pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Pinterest anyone?  (Read 34381 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2012, 07:30 »
0
you can't be really certain that one designer didn't actually use it on all the sites, you're essentially giving your images away, because once someone has used it, anyone else can just right-click and save it 'easily'.

You're missing the point that by uploading to Pinterest, people are declaring rights that they don't have and are permitting further sharing that they aren't allowed to, by methods like their easy "embed this on YOUR page" code on every image.  It isn't about "giving the image away".


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2012, 07:43 »
0
Yeah, I've never actually used the site, and only visited it once when I saw that one of my Flickr pics was there.

I don't know how many people actually read terms and conditions [1], and most people think that anything on the web is free to use and share any way they like. Doesn't make it right, of course.

[1] e.g. I have around a hundred editorial in-uses of iStock files (mostly not actual 'editorial' files) which do not have any attribution, whereas iStock's terms require the credit "iStockphoto/contributor" on files being used editorially.

helix7

« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2012, 11:50 »
0
...Why do they get traffic? Because of our images which are used without our permission, copied to their severs and stripped of metadata...

Just so you know, lots of stock agencies strip meta data out of images as well. Are you petitioning companies like Shutterstock to leave meta data in images?

ShadySue

« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2012, 12:27 »
0
Just so you know, lots of stock agencies strip meta data out of images as well. Are you petitioning companies like Shutterstock to leave meta data in images?
That's something that totally baffles me, but whenever I've brought it up, I've never had any response as to why they do it, or whether we should be concerned. I think we should be concerned, as it gives a gift to the world of an orphan file. (I know a thief could remove them, but if, as mentioned above, some users don't know how to use HTML properly, and most of that cohort probably don't know how to remove EXIF).

graficallyminded

« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2012, 12:27 »
0
Maybe some of you guys missed the memo, about a month or so ago.  Their terms have been updated, due to much controversy.

Quote
Updated Terms of Service

Over the last few weeks, we've been working on an update to our Terms. When we first launched Pinterest, we used a standard set of Terms. We think that the updated Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy are easier to understand and better reflect the direction our company is headed in the future. We'd encourage you to read these changes in their entirety, but we thought there were a few changes worth noting.

   Our original Terms stated that by posting content to Pinterest you grant Pinterest the right for to sell your content. Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms.

   We updated our Acceptable Use Policy and we will not allow pins that explicitly encourage self-harm or self-abuse.

    We released simpler tools for anyone to report alleged copyright or trademark infringements.

    Finally, we added language that will pave the way for new features such as a Pinterest API and Private Pinboards.


We think these changes are important and we encourage you to review the new documents here. These terms will go into effect for all users on April 6, 2012.

Like everything at Pinterest, these updates are a work in progress that we will continue to improve upon. We're working hard to make Pinterest the best place for you to find inspiration from people who share your interest. We've gotten a lot of help from our community as we've crafted these Terms http://pinterest.com/about/terms/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pinterest.com

Thanks!

Ben & the Pinterest Team


It's not the devil... it's a great promotional tool.  Use it or don't.  It's your decision.  If you have images unwatermarked on Flickr, you're crazy if you don't think they're going to be found and hotlinked elsewhere on the web - so watermark the snot out of them, or regret not doing so later.  It's like listing iphones on ebay for .99 cents and not expecting to get bids.

« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2012, 13:26 »
0
Maybe some of you guys missed the memo, about a month or so ago.  Their terms have been updated, due to much controversy.


The change to terms makes essentially no difference.

http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/

ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2012, 13:31 »
0

It's not the devil... it's a great promotional tool.  Use it or don't.  It's your decision.  If you have images unwatermarked on Flickr, you're crazy if you don't think they're going to be found and hotlinked elsewhere on the web - so watermark the snot out of them, or regret not doing so later.  It's like listing iphones on ebay for .99 cents and not expecting to get bids.
The issue is not Flickr, it's our legitimately bought images from stock agencies, which of course don't have watermarks so can easily be disseminated in various ways, pinterest being but one.
As noted above, the agencies don't help us by stripping out our EXIF details.

antistock

« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2012, 14:09 »
0
Maybe some of you guys missed the memo, about a month or so ago.  Their terms have been updated, due to much controversy.


The change to terms makes essentially no difference.

http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/


exactly.
their TOS is still bullsh-it and has never been tried in any court as it's meaningless as long as it can't override the international IP and copyright laws, as simple as that.

what is scaring me is that even multibillion corporations like Viacom are still struggling to sue Youtube.
i mean, are we living in a legal system or in the wild west ? youtube, flickr, pinterest, google images, yahoo images, are all openly robbing copyrighted materials and making money off our work and to add insult to injury they pretend to be fully legal and defenders of free speech, freedom, etc  !

just about any possible song i can remember, even old and obscure ones, are available for free on youtube.
same for trillions of images on flickr and google images and now we've also pinterest, facebook, and twitter pics ..

when it will ever stop ?
let's face it, 99% of the whole internet is probably made of stolen text and images and the leaders in piracy are exactly the leading web companies like google, yahoo, and facebook.

i'm so fu-cking sick of all this.

« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2012, 14:56 »
0
It's not the devil... it's a great promotional tool.  Use it or don't.  It's your decision.  If you have images unwatermarked on Flickr, you're crazy if you don't think they're going to be found and hotlinked elsewhere on the web - so watermark the snot out of them, or regret not doing so later.  It's like listing iphones on ebay for .99 cents and not expecting to get bids.

I choose NOT to use it and I also choose to NOT have my copyrighted images "pinned" so that others may freely download and use. Watermarked images used on websites are STILL copyright infringement, and as the copyright owner, I should have a choice to decide who gets to use my images and for what price.

For the bolded text...no, not a good analogy. My watermarked images appear on agencies selling my work for money. Anyone using the watermarked image is stealing, period. I didn't put the images on the agencies to be stolen...someone else has freely decided that that's OK for them to do AND IT IS NOT.

As far as people buying a license to use my photo, WHATEVER the price...there are no licenses which allow for redistribution. Doing so is copyright infringment.

So either way, watermarked or unwatermarked, "pinning" images and allowing their redistribution is copyright infringement. Doesn't matter if its a great promotional tool or not, it's still illegal. And anyone who chooses to use this "great promotional tool" is contributing to piracy.

helix7

« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2012, 20:45 »
0
...And anyone who chooses to use this "great promotional tool" is contributing to piracy.

Well let's be fair. You can use Pinterest by pinning your own images or Creative Commons images and not be stepping on any copyright issues.

Sure that would dramatically reduce the usefulness of the site. But not everyone on Pinterest is a copyright violator. In fact, as it relates to photographers, many people only pin their own images.

« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2012, 20:55 »
0
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal.  All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites).  Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement.  Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages.

You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html  

traveler1116

« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2012, 21:14 »
0
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal.  All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites).  Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement.  Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages.

You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html  

So you don't mind your images on pinterest?  
your image: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005
your image pinned: http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/
your image stored by pinterest: http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 21:31 by traveler1116 »

Batman

« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2012, 21:21 »
0
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal.  All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites).  Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement.  Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages.

You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html  

So you don't mind your images on pinterest?  http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/


Wut? PHOTO CREDIT: THE NATIONAL HOT DOG AND SAUSAGE COUNCIL

« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2012, 22:37 »
0
Contrary to popular belief, Pinterest and all of the companies mentioned in this thread aren't doing anything illegal.  All of them are registered with the US Copyright Office as protected service providers (just like the majority of the stock sites).  Registered service providers, like Pinterest, Google, Shutterstock and Youtube are protected from being sued for copyright infringement.  Unregistered service providers, like PhotoDune, are not protected from lawsuits, so if someone uploads one of your photos to PhotoDune, you have the right to sue both the uploader and PhotoDune for damages.

You can see which companies are registered with the US Copyright Office, and thereby protected and legal, here: http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html  

So you don't mind your images on pinterest?  
your image: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005
your image pinned: http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/
your image stored by pinterest: http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg


My post wasn't about my personal opinions.  Just stating the facts, so folks know Pinterest is acting well within their legal rights.

I don't have a problem with my images being passed around on Pinterest, because I also post my own work with the intention of it getting into the hands of other people.  If I find something of mine that I didn't post, I can either send a DMCA takedown notice or I can comment on it with a link to the image at a stock site or if I like the post, I can repin it myself and brag a little about being the photographer (while including a link to the photo on a stock site)...which is what I did with the one you posted.   :P  I just try to take some control of the situation instead of worrying about something I can't do anything about. 

antistock

« Reply #39 on: May 07, 2012, 23:23 »
0
I don't have a problem with my images being passed around on Pinterest,

hmm ..yeah ... the good old "if you can't beat them, join them" ?? :?

