pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Dreamstime and Pinterest  (Read 24834 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

  • There is a crack in everything
« 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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4779 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 05:28
by cathyslife
Pinterest anyone?

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

317 Replies
60293 Views
Last post October 10, 2012, 17:09
by cathyslife
2 Replies
2815 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 05:56
by leaf
10 Replies
5873 Views
Last post October 26, 2013, 21:21
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
1233 Views
Last post October 16, 2023, 05:25
by synthetick

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors