Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 60888 times)

antistock · « **Reply #150 on:** May 28, 2012, 04:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 28, 2012, 02:33

antistock makes a good point. I was watching my favourite Guitar player, Gary Moore, on YouTube yesterday. I might of bought the DVD but it's all on there. Lots of the video clips on YouTube must be breaking copyright laws but not many get removed and they are usually uploaded again by someone else. Until they do something or are made to do something to comply with the law, what chance do we have with sites like Pinterest. Doing DMCA requests will turn in to a full time job.

Is it too late to change the habits of billions of internet users? I would like to see a way for ISP's to collect a small fee when someone looks at something that has been uploaded illegally. Then that's passed on to the copyright holder. I know it's not likely to happen but it might be better than the constant flaunting of copyright laws until they're completely meaningless.

yes i think it's too late and talking about youtube i also have a nice addon for firefox that sticks a Download button right below the video window in youtube, i can play/stop/rewind or just download, all for free and i really wonder how the music majors are in still in business as the new generations will grow up in a free world where ANY possible song and video ever produced can be watched and download in 2 clicks !

go tell them they have to pay, and good luck ... thanks god stock photos are not in such a bad situation, yet, but never say never, it seems even the po-rn industry has been badly hit by piracy and the many youtube clones with po-rn videos .. why buying DVDs when they can wa-nk for free after all ?

next step can be pretty well a flickr clone with millions of stolen stock images from the best agencies, hosted in china, refusing to take down anything, and hosting full-res unwatermarked keyworded photos ... that would be the end of the road for stock and it could be just a matter of time !

antistock · « **Reply #151 on:** May 28, 2012, 04:24 »

Quote from: bhr on May 26, 2012, 11:16

The issues that matter are around commercial use.

and what about editorial photos with famous brands or famous people, what about photos where the original buyer paid for exclusivity, what about commercial images where the models signed a contract saying the photo will be published only in country xyz ? and then all of a sudden these images are plastered all over Pinterest and FB and by domino effect shared on hundreds of other smaller sites, scrapers, mirrors, and picked up as "public domain" by the average Joe Bloggs in his blog or forum ?

grafix04 · « **Reply #152 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 28, 2012, 02:46

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on May 27, 2012, 17:17
Noteworthy sign-up and social media strategy. Good design.
Total fail in providing good content.
I disagree.
The content, being ONLY what the user wants, is utterly perfect, from the user's POV.
Looked at outside the copyright issues, it's the only social media that I've seen which could have any real value for the user.

How does it have any value? All it does is allow housewives to 'pin' a heap of images that they like. "Oh look strangers on the internet that I don't know and will never meet, I LOVE this image so I 'pinned' it!. Show some love and 'pin' it too so I can earn some meaningless credits against my username". I suppose it has some benefits. I suppose it's addictive enough and they may forget for a second to wolf down a twinkie or two while they 'pin' a nice photo of a colorful salad. But other than that, how could it have any real value? Maybe I'm alone on this but I don't see the point of this site. I get that it's like an online scrapbook or pinboard. But really, can't they do all that privately? Do people really care what other people 'pin'? The site is ridiculous to me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #153 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:34 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 06:22

Quote from: ShadySue on May 28, 2012, 02:46
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on May 27, 2012, 17:17
Noteworthy sign-up and social media strategy. Good design.
Total fail in providing good content.
I disagree.
The content, being ONLY what the user wants, is utterly perfect, from the user's POV.
Looked at outside the copyright issues, it's the only social media that I've seen which could have any real value for the user.

How does it have any value?

I've posted this before, but maybe on the other thread.
Imagine a committee that is organising an event. Eveyone post their 'finds' of possible venues and relevant services/products onto the pinboard for consideration by the group: much more convenient for everyone to see everything than just emailling the links round everyone.
Similarly, a group of people organising anything from a night out to a holiday. You know what a pain it is for everyone to see all the possiblities and agree on a plan. This just makes it so much easier - everyone pins their finds in the same place. Again, better than emailing the URLs round everyone and saving them out to folders with the risk that you might have missed some.

