Author Topic: Pinterest is raising $500 million at an $11 billion valuation (Read 8140 times)

Semmick Photo · « **on:** February 19, 2015, 07:57 »

Pinterest is raising $500 million at an $11 billion valuation

Read more: http://uk.businessinsider.com/pinterest-is-raising-a-huge-round-at-an-11-billion-valuation-2015-2

Crime does pay. The site is built on stolen content. https://photographylife.com/pinterest-copyright-infringement-made-cool

Thats rich IMO, pun intended.

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** February 19, 2015, 08:13 »

Thanks for the link to that copyright article re Pinterest.

bunhill · « **Reply #2 on:** February 19, 2015, 08:55 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on February 19, 2015, 07:57

The site is built on stolen content.

Under US law copyright violation is not theft. That is the legal position.

suzbah · « **Reply #3 on:** February 19, 2015, 09:27 »

If you use it wisely, you can increase traffic to your website. I make sure i post low res of my photos with watermark on them and i post them on Pinterest myself

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** February 19, 2015, 09:30 »

Quote from: suzbah on February 19, 2015, 09:27

If you use it wisely, you can increase traffic to your website. I make sure i post low res of my photos with watermark on them and i post them on Pinterest myself

That's not the problem. The problem is all the pinning with no way of finding the originator other than a reverse GIS.

suzbah · « **Reply #5 on:** February 19, 2015, 09:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 19, 2015, 09:30

Quote from: suzbah on February 19, 2015, 09:27
If you use it wisely, you can increase traffic to your website. I make sure i post low res of my photos with watermark on them and i post them on Pinterest myself
That's not the problem. The problem is all the pinning with no way of finding the originator other than a reverse GIS.

I agree with that

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 19, 2015, 09:48 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 19, 2015, 08:55

Quote from: Semmick Photo on February 19, 2015, 07:57
The site is built on stolen content.

Under US law copyright violation is not theft. That is the legal position.

Great, but lets just stick to the gist of things. The site got big with law breaking stuff.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 19, 2015, 11:11 »

Interesting article, but the flippant comparison to the Beatles' music is problematic. Of course it takes just as much, if not more, work to produce "She Loves You" as to go on a weeklong shoot. You need at least four musicians, two of whom are amazingly talented collaborators (Lennon & McCartney), to write the music; then you need to score it for four instruments, have two other incredibly talented musicians (Harrison and Starr) rehearse the song to get it right, you need to purchase equipment (guitars, drums, speakers), pay for recording studio time and expenses, the producer, tapes, pressing vinyl (in those days), promotion, distribution.

Also, the Beatles and many musicians were poorly compensated at the beginning, with legal wrangling over the rights to their own music for decades...the most famous example being the falling out between McCartney and Michael Jackson after the former suggested the latter invest in music rights, only to have his "friend" turn around and buy the rights to the Beatles' library, cheating the original artists of earnings from music they created. I believe McCartney eventually bought back the rights, but to have to pay for the rights to your own work...jeez.

Batman · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2015, 09:58 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on February 19, 2015, 11:11

Interesting article, but the flippant comparison to the Beatles' music is problematic. Of course it takes just as much, if not more, work to produce "She Loves You" as to go on a weeklong shoot. You need at least four musicians, two of whom are amazingly talented collaborators (Lennon & McCartney), to write the music; then you need to score it for four instruments, have two other incredibly talented musicians (Harrison and Starr) rehearse the song to get it right, you need to purchase equipment (guitars, drums, speakers), pay for recording studio time and expenses, the producer, tapes, pressing vinyl (in those days), promotion, distribution.

Also, the Beatles and many musicians were poorly compensated at the beginning, with legal wrangling over the rights to their own music for decades...the most famous example being the falling out between McCartney and Michael Jackson after the former suggested the latter invest in music rights, only to have his "friend" turn around and buy the rights to the Beatles' library, cheating the original artists of earnings from music they created. I believe McCartney eventually bought back the rights, but to have to pay for the rights to your own work...jeez.

Michael Jackson received 50% of the royalties generated by Beatles songs by virtue of his ownership of the Associated Television Corporation (ATV) publishing rights, Sir Paul McCartney and John Lennon have always received their 50% songwriter's share of the royalties for all Lennon-McCartney songs. Sony Corp. paid Michael Jackson $95 million in 1995 to merge ATV with Sony and form Sony/ATV Music Publishing, a 50-50 joint venture.