CarlssonInc

« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2012, 01:05 »
0
I just don't understand that quite a few people in this thread are fine with having their work being used without permission, without consent, without payment. Is this an amateur/professional issue? How can one be in involved in stock, majority of us this forum complaining about low fees, slow sales and be ok with this?

I need to feed my family, only way to do that is to get paid usage of my images. Doesn't matter if the use is quite personal/limited/small size or whatever - if you want to use them pay up, especially as there are so many cheap alternatives - there are no excuses, it is theft and Pininterest (and others) are aiding the stealing and the de-valuing of our work.

Hopefully technology will catch up (ImageRights, Tineye etc.) to catch infringements despite missing metadata, alterations etc.

This doesn't take away that I can see the charm of Pininterest, but at this very moment in time it is based without any real regard for seeking permission first or licensing the content.

« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2012, 04:45 »
0
I don't stress about Pinterest-type usages, because I'm confident technology will eventually catch up to our concerns.  I've already read about technology in development that would track photos online and any time someone new used one, small sums of money would be deleted from an account they have set up and deposited in ours.  Something like that...it's been a while since I read the article.   

The only way the law will ever catch up is if we demand it.  I'd really like to see right-click saving permanently banned, and if that can't happen, then let there be fines imposed on companies that strip metadata from the easily stolen thumbnails and preview images.  Quirks in the stripped metadata law recently prevented my attorneys and me from filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.  Dreamstime is quoted on Microstock Diaries as saying they strip the metadata, because it's the industry standard to do so in order to save bandwidth and storage space...a practice that was once critical when we still only had 2 MB hard drives, etc., but is no longer important in most parts of the developed world.  I'm much more concerned about that than someone pinning my photos to Pinterest just because they wanted to save a recipe for later or remember where certain beautiful spots along the Oregon Coast are located for when planning their next vacation.  Those types of personal usages don't concern me.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2012, 04:58 »
0
I don't stress about Pinterest-type usages, because I'm confident technology will eventually catch up to our concerns.  I've already read about technology in development that would track photos online and any time someone new used one, small sums of money would be deleted from an account they have set up and deposited in ours.  Something like that...it's been a while since I read the article.  

The only way the law will ever catch up is if we demand it.  I'd really like to see right-click saving permanently banned, and if that can't happen, then let there be fines imposed on companies that strip metadata from the easily stolen thumbnails and preview images.  Quirks in the stripped metadata law recently prevented my attorneys and me from filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.  Dreamstime is quoted on Microstock Diaries as saying they strip the metadata, because it's the industry standard to do so in order to save bandwidth and storage space...a practice that was once critical when we still only had 2 MB hard drives, etc., but is no longer important in most parts of the developed world.  I'm much more concerned about that than someone pinning my photos to Pinterest just because they wanted to save a recipe for later or remember where certain beautiful spots along the Oregon Coast are located for when planning their next vacation.  Those types of personal usages don't concern me.

I think you fail to see Pininterest's (and others) role in the chain which leads to stripped of metadata readily-available high-res images becoming copied, re-copied etc. You need to plug the big holes to stem the flood.

It isn't all nicey nicey recipes and gardening for housewifes in Kentucky - copyright infringements are illegal, that's it. Aiding it should be too. I don't want Pininterest or anyone else having/using a copy of my images without me having agreed (and paid) for it - I don't care who it is, how nice they are or how innocent, sweet, good-hearted their use is. It is my work, I choose who can use it, or who I appoint to license it on my behalf, but I don't want it used in any shape or form without my agreement.

Accepting some "illegal" uses due to their personal nature is like saying that taking a few sweets from the Pic 'n Mix is ok, it isn't. Pininterest whole set-up is really only working with the mindset of "pin first, don't ask any questions".
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 05:00 by CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production »

helix7

« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2012, 08:00 »
0
...I think you fail to see Pininterest's (and others) role in the chain which leads to stripped of metadata readily-available high-res images becoming copied, re-copied etc. You need to plug the big holes to stem the flood...

Where is this happening? Where are all of the high-res images being shared on Pinterest?