In the above scenarios, again it's good that comments by the group can be posted on the sites so that a consensus can be seen. Again, much easier than:
1. All the people in the committee emails the URLs of all of their finds round the group, with, no doubt plenty of duplication as people find the same 'possible's
2. All the 'that would be good', or 'that might be a problem' emails would go round the group, separately from each person.
3. Someone takes it upon themselves to collate all the 'good's and 'bad's at the end and post them round, with the ensuing accusations of e.g. "I emailled that there wasn't enough parking at that venue/you can get the same thing cheaper at X, but you didn't put that into your summary".

That's just off the top of my head. I'm not actually in their main target group.
The site is being recommended by everyone from Real Simple (US women's magazine: they love it!) and the Beeb (I forget what they were recommending it for, but it wasn't a 'women's interest' usage whereas they're a bit embarrassed about FB and Twitter, with an attitude of 'we know they're supposed to be kewl, so we need to be there, kicking and screaming, but they're really a bit infra dig).

cathyslife · « **Reply #154 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:37 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 06:22

How does it have any value? All it does is allow housewives to 'pin' a heap of images that they like. "Oh look strangers on the internet that I don't know and will never meet, I LOVE this image so I 'pinned' it!. Show some love and 'pin' it too so I can earn some meaningless credits against my username". I suppose it has some benefits. I suppose it's addictive enough and they may forget for a second to wolf down a twinkie or two while they 'pin' a nice photo of a colorful salad. But other than that, how could it have any real value? Maybe I'm alone on this but I don't see the point of this site. I get that it's like an online scrapbook or pinboard. But really, can't they do all that privately? Do people really care what other people 'pin'? The site is ridiculous to me.

I agree. I get what they're doing, but it's just another social media company making money off the backs of someone else's work. Call me old fashioned, but I sit in front of my computer enough hours of the day doing work-related stuff, let alone wanting to spend every waking minute doing these kinds of things. I barely have time to keep up with this forum.

grafix04 · « **Reply #155 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:23 »

Sue, why does the whole world have to know what some committee does? Why does the whole world need to see where a small group of friends will go out on the town on Friday night? Before these 'social' sites, people didn't have a problem getting together to organize things. These sites don't save time, they waste time. The committee who are supposed to be organizing an event will post their favorite venues and products but then what? They will sit there wasting time looking at 'pins' and 'repinning' 'pins'. I find it all useless.

grafix04 · « **Reply #156 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:34 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 28, 2012, 06:37

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 06:22
How does it have any value? All it does is allow housewives to 'pin' a heap of images that they like. "Oh look strangers on the internet that I don't know and will never meet, I LOVE this image so I 'pinned' it!. Show some love and 'pin' it too so I can earn some meaningless credits against my username". I suppose it has some benefits. I suppose it's addictive enough and they may forget for a second to wolf down a twinkie or two while they 'pin' a nice photo of a colorful salad. But other than that, how could it have any real value? Maybe I'm alone on this but I don't see the point of this site. I get that it's like an online scrapbook or pinboard. But really, can't they do all that privately? Do people really care what other people 'pin'? The site is ridiculous to me.

I agree. I get what they're doing, but it's just another social media company making money off the backs of someone else's work. Call me old fashioned, but I sit in front of my computer enough hours of the day doing work-related stuff, let alone wanting to spend every waking minute doing these kinds of things. I barely have time to keep up with this forum.

Exactly! These things have made people lazy, unmotivated and socially naive.

I went to a family birthday party a few weeks ago and it was interesting observing four different generations. The oldest group, 50 to 70, sat around together reminiscing about old times, having a laugh, joking around and enjoying themselves. The next generation 30 to 50 all sat in a group sharing some laughs and each one would stop for a while, answering their phones and texting, then getting back into the fun. Then you had their kids, 14 to 25 and they sat in their own group on the sofa, texting and tweeting on their phones the whole time - for five hours straight! LOL. They'd occasionally look up when they were offered something to eat or drink but they were pretty much oblivious to their surroundings and to each other. Then we had the infants, 2 to 5, who ran around playing for the first half hour but then got tired and sat down, each of them with their parent's iPhones, playing games. It was really funny, yet really sad to see what has happened to the world. It made me think that smartphones have made people stupid and social networking have made people anti-social. These kids will grow up to be total misfits and that's unfortunate.