I agree with your point of the creation more complicated then a picture. Correcting the McCartney owner ship he doesn't own his music Sony does. He gets 25%, Lennon 25%, Sony 25%, Jackson 25%.

I own 100% of what I take. Pintrest give me nothing I give them nothing unless they pay.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2015, 02:52 »

the problem in the USA is the abomination called "fair use", that sh-it doesn't fly in the rest of the world.

cathyslife · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2015, 09:03 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 01, 2015, 02:52

the problem in the USA is the abomination called "fair use", that sh-it doesn't fly in the rest of the world.

I agree. Basically they have give people the right to steal.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2015, 11:46 »

http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/18/pinterest-is-trying-to-raise-another-500m-valuing-the-company-at-11b/

I've never been a real user of Pinterest (I made an account so I could browse the agency boards) but I'd sort of made my peace with the agencies (like DT) helping users pin watermarked thumbnails.

However, if you look at the article above, Pinterest is now offering promoted pins - just like the noxious ads-in-all-but-name in Facebook news feeds and advertorials in print publications. I'm guessing that there is no restriction on a promoted pin containing an image that no one paid to license.

https://business.pinterest.com/en/blog/big-year-ahead-promoted-pins

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/business/media/pinterest-opening-its-boards-to-ads-.html

I could easily get angry all over again if a promoted pin - one that made Pinterest money and one which the promoter paid to build their business - included unlicensed images. Perhaps it won't happen. Perhaps the brands doing the advertising will shoot their own images or license them.

Given the massive infringements on Pinterest (and I found some images of mine from Pocketstock, a defunct agency I left before they were defunct, still on Pinterest - this stuff lives forever) I figure it's only a matter of time before unlicensed images show up in promoted pins. Do we have any better chance to either get paid for a license or to issue a DMCA request for a promoted pin?

Pinterest has some rules for advertisers:

https://about.pinterest.com/en/advertising-rules

They also have some creative how-tos that include an admonition to "Use high-resolution, professional-quality photographs and illustrations. Don’t use images that are poorly lit, out of focus or otherwise appear amateurish." but nothing about licensing images for commercial use if it's not one they own copyright to.

https://business.pinterest.com/sites/business/files/how-to-make-great-pins-guide-en-01.pdf

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2015, 12:11 »

I've always had images taken down when I've requested it. These were images which had presumably been lifted from the sites of legitimate buyers, who too often have 'pin this' buttons. But without any linkback or acknowlegement, that won't work to our benefit.
However, I haven't looked there for some time, and didn't even know about the promoted pins. I guess until someone finds one and puts in a request, we won't know if they'll honour it.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2015, 23:25 »

Quote from: cathyslife on March 03, 2015, 09:03

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 01, 2015, 02:52
the problem in the USA is the abomination called "fair use", that sh-it doesn't fly in the rest of the world.

I agree. Basically they have give people the right to steal.

there would be no problem if Fair Use was used FAIRLY but we can all see that's not the case ... besides it makes no sense in the age of internet, this was a law designed decades ago and it should be dismissed or totally revamped.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2015, 23:29 »

ohhh and in other news taxi-scam app "Uber" claims to be worth 40 billions $ now despite getting banned in a new country every other week .. hahaha 40 bills ... that's as much as ADOBE !!! good luck with that ...

we live in interesting times indeed.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2015, 00:48 »

Quote from: Hobostocker on March 03, 2015, 23:29

we live in interesting times indeed.

I forget. Was 'May you live in interesting times' supposed to be a blessing or a curse? My money is on the latter.

Edit: It is a curse.

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2015, 20:29 »

So now I find a photo of mine from FAA has been pinned with the copyright chopped off.
But now to be able to do anything at all I have to sign up to the site.
So that I can be one of their 'assets', no doubt.

Delighted to say I was wrong.
I went to their terms of service and found a link to report copyright violation there.
Might be useful for anyone else in the same position.

https://www.pinterest.com/about/copyright/dmca-pin

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pinterest is raising $500 million at an $11 billion valuation (Read 8140 times)

Semmick Photo

ShadySue

bunhill

suzbah

ShadySue

suzbah

Semmick Photo

Shelma1

Batman

Hobostocker

cathyslife

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Hobostocker

Hobostocker

PixelBytes

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors