It just occurred to me...the share button on DT may explain why my sales have taken a dive. Since the pics are free on pinterest, who needs to buy them? 

It's possible although I'm leaning towards believing that the share button is a desperate attempt to gain exposure due to the fact that sales have been dropping.  DT don't seem to know what they're doing lately, running tests with their pricing and subs plans, running off buyers.  Playing with their search results and changing image levels.  I'd be betting they're headed towards financial trouble.  Instead of an IPO, Serban wants to hold onto his creation, having full control and instead, he tries to save the day by squeezing both buyers and contributors.  They don't want to spend any money on marketing so instead they're using free advertising on social networking sites at the expense of contributors.  They don't seem at all professional and I'd go so far as to say they're acting like amateurs.  I'd be concerned, but sales are so low that I consider them middle tier, if that.  I'm thinking of bailing before my images are spread everywhere because this problem is only going to get worse.  This Pinterest business is madness.  It's all kicking off over in the forums but he seems reluctant to remove the pin-it button.  I can't see why they don't remove it temporarily till they, or if they come to some sort of agreement with Pinterest.  The way it all works now is a mess on both sites, both contradicting themselves and each other.  So far what I�ve picked up are these contradictions:

Copyright:

Pinterest�s terms only allows the owner of the intellectual property to 'pin', however, Pinterest's 'Help' section states: "Pinterest allows you to organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web."  Despite the fact that only the copyright holder can legally 'pin', DT encourages anyone to 'pin' the image and breach copyright laws and Pinterest's TOS.

Commercial Use

Pinterest states:  "You agree not to... Use the Service for any commercial purpose or the benefit of any third party, except as otherwise explicitly permitted for you by Pinterest or in any manner not permitted by the Terms."  Yet Serban wrote:  "We don't have an alliance with them, hence we cannot add this to our network of partners"  Seems there is no agreement and it seems he is breaching their policies by encouraging pins for commercial use.

Testing

Pinterest states:  "You agree not to... Attempt to probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of any Pinterest system or network or breach any security or authentication measures."  Serban wrote:  "Depending on their reaction and results from our current tests we will decide whether they will be part of our network of "sharing" sites." Again, breaching Pinterest's policies on testing their vulnerabilities.

Embedded DT images

Carmen wrote: "using images via the referral links or embed them is allowed only if this is meant exclusively for the referral program - to promote the site and contributors. You cannot use images with watermark to illustrate articles."  However, when images are 'pinned' or 're-pinned', anyone can then freely embed the code onto their sites or blogs 'legally', if the copyright holder has pinned it himself.

To sum up.  Pinterest is a shambles and their TOS contradict the way the site runs.  It seems now DT is a shambles as well and is contradicting their own TOS.  They seem to be confused over their own rules, they have no regard for the rights of their photographers and also no regard for Pinterest's TOS.  Both companies seem to think they're above the law.

Maybe we should teach DT a huge lesson for screwing with our property.  Maybe we should choose a smaller agent that pays higher commission, such as GL for example, and 're-pin' all of DT's images, changing the links to point towards the same images on GL.  Then we can all re-pin the re-pin, pushing DT's pin down the bottom of the barrel.  It will drive traffic to GL, giving us a better return and helping their Google ranking.  Best of all, all of this can be done within Pinterest's TOS that the pinner agreed to when pinning.  DT may then have a change of heart.  Of course I am just waffling out loud to make a point but this could turn out to be a master plan.  Or an evil one

Quote from: digitalexpression on May 23, 2012, 07:14

It just occurred to me...the share button on DT may explain why my sales have taken a dive. Since the pics are free on pinterest, who needs to buy them?  

