An update: we`ve heard back from Pinterest`s team and it seems that it`s possible to ensure the link embedded cannot be removed via further re-pinning. As this was the main concern we will be looking into the technical details and see how it can be achieved.We find this to be the best solution for our problem, allowing users to pin images while making sure that the original file can be reached by their readers. This ensures that we get new traffic and new exposure for your images, but that we also avoid creating "orphan works".


Then, a poster named Teabum posted this response, in which he/she makes some valid points...(I have bolded the points I think are important)

Quote
Thanks for the update,
though I think DT is taking it little light.

Yes, the major problem is non changeable link pointing back to the original source. It's good news, that it's going to be achieved. Will that work for any image pinned from source website (dreamstime.com) or it will be just for the pinit button placed here? By that I mean, if that will be also achieved, when you pin image via other means, than just the pinit button on DT's website.

Second major problem is the possibility to embed image code, which is created by pinterest and embed button is just next to the image. This not only encourages the users to take the image and place it to their website, but also gives them the false pretense, that what they are doing it's right. So the user embeds image with watermark in their website in the full right to do so by the pinterest policy logic. And also the credits next to the image embedded are wrong (Source: dreamstime.com via Lalala on Pinterest) - where there are three links: 1. to dreamstime 2. to user profile on pinterest 3. to pinterest home page.
This means, there is no credit to photographer and of course all embedding elsewhere is a copyright infringement.

* but how can you ask possible blogger (person embedding image) to remove the image from their website, if they have done it rightfully by the pinterest policy and with DT agreeing to it, by letting the pinterest to use their images and knowing the conditions of use?!

Should those two main issues be solved, I do find it reasonably acceptable to use pinterest as promotional toll to increase new exposure.
Yet, after all the time required for testing I have to ask:
a) is there any traffic generated by pinterest (with acceptable bounce rate - "means more than one page view from incoming visits)???
b) are there any sales at all generated by the pinterest traffic???
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 07:09 by cclapper »

« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2012, 07:14 »
0
OK, I did find Serban's original source, it was actually earlier in my thread:

Quote
Message posted at 07/10/2012, 03:07:31 AM by Achilles - member is an admin    Quote
   An update: we've heard back from Pinterest's team and it seems that it's possible to ensure the link embedded cannot be removed via further re-pinning. As this was the main concern we will be looking into the technical details and see how it can be achieved.

We find this to be the best solution for our problem, allowing users to pin images while making sure that the original file can be reached by their readers. This ensures that we get new traffic and new exposure for your images, but that we also avoid creating "orphan works".

I would like to point out his words "it seems that it's possible to ensure the link embedded cannot be removed" and "we will be looking into the technical details"...

So for now, nothing has changed.  >:( Yet some were quick to surmise that a solution has been implemented.  

The best solution would be to provide an opt-out to those contributors who choose NOT to participate in the pinterest fiasco, but as you can see, THAT isn't going to happen.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 08:01 by cclapper »

WarrenPrice

« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2012, 09:41 »
0
Good to see that you won't let it die, Cathy.  I'm sure that Serban, and all other site admins, knows that over time we will forget about this and go on with our lives ... allowing the sites to rob us blind.   >:(

Kudos for you and Tea... (something?). 

« Reply #46 on: July 14, 2012, 10:26 »
0
Good to see that you won't let it die, Cathy.  I'm sure that Serban, and all other site admins, knows that over time we will forget about this and go on with our lives ... allowing the sites to rob us blind.   >:(

Kudos for you and Tea... (something?). 

Thanks Warren and yes, they use weasel words to make it seem like they've done us all a big favor, when in actuality they haven't really done much of anything. Of course, it's possible for a solution, but I am betting that neither DT nor pinterest will do anything about it in the end. pinterest's (and all the other wannabe sites cropping up) whole money scheme depends on stolen property so they aren't about to do anything to change it. For the life of me I can't figure out why DT and Getty (and all the others) seem to think that all that pinning and repinning is going to translate into millions of dollars of sales for contributors and the agencies. Unless they have some sort of side deals going on that we will never know about, I just can't see thieves all of a sudden growing a conscience and paying for stuff. Until the sites really address the copyright infringement issue, nothing is going to change.  >:(

lisafx

« Reply #47 on: July 14, 2012, 16:56 »
0

So for now, nothing has changed.  >:( Yet some were quick to surmise that a solution has been implemented.  


Yes, I was one that took Serban's post to mean that a solution had been implemented, or at least was in the process of being implemented.  Are we certain that it isn't being done, or just speculating that nothing will be done? 

« Reply #48 on: July 14, 2012, 17:17 »
0

So for now, nothing has changed.  >:( Yet some were quick to surmise that a solution has been implemented.  


Yes, I was one that took Serban's post to mean that a solution had been implemented, or at least was in the process of being implemented.  Are we certain that it isn't being done, or just speculating that nothing will be done?  

I'm speculating that nothing will be done, just the same as some are speculating that something is in the process of being done.  :D
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 17:22 by cclapper »

« Reply #49 on: July 14, 2012, 18:00 »
0
Serbians own income, bonus etc is probably tied into margins.  He could give a flying fk about us as long as it doesn't affect him and, in fact, pads his own coffers.

lisafx

« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2012, 18:33 »
0

I'm speculating that nothing will be done, just the same as some are speculating that something is in the process of being done.  :D

LOL!  Hope something is done about it sooner rather than later so we can all stop speculating.  Or more likely - move on to speculating about something else ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3303 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 05:28
by cathyslife
Pinterest anyone?

Started by gubh83 « 1 2 ... 12 13 » Off Topic

317 Replies
34378 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 17:09
by cathyslife
2 Replies
1222 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 05:56
by leaf
10 Replies
2970 Views
Last post October 26, 2013, 21:21
by Uncle Pete
20 Replies
4862 Views
Last post April 21, 2014, 15:41
by bunhill

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results