ShadySue · « **Reply #157 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:39 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:23

Sue, why does the whole world have to know what some committee does? Why does the whole world need to see where a small group of friends will go out on the town on Friday night? Before these 'social' sites, people didn't have a problem getting together to organize things. These sites don't save time, they waste time. The committee who are supposed to be organizing an event will post their favorite venues and products but then what? They will sit there wasting time looking at 'pins' and 'repinning' 'pins'. I find it all useless.

I find FB and Twitter totally pointless. I can see a point in Pinterest, but as I haven't actually used it, I don't know if you can make a pinboard private to users only. Probably no-one would look at where the Scottish Spingleplonkers' Syndicate have their annual Day Out and Dinner.

I can't see why anyone would need to repin. All the pins would be on one pinboard, with the comments underneath, perfectly easy to see and digest. No discussions about 'you ignored what I said' when maybe the email didn't get through, or human error made you forget it. Or you can see that only one person objected to something, and circumvent the harangues of "most people didn't like ..." which isn't even true. It's all out there in the open.

One of the nightmare tasks I am involved in is precisely this sort of 'group arrangements' thing - where pinterest wouldn't work for me is that about half of the people in the 'groups' don't even have computers (so even emailling around doesn't work. But that doesn't make computers useless.) What happens now is that those of us with computers research possiblities and print out the relevant web pages and take them to a meeting, which in itself can be a nightmare to arrange a mutally suitable time/place for. If they all had computers, pinterest would save so much time even just in travelling, which can easily be several hours in each direction.

Before the internet, people got things done.
A younger person asked my sister how she could ever have organised her social life before cellphones amd emails. H*ck, we didn't even have a phone in the house until I was about 12 (but I lived in a village, so things were easier).

Everything that needed to be done could be done before computers were invented. Should we go back to the Dark Ages?

You see no point in it. That's fine. You're presumably not in their target group, just like there are many, many popular sites out there I'll only visit once, if ever. Apparently loads of people love FB and Twitter, and I'm out on a limb. Different strokes.

cathyslife · « **Reply #158 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:42 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:23

Sue, why does the whole world have to know what some committee does? Why does the whole world need to see where a small group of friends will go out on the town on Friday night? Before these 'social' sites, people didn't have a problem getting together to organize things. These sites don't save time, they waste time. The committee who are supposed to be organizing an event will post their favorite venues and products but then what? They will sit there wasting time looking at 'pins' and 'repinning' 'pins'. I find it all useless.

My professor called it "screen *." (well, Leaf's auto correct won't put the word in. Not a bad word. What a baby does to a bottle. tuck only with an s for the first letter.) The students would sit down in front of the computer to do their project, but get sidetracked on fb, which led them to youtube, which led them to..., you get the picture. They would sit there for 2-1/2 hours getting sucked into the computer, and still wouldn't have done any work on their project.

grafix04 · « **Reply #159 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 28, 2012, 07:39

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:23
Sue, why does the whole world have to know what some committee does? Why does the whole world need to see where a small group of friends will go out on the town on Friday night? Before these 'social' sites, people didn't have a problem getting together to organize things. These sites don't save time, they waste time. The committee who are supposed to be organizing an event will post their favorite venues and products but then what? They will sit there wasting time looking at 'pins' and 'repinning' 'pins'. I find it all useless.

I find FB and Twitter totally pointless. I can see a point in Pinterest, but as I haven't actually used it, I don't know if you can make a pinboard private to users only. Probably no-one would look at where the Scottish Spingleplonkers' Syndicate have their annual Day Out and Dinner.

One of the nightmare tasks I am involved in is precisely this sort of 'group arrangements' thing - where pinterest wouldn't work for me is that about half of the people in the 'groups' don't even have computers (so even emailling around doesn't work. But that doesn't make computers useless.) What happens now is that those of us with computers research possiblities and print out the relevant web pages and take them to a meeting, which in itself can be a nightmare to arrange a mutally suitable time/place for. If they all had computers, pinerest would save so much time even just in travelling, which can easily be several hours in each direction.

Before the internet, people got things done.
A younger person asked my sister how she could ever have organised her social life before cellphones amd emails. H*ck, we didn't even have a phone in the house until I was about 12 (but I lived in a village, so things were easier).

Everything that needed to be done could be done before computers were invented. Should we go back to the Dark Ages?