It's possible although I'm leaning towards believing that the share button is a desperate attempt to gain exposure due to the fact that sales have been dropping.  DT don't seem to know what they're doing lately, running tests with their pricing and subs plans, running off buyers.  Playing with their search results and changing image levels.  I'd be betting they're headed towards financial trouble.  Instead of an IPO, Serban wants to hold onto his creation, having full control and instead, he tries to save the day by squeezing both buyers and contributors.  They don't want to spend any money on marketing so instead they're using free advertising on social networking sites at the expense of contributors.  They don't seem at all professional and I'd go so far as to say they're acting like amateurs.  I'd be concerned, but sales are so low that I consider them middle tier, if that.  I'm thinking of bailing before my images are spread everywhere because this problem is only going to get worse.  This Pinterest business is madness.  It's all kicking off over in the forums but he seems reluctant to remove the pin-it button.  I can't see why they don't remove it temporarily till they, or if they come to some sort of agreement with Pinterest.  The way it all works now is a mess on both sites, both contradicting themselves and each other.  So far what I�ve picked up are these contradictions:

Copyright:

Pinterest�s terms only allows the owner of the intellectual property to 'pin', however, Pinterest's 'Help' section states: "Pinterest allows you to organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web."  Despite the fact that only the copyright holder can legally 'pin', DT encourages anyone to 'pin' the image and breach copyright laws and Pinterest's TOS.

Commercial Use

Pinterest states:  "You agree not to... Use the Service for any commercial purpose or the benefit of any third party, except as otherwise explicitly permitted for you by Pinterest or in any manner not permitted by the Terms."  Yet Serban wrote:  "We don't have an alliance with them, hence we cannot add this to our network of partners"  Seems there is no agreement and it seems he is breaching their policies by encouraging pins for commercial use.

Testing

Pinterest states:  "You agree not to... Attempt to probe, scan, or test the vulnerability of any Pinterest system or network or breach any security or authentication measures."  Serban wrote:  "Depending on their reaction and results from our current tests we will decide whether they will be part of our network of "sharing" sites." Again, breaching Pinterest's policies on testing their vulnerabilities.

Embedded DT images

Carmen wrote: "using images via the referral links or embed them is allowed only if this is meant exclusively for the referral program - to promote the site and contributors. You cannot use images with watermark to illustrate articles."  However, when images are 'pinned' or 're-pinned', anyone can then freely embed the code onto their sites or blogs 'legally', if the copyright holder has pinned it himself.

To sum up.  Pinterest is a shambles and their TOS contradict the way the site runs.  It seems now DT is a shambles as well and is contradicting their own TOS.  They seem to be confused over their own rules, they have no regard for the rights of their photographers and also no regard for Pinterest's TOS.  Both companies seem to think they're above the law.

Maybe we should teach DT a huge lesson for screwing with our property.  Maybe we should choose a smaller agent that pays higher commission, such as GL for example, and 're-pin' all of DT's images, changing the links to point towards the same images on GL.  Then we can all re-pin the re-pin, pushing DT's pin down the bottom of the barrel.  It will drive traffic to GL, giving us a better return and helping their Google ranking.  Best of all, all of this can be done within Pinterest's TOS that the pinner agreed to when pinning.  DT may then have a change of heart.  Of course I am just waffling out loud to make a point but this could turn out to be a master plan.  Or an evil one

My issue with pinterest is not really a financial one. I don't believe serious buyers hang out there, I think it's a haven for teenagers, hobbyists and scrapbookers, so it's not so much lost sales or pushing traffic to a particular site  that gets to me. It's the principle of copyright abuse. Intellectual property is still property. It is that same to me as someone walking into my house, taking my TV and giving it away as a Xmas gift. Intellectual property may not be tangible but it's theft is still a violation.

My problem with DT is in their assumption that my work is available for them to use as they please, which, hmm, seems like copyright violation. They're as guilty as pinterest of taking my property and using it, as well as allowing it to be used by others, without my consent. I believe a large part of the commissions they take for representing me should be going to legitimate marketing and promotion in areas that serious buyers will see, not trying to get freebies at my expense.

for the record, my previous comment correlating lower sales with pinterest was just a joke. I don't think it's connected.

I missed the joke but I don't think it will be a joke in about a year's time.   I'm not so concerned about what's on Pinterest itself, but more and more people will be helping themselves to images from there and placing them on their sites, both with the watermark and without.  It's not so much that serious buyers will take the image, it's that they will be bombarded with the image all over the place and be turned off by it.  An image that's only six months old could potentially end up seeming outdated just because it's been distributed everywhere.  I also believe the site will end up converting legitimate buyers (not serious ones) into thieves because the more the image is out there, the less risk of being caught if they steal it.  We can't track who purchased a license as it is and this is only going to get harder.  I'm trying to imagine what this industry will be like in three years and it's looking pretty grim in my head.  Maybe it's time for a new hobby/career. 