I don't get these alarmist views about Pinterest. The meta data issue is pointless. The very agencies we sell with sometimes strip out meta data, SS included. And I haven't seen high-res stock images being shared. I'm sure it happens, but not in any noticeable way.

Of all the ways our images can be shared without permission, Pinterest to me seems the most harmless. Where's all the outrage over Hero Turko and similar sites that are set up with the sole purpose of sharing high-res stock images (among other things)? Where are all the blog posts and articles about HT? Threads here about HT barely get a few responses, but mention Pinterest and all hell breaks loose. I don't get it.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2012, 08:02 by helix7 »

CarlssonInc

« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2012, 08:23 »
0
...I think you fail to see Pininterest's (and others) role in the chain which leads to stripped of metadata readily-available high-res images becoming copied, re-copied etc. You need to plug the big holes to stem the flood...

Where is this happening? Where are all of the high-res images being shared on Pinterest?

I don't get these alarmist views about Pinterest. The meta data issue is pointless. The very agencies we sell with sometimes strip out meta data, SS included. And I haven't seen high-res stock images being shared. I'm sure it happens, but not in any noticeable way.

Of all the ways our images can be shared without permission, Pinterest to me seems the most harmless. Where's all the outrage over Hero Turko and similar sites that are set up with the sole purpose of sharing high-res stock images (among other things)? Where are all the blog posts and articles about HT? Threads here about HT barely get a few responses, but mention Pinterest and all hell breaks loose. I don't get it.

There is no harmless theft, no matter who does it or why - theft is theft. You might be ok with it, but for us who aren't there isn't an option to not partake, there is no regard for those who don't think this is ok.

« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2012, 08:45 »
0
Where is this happening? Where are all of the high-res images being shared on Pinterest?

I don't get these alarmist views about Pinterest. The meta data issue is pointless. The very agencies we sell with sometimes strip out meta data, SS included. And I haven't seen high-res stock images being shared. I'm sure it happens, but not in any noticeable way.

Of all the ways our images can be shared without permission, Pinterest to me seems the most harmless. Where's all the outrage over Hero Turko and similar sites that are set up with the sole purpose of sharing high-res stock images (among other things)? Where are all the blog posts and articles about HT? Threads here about HT barely get a few responses, but mention Pinterest and all hell breaks loose. I don't get it.


If you read my article: http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/ , you'd find that anything uploaded from your computer is stored at full resolution.  You could upload stolen images all day and create a free wallpaper pinboard.  And the 600x600 image from a web-pinned image is certainly big enough for use, and that's easy using the embed code on every page, even for the stupidest Pinterest user.

antistock

« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2012, 01:07 »
0
If you read my article: http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/ , you'd find that anything uploaded from your computer is stored at full resolution.  You could upload stolen images all day and create a free wallpaper pinboard.  And the 600x600 image from a web-pinned image is certainly big enough for use, and that's easy using the embed code on every page, even for the stupidest Pinterest user.


exactly, 600px is more than good enough for the average "web use" but these rascals claim these are just thumbnails !

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2012, 03:24 »
0
If you read my article: http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/ , you'd find that anything uploaded from your computer is stored at full resolution.  You could upload stolen images all day and create a free wallpaper pinboard.  And the 600x600 image from a web-pinned image is certainly big enough for use, and that's easy using the embed code on every page, even for the stupidest Pinterest user.


exactly, 600px is more than good enough for the average "web use" but these rascals claim these are just thumbnails !


Contributors talk about getting a ton of XS sales which using IS as an example is around 400 x 300. So whether it's high resolution or not doesn't matter. Even the smallest of images is usable especially as a thumbnail or for blogs.


« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2012, 06:32 »
0
Since it is relevant - here again is the part of the recent interview with Jonathan Klein of Getty Images in which he gives their view on Pinterest etc. It seems a very balanced and erudite perspective. (appx 4 mins)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0mSYjL44n0[/youtube]


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3303 Views
Last post July 01, 2012, 05:28
by cathyslife
50 Replies
15071 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 18:33
by lisafx
2 Replies
1222 Views
Last post December 06, 2012, 05:56
by leaf
10 Replies
2973 Views
Last post October 26, 2013, 21:21
by Uncle Pete
20 Replies
4864 Views
Last post April 21, 2014, 15:41
by bunhill

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results