You see no point in it. That's fine. You're presumably not in their target group, just like there are many, many popular sites out there I'll only visit once, if ever. Apparently loads of people love FB and Twitter, and I'm out on a limb. Different strokes.

I never said computers are useless, I said Pinterest is useless. I suggest you go and use the site or even study it before you judge it. I get what you're saying about how it 'could' be used. But it isn't there to be used that way. There are other ways to do what you're saying, even on email, attaching thumbs and copying everyone in the group on the email. There are new sites springing up for that sort of thing. But I'm talking about Pinterest.

No you can't 'pin' anything and make it private, that goes against the whole point of the site, which is to get as many re-pins as you can to earn credits and get your pins ranking higher. You say that no one will see your group 'pins' but I beg to differ. As uninteresting as the location of the "Scottish Spingleplonkers' Syndicate on their annual Day Out and Dinner" is, people will see it. They will "re-pin" them, not because they find them interesting but because they will hope you will 'follow them' and/or "re-pin" something of theirs to score them these credits and give them some false impression that they're cool and have purpose. Facebook and twitter is also useless for being social but they have their place for business owners when they have a large following. You can't really have one without the other so those two are sort of bearable to a degree and I see the point of them.

Aside from the supposed usefulness that you suggested, that doesn't give 'pinners' the right to pin copyrighted content anyway. So even if it was useful, it's still against the law. So not only is the site useless, it's unlawful as well. Again, I don't see the point of it.

grafix04 · « **Reply #160 on:** May 28, 2012, 08:00 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 28, 2012, 07:42

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:23
Sue, why does the whole world have to know what some committee does? Why does the whole world need to see where a small group of friends will go out on the town on Friday night? Before these 'social' sites, people didn't have a problem getting together to organize things. These sites don't save time, they waste time. The committee who are supposed to be organizing an event will post their favorite venues and products but then what? They will sit there wasting time looking at 'pins' and 'repinning' 'pins'. I find it all useless.

My professor called it "screen *." (well, Leaf's auto correct won't put the word in. Not a bad word. What a baby does to a bottle. tuck only with an s for the first letter.) The students would sit down in front of the computer to do their project, but get sidetracked on fb, which led them to youtube, which led them to..., you get the picture. They would sit there for 2-1/2 hours getting sucked into the computer, and still wouldn't have done any work on their project.

Yea I get it. It's easy to get screen sucked.

ShadySue · « **Reply #161 on:** May 28, 2012, 08:05 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 08:00

Quote from: cclapper on May 28, 2012, 07:42

My professor called it "screen *." (well, Leaf's auto correct won't put the word in. Not a bad word. What a baby does to a bottle. tuck only with an s for the first letter.) The students would sit down in front of the computer to do their project, but get sidetracked on fb, which led them to youtube, which led them to..., you get the picture. They would sit there for 2-1/2 hours getting sucked into the computer, and still wouldn't have done any work on their project.

Yea I get it. It's easy to get screen sucked.

In my day, it was called a 'distraction activity', starting with tidying your pens, rearranging your texbooks, having a cup of tea/coffee, washing your hair ... before you started on your research for your essay.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

ShadySue · « **Reply #162 on:** May 28, 2012, 08:16 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:57

Aside from the supposed usefulness that you suggested, that doesn't give 'pinners' the right to pin copyrighted content anyway. So even if it was useful, it's still against the law. So not only is the site useless, it's unlawful as well. Again, I don't see the point of it.

I accept the IP problem, and that was never under debate; and as I said, I don't use the site. You wouldn't have to use it to get 'credits' even if that's how the site is set up.

You changed the terms of the discussion. You suggested the site was pointless, and I accept that from your point of view, it is. I suggested a way that I personally might find the site really useful and time saving (if the relevant people in my real life committees all had computers). You then switched to the IP issue and whether other sites could do the same job, which is irrelevant to the possible usefulness of pinterest.

But whether you don't see the point of Pinterest, and I don't see the point of Twitter is totally irrelevant, as many people use these sites.
Are Nike or Nestle really losing any sleep because I boycott them? I doubt it.

Tabimura · « **Reply #163 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:19 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 27, 2012, 21:43

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on May 27, 2012, 17:17
I need to study more because if they have become as successful as they have at this level, then there are things to learn.

To sum up, people like free stuff. End of story.