I don't think that the microstock industry is a bad idea. Obviously, there was a market for it and I believe there still is a market for it. In fact, the market for it was so huge, that big business has now stepped in to reap all the benefits. That's when the problem started. The industry has been soured because of bottom line profits for the agencies and contributors' rights and property getting trampled on.

As for the bolded part above, I agree. What I don't get is why DT (and the others using these Share buttons) can't come to this conclusion. This is going to eat into their bottom line eventually. No one will want to buy.

I just shake my head and say it's a shame. Just like I did when Getty took over istock.

What really makes me sad is the fact, that there was a HUGE talking about SOPA/PIPA and later ACTA, all the politicians full mouth of IP protection and blahblah. Megaupload was taken down partially illegally and tons of absolutely legal data and backups were deleted illegally and without any hesitation, just because someone got feeling megaupload is damaging intellectual property.

And then we have BILLIONS of illegal shares, likes, downloads etc. on Facebook and now Pinterest and because we are not a photographers union or music studio or Hollywood studio, nobody gives a s**t... And as a bonus, the agencies which should in their own interest make their best to get as much profit as possible are the first in line to make "pinning" (read abusing) of our images easier...

Thats why anyone from these parts supporting SOPA / ACTA was a total idiot. They would have kicked down your door, cuffed and dragged you out of your home face down, and threw you in jail for a random mp3, while your pictures get stolen left & right without anybody giving a sh%=t. Megaupload was raided because it was giving most of its ad income directly to the artists uploading, so they were getting rid of the copyright cartel middlemen taking 70-80-90% of the profit just for sitting around on a monopoly based on political connections. It's a small death for democracy that these guys can use the state, the police as their personal mob style enforcers to wipe someone out because they put up competition as it's supposed to happen in a free market capitalism... they really hate the free market. By the way I heard they are free to delete anything from any user without any consideration. Thats millions and millions of users. Wasn't USA about the sanctity of private property? What a huge failure on that notion... and some people applauded this.. unbelievable.

I believe a large part of the commissions they take for representing me should be going to legitimate marketing and promotion in areas that serious buyers will see, not trying to get freebies at my expense.

I guess I don't follow your argument. An agency doesn't make a penny by giving away freebies. They only make money by selling photos for contributors. Clearly they believe allowing social sharing will lead to image sales, whether it be via SEO benefit, free advertising, or direct sales. They can't "make millions" (as others in this thread have alluded to) unless you are greatly benefiting with them.

An agency can "make millions" at your expense by lowering your commissions. But that isn't what is being proposed here.

An agency can "make millions" at your expense by lowering your commissions. But that isn't what is being proposed here.

if the micros really wanna make millions they should go "old economy", hire a good and experienced sales force, send their men to deal with big publishers and design studios, make them sign multimillion contracts.

betting the farm on just online sales by small designers and cheap buyers can only fill a specific market niche and market demand, once it's filled it's stagnation and saturation.

I don't like the idea of Pinterest and its clones because it multiplies the idea that most people have that anything they find on the web is free for the taking. I also just read that Pinterest strips the metadata from pinned images, regardless of the originating source. Could someone confirm this by checking an image of theirs that they have/find there?

Pinterest has also starting stripping affiliate links from some pins (amazon and others), altering destination links to prevent users from making money on pins. Will they eventually include stock agencies in this move? http://www.hasoffers.com/blog/affiliate-links-kill-pinterest/ Could Affiliate Links Kill Pinterest?

Oooo, interesting. I clicked on one of the DT watermarked images on Pinterest that was pinned there by the photographer as a self-promotion pointing to his "latest sales" and got this message -

Sorry! Users have reported that this links to spam or other inappropriate content.
Show me anyway     Back to Pinterest

I clicked on Show me anyway and it went to the photographer's portfolio on DT. Other DT images when clicked on went right to the appropriate portfolios without this message so it looks like they are cracking down on photos purposely linked to selling sites? So, you might not be able to pin your stock images if you want to try and market them but if they are pinned by someone else for a non-commercial purpose that is ok. Hmmmmm

Quote from: cuppacoffee on May 24, 2012, 00:11

I don't like the idea of Pinterest and its clones because it multiplies the idea that most people have that anything they find on the web is free for the taking. I also just read that Pinterest strips the metadata from pinned images, regardless of the originating source. Could someone confirm this by checking an image of theirs that they have/find there?