^^ what he said.

lisafx · « **Reply #164 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:38 »

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:57

No you can't 'pin' anything and make it private, that goes against the whole point of the site, which is to get as many re-pins as you can to earn credits and get your pins ranking higher.

^^This is where it crosses into a whole different territory of illegal IMO. These "pinners" are actually getting credits, which have some value - even if it isn't strictly monetary - from other people's intellectual property. Shouldn't that take it from simple copyright violation to actually profiting from the theft?

cathyslife · « **Reply #165 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:49 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 28, 2012, 08:05

In my day, it was called a 'distraction activity', starting with tidying your pens, rearranging your texbooks, having a cup of tea/coffee, washing your hair ... before you started on your research for your essay.
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Or basically procrastinating. In the computer age.

cathyslife · « **Reply #166 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 28, 2012, 09:38

Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:57

No you can't 'pin' anything and make it private, that goes against the whole point of the site, which is to get as many re-pins as you can to earn credits and get your pins ranking higher.

^^This is where it crosses into a whole different territory of illegal IMO. These "pinners" are actually getting credits, which have some value - even if it isn't strictly monetary - from other people's intellectual property. Shouldn't that take it from simple copyright violation to actually profiting from the theft?

Seems to me is does, too.

grafix04 · « **Reply #167 on:** May 28, 2012, 12:10 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 28, 2012, 09:50

Quote from: lisafx on May 28, 2012, 09:38
Quote from: grafix04 on May 28, 2012, 07:57

No you can't 'pin' anything and make it private, that goes against the whole point of the site, which is to get as many re-pins as you can to earn credits and get your pins ranking higher.

^^This is where it crosses into a whole different territory of illegal IMO. These "pinners" are actually getting credits, which have some value - even if it isn't strictly monetary - from other people's intellectual property. Shouldn't that take it from simple copyright violation to actually profiting from the theft?

Seems to me is does, too.

It doesn't even matter whether they're profiting or not. It's a violation 'pinning' (hosting) the full sized image if they're not the rightful owner of it. It says so right there in their terms and conditions. This is why I don't understand Serban's fight to keep the 'pin' button. The button isn't there for the contributors to 'pin'. It's there for the public to 'pin' and he knows full well that it's a violation. He's response to that is something like "oh well, people can pin them without the button if they really want to". Pathetic. Enticing people to infringe is breaking the law in itself. He can't hide behind his own terms and conditions about this. DT is not above the law. As an agent, and especially as a micro agent, DT is obligated by law to protect our intellectual property that's hosted on their site yet here they are saying to the public, "here are some free images if you want, as the contributor's agent, you have permission to take it, for free and distribute it). He has no right to do that.

antistock · « **Reply #168 on:** May 28, 2012, 13:39 »

pinterest is a solution in search of a problem.

and it can quickly become yet another internet fad.
how many pins and albums of pins users are supposed to create before they're done with it ?

i mean it's not something you can do for years like chatting with friends on FB or sending emails to work colleagues.

most of the early bloggers gave up with blogging once they've blogged their whole life, the only ones left are the ones making money with blogging but that's not pinterest's case, not yet at least.

ShadySue · « **Reply #169 on:** May 28, 2012, 15:44 »

My official reply from iStock arrived a few minutes ago
To avoid clicking the pinterest link, here's a screendump of the pics I found:

From me:
"Issue/Question: Pinterest
I've found two of my iceberg photos (#6744170 and #6748654 on Pinterest, pinned from what is presumably a legitimate buyer. There are also some repins, (+ an iceberg which isn't mine): http://pinterest.com/source/theicebergfestival.ca

I'm not sure what iStock\'s policy on pinterest is. I'm aware that there is a page on pinterest where you can register a complaint, but am mindful that we were told that we must contact CR rather than dealing with these issues ourselves.

From CR:
"Please be aware that the Pinterest website is a member of our Affiliate program. The iStockphoto team which handles the affiliate program, continually monitors the usage to ensure it is in line with the program.

Please feel free to review further information regarding the Affiliate program in the following link:
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/about-us/affiliates"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So I looked up that affilliiates page:

Make Money with the iStockphoto Affiliate Program

With some of the best commissions in the business and a high average order value, you can make serious money when you send customers to iStockphoto through our Affiliate Program.