Hard to tell, as iStock and Alamy both strip out the copyright metadata too, as far as I can see.
Flickr doesn't, but I can't remember which of my Flickr pics I found pinned. I'll see what I can do on that one.

http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/
'When an image is �pinned� that does not need to be resized, the meta data seems to be retained, but their resizing function loses all the data that could actually point someone in the direction of the art creator.'

Quote from: digitalexpression on May 23, 2012, 11:11

I believe a large part of the commissions they take for representing me should be going to legitimate marketing and promotion in areas that serious buyers will see, not trying to get freebies at my expense.

I guess I don't follow your argument. An agency doesn't make a penny by giving away freebies. They only make money by selling photos for contributors. Clearly they believe allowing social sharing will lead to image sales, whether it be via SEO benefit, free advertising, or direct sales. They can't "make millions" (as others in this thread have alluded to) unless you are greatly benefiting with them.

An agency can "make millions" at your expense by lowering your commissions. But that isn't what is being proposed here.

The owner of a stock photo agency doesn't follow the argument of why an agency shouldn't benefit from exploiting it's contributors. Colour me surprised.

I can see further arguments are pointless and yet... even if it were true that sales to an agency like DT would increase from their sharing of my property with pinterest thieves, that increase in sales, let's say an even 10% for the ease of demonstration, would be spread across all 130,000+ contributors. In other words, there would be no direct benefit to me as 10% spread between 130,000+ would be negligible. The benefit to DT would be a full 10% increase in revenue since they take a cut from every single sale regardless of who's image it is but to me? I doubt I'd even notice. However I do notice that they are using my work, without my consent, to generate that increase. that's exploitation and unfair.

As I stated before though, I don't think there is an increase as pinterest is not a place where buyers frequent.

Quote from: digitalexpression on May 24, 2012, 11:37

The owner of a stock photo agency doesn't follow the argument of why an agency shouldn't benefit from exploiting it's contributors. Colour me surprised.

I can see further arguments are pointless and yet... even if it were true that sales to an agency like DT would increase from their sharing of my property with pinterest thieves, that increase in sales, let's say an even 10% for the ease of demonstration, would be spread across all 130,000+ contributors. In other words, there would be no direct benefit to me as 10% spread between 130,000+ would be negligible. The benefit to DT would be a full 10% increase in revenue since they take a cut from every single sale regardless of who's image it is but to me? I doubt I'd even notice. However I do notice that they are using my work, without my consent, to generate that increase. that's exploitation and unfair.

As I stated before though, I don't think there is an increase as pinterest is not a place where buyers frequent.

Very well stated.

Seriously?

If sales rise by 10% for the entire agency, then the average contributor will see a 10% rise on their own sales. Why on earth would you think it would be otherwise? There's no reason to divide the 10% by 130,000, or whatever you decided to use in the example. A 10% aggregate rise is a 10% aggregate rise.

Dan, in your previous post you mention you created Warm Picture to empower the contributors and that you removed the 'share' buttons on your site because of this.  So you're aware that having these buttons there is immoral, yet you continue to support DT's decision to have them there.  You yourself won't use it, so why do you expect strangers to 'pin' DT images against the wishes of contributors?

Actually I never wrote that. I simply laid out an opinion that failure to participate in social media will be a huge SEO loss for the agency, or any contributor who chooses not to participate. I don't "expect" you to do anything beyond your wishes. I realize any alternate opinion will be met with criticism and resistance. If you don't care about the search position of your images, believe me, I'm quite fine with it.

What I wrote was that I felt the button was a distraction from the buying process. But the button doesn't have to be on the buying page. It could be under the thumbnail, or wherever. I don't feel it is immoral. I decided against it because I knew the response would be similar to the one in this thread, not because I felt it would not be effective.

You throw around the term "immoral" rather casually. Regardless, it's your decision to make. I simply presented a counter opinion, and never advocated that you change your position.