Get paid for new and existing customer purchases and take advantage of great affiliate tools including:

   Links & Banners
   Affiliate Coupon Codes, Including Vanity Codes
   Co-Branded Landing Pages
   Product Feeds

Learn more about the iStockphoto Affiliate Program by selecting an affiliate network below.
If you have any questions, please send us an email to [email protected].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't possibly see how the usage I outlined can possibly have anything to do with such an affiliate program.

Has anyone else contacted iStock about this sort of usage?

I think I'll fire it right back to find out how it can possibly be of any 'affiliation' to have our images pinned without any reasonable way of getting back to iStock to purchase the image (other than GIS, which possibly 'most people' don't know about, and lots of my iStock photos aren't on GIS yet, even though I think these two are).

pancaketom · « **Reply #170 on:** May 28, 2012, 16:42 »

Sorry to hear such a non-answer from IS, although not surprising.

If IS images on pinterest are a legitimate affiliate use, that means that whoever is pinning them - the affiliate? is claiming copyright and giving permission to use those images to others - clearly something they cannot legally do unless there is something new in the IS TOS I am unaware of.

lisafx · « **Reply #171 on:** May 28, 2012, 17:33 »

I'm really shocked Istock would let this happen to their exclusive image collection. Affiliate? That's supposed to be PAID affiliation, not giving away for free.

I know a few of the other micros are doing this too, but after hearing how fiercely Getty protects its contributors' copyrights, this is kind of surprising

ShadySue · « **Reply #172 on:** May 28, 2012, 17:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 28, 2012, 17:33

I'm really shocked Istock would let this happen to their exclusive image collection. Affiliate? That's supposed to be PAID affiliation, not giving away for free.

I know a few of the other micros are doing this too, but after hearing how fiercely Getty protects its contributors' copyrights, this is kind of surprising

I am really shocked at this. People can easily rightclick unwatermarked images from pinterest and they weren't even legitimate buyers in the first place. Yet I concientiously watermark and disable right click my Flickr photos, no matter how remotely unstocky, and have friends/family I give photos to (not stock) think I'm a royal *ssh*le by going on and on about all the stuff they can't do with them, to make sure I don't fall foul of the exclusive ASA - and they set up affiliations like this to effectively promulgate the free taking of our stock images.

In so many ways, this is worse than allowing pinning of watermarked images, IMO. And we didn't know about it.

michaeldb · « **Reply #173 on:** May 28, 2012, 19:38 »

Quote from: antistock on May 28, 2012, 04:14

Quote from: sharpshot on May 28, 2012, 02:33
...Is it too late to change the habits of billions of internet users?...
yes i think it's too late ...
go tell them they have to pay, and good luck ... thanks god stock photos are not in such a bad situation, yet, but never say never...next step can be pretty well a flickr clone with millions of stolen stock images from the best agencies, hosted in china, refusing to take down anything, and hosting full-res unwatermarked keyworded photos ... that would be the end of the road for stock and it could be just a matter of time !

Yes, the public thinks (or wants to think) that everything digital is free. The reason why microstockers get paid is because our customers are not the public, but rather businesses (if some are very, very small businesses). Business people are afraid of being sued (and are much more likely to be sued than an individual). And the businesses which themselves sell digital content understand that they have to play ball and pay up if they want to play in the game and get paid.

That's why copyright law has penalties for lawbreakers, and why SOPA and other punitive efforts are important. People will only pay when they are afraid of getting into trouble if they don't pay.

ShadySue · « **Reply #174 on:** May 28, 2012, 19:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 28, 2012, 17:33

I'm really shocked Istock would let this happen to their exclusive image collection.

Indeed. Just makes a joke of their exclusive promise:
"Protection and resolution
Exclusivity makes it easier for us to protect our contributors. We can better enforce compliance issues when we know an image came from us and must follow our licensing agreement."
How do they propose doing that when people can lift freely from their 'affiliate', Pinterest, without paying a penny to iStock or us?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 60888 times)

antistock

antistock

grafix04

ShadySue

cathyslife

grafix04

grafix04

ShadySue

cathyslife

grafix04

grafix04

ShadySue

ShadySue

Tabimura

lisafx

cathyslife

cathyslife

grafix04

antistock

ShadySue

pancaketom

lisafx

ShadySue

michaeldb

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors