Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 60825 times)

antistock · « **Reply #75 on:** May 10, 2012, 06:11 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on May 10, 2012, 04:14

On top of that at some point they will start earning money off it by monitizing the traffic which is driven by our content, and they ain't going to share a penny of it with us.

and that's exactly their plan.
not only advertising but also premium subscriptions, printing services and merchandising, same as Flickr and many others.

cathyslife · « **Reply #76 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:07 »

Quote from: antistock on May 09, 2012, 22:55

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:44
Quote from: cardmaverick on May 09, 2012, 11:36
So who forced the content providers to put their stuff out in a public venue where they can freely be taken?
If something is in public and you weren't forced to put it there it can be freely taken? Interesting principle, now where do you park your car?

exactly.
i heard this lame excuse a million times.

even Photoshop CS6 can be downloaded in a couple clicks from Pirate Bay but it doesnt mean it's legal or Adobe's fault.
it's still just theft, pure and simple.

It continues to amaze me how some people can justify stealing, then blame it on the contributor for putting it on the internet.

Karimala · « **Reply #77 on:** May 10, 2012, 07:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 09, 2012, 15:23

Quote from: PhotoPhan on May 09, 2012, 11:55
In this business you need to seriously pick your battles. The occasional image theft is going to happen, and it's inevitable. Like Karimala said, use DMCA claims when you find them.
As DMCA is an US law, how does it work if one, two or all of these apply:
1. The artist is not American.
2. The source the image was stolen from is not American (e.g. a non-Amerian agency, with watermark, a non-American website if you could find out where it was lifted from.
3. The unauthorised user/website is not in the US.

I note that, according to Wikipedia, "On May 22, 2001, the European Union passed the Copyright Directive or EUCD, which addresses some of the same issues as the DMCA"
But again, the same issue as above can apply, or could be crossed, i.e. someone could be from the EU, the offending site might be American but the source of the image might be e.g. HQd in Canada.

(In fact, I guess many pinterest users are just ignorant, and would take your image down if requested pleasantly; it's the others that would be the issue.)

I don't know how the laws work regarding websites outside the US, but I do know that due to international agreements, artists outside the US are covered by US copyright law and can use the DMCA take down notice against US-based websites. Foreign artists can also sue for copyright infringement in US courts against US-based companies and actually have better copyright protections than US citizens (we have to actually register our images in order to obtain full protection; foreign citizens do not have to register their images).

I have also seen non-US websites post DMCA take down notice instructions.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #78 on:** May 10, 2012, 09:29 »

Quote from: bhr on May 10, 2012, 04:45

In the full version of the interview with Jonathan Klein which I posted on its own thread here he talks about how the music industry, after failing to embrace inevitable change, ended up "doing something which was unspeakable" when "they sued their fans and customers".

And it worked. It scared the heck out of people and encouraged them to use legitimate sources, like iTunes, and all the other new ways that are legal.

click_click · « **Reply #79 on:** May 10, 2012, 10:17 »

I'm still sticking with my comparison to Megaupload and the likes.

All these shady, copyright-ignoring web sites just want one thing - traffic. Traffic means a lot of clicks on ads.

It has nothing to do with the actual content. The more violation happens the more traffic will come, that's just inevitable.

Since huge masses of content cannot be reviewed and checked for proper usage Pinterest (as all other shady web sites) leave the policing of the site up to the users and or the copyright holders (who create more traffic, just by checking for infringements).

It's a nasty, twisted and wrong way to create a "social" site when all that matters is $$$ and not the quality, safety and legitimate use of content.

They're just being hypocrites.

bunhill · « **Reply #80 on:** May 10, 2012, 10:31 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2012, 09:29

And it worked. It scared the heck out of people and encouraged them to use legitimate sources, like iTunes, and all the other new ways that are legal.

With respect, it didn't really work. The music industry wasted years on shutting down Napster and similar and going after the users which also ultimately made them look evil and backwards. They could have owned the download market and much earlier by working to give people what they wanted.

iTunes came along later - Apple, who ultimately helped rescue the music industry, had to more or less tell them how things were going to be. (And sooner or later that will come back to bite the labels since they will ultimately probably be completely disintermediated.)

helix7 · « **Reply #81 on:** May 10, 2012, 11:31 »

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 10:17

I'm still sticking with my comparison to Megaupload and the likes.

All these shady, copyright-ignoring web sites just want one thing - traffic. Traffic means a lot of clicks on ads...

Aren't those sites far worse than Pinterest? Sites like Hero Turko, the countless copycat blogs, indie blogs that actually sell our content. Where's all of the outrage over those? Sites like that are pulling in huge money from advertising.

I went after an indie site a few years back. The guy was running ads via BuySellAds and based on his publicly listed prices and number of ads running at the time, I estimated he was making about $50k per year just from ads. On top of that he was packaging stock images and selling packs of photos, vectors, backgrounds, etc. And not 600px stuff. Full-res photos, editable vectors. AND selling memberships/subscriptions to the site to download unlimited items.

THAT kind of site is something I'll get upset about. Pinterest? It's harmless by comparison to these Megaupload and HT type of sites.

And yet they barely get talked about here. No one is writing articles about those sites.

click_click · « **Reply #82 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:02 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2012, 11:31

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 10:17
I'm still sticking with my comparison to Megaupload and the likes.

All these shady, copyright-ignoring web sites just want one thing - traffic. Traffic means a lot of clicks on ads...

Aren't those sites far worse than Pinterest? Sites like Hero Turko, the countless copycat blogs, indie blogs that actually sell our content. Where's all of the outrage over those? Sites like that are pulling in huge money from advertising.

HeroTurko is not a file hoster. Heroturko is just one piece of the puzzle yes, but they don't copy files like Pinterest does!

Funnily HeroTurko (and the likes) actually name the copyright owner - Pinterest doesn't!

Quote

I went after an indie site a few years back.

Sorry for my ignorance, what is an "indie" site?

Quote

The guy was running ads via BuySellAds and based on his publicly listed prices and number of ads running at the time, I estimated he was making about $50k per year just from ads. On top of that he was packaging stock images and selling packs of photos, vectors, backgrounds, etc. And not 600px stuff. Full-res photos, editable vectors. AND selling memberships/subscriptions to the site to download unlimited items.

THAT kind of site is something I'll get upset about.

Yeah, that's also nasty and wrong.

Quote

Pinterest? It's harmless by comparison to these Megaupload and HT type of sites.

And yet they barely get talked about here. No one is writing articles about those sites.

We talk about those sites here regularly in the Image Sleuth section. It's (sadly) become a somewhat tolerated nuisance and if I ever find my stuff I do what I have to do.

No more need to complain anymore if we already did extensively here on the forums...

helix7 · « **Reply #83 on:** May 10, 2012, 12:50 »

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 12:02

HeroTurko is not a file hoster. Heroturko is just one piece of the puzzle yes, but they don't copy files like Pinterest does!

So Pinterest copies a 600px image, sometimes watermarked, onto their servers, and that's worse than HT linking to entire archives of high-res unwatermarked images, just because HT links off site using 3rd party file hosting services?

I completely fail to understand this logic.

click_click · « **Reply #84 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:14 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 10, 2012, 12:50

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 12:02
HeroTurko is not a file hoster. Heroturko is just one piece of the puzzle yes, but they don't copy files like Pinterest does!

So Pinterest copies a 600px image, sometimes watermarked, onto their servers, and that's worse than HT linking to entire archives of high-res unwatermarked images, just because HT links off site using 3rd party file hosting services?

I completely fail to understand this logic.

1. I never said Pinterest is worse. I said they act "like" the file hosters.

2. A file hoster (Megaupload etc.) on its own is a perfectly legal business. The problem is/are the user/s uploading content that they don't own the rights to. Pinterest is also acting as a file (image) hoster since they copy the files (that they don't own the rights for) to their servers.

Pinterest on the other hand is blatantly copying content to their servers. That's like a thief walking into a supermarket announcing that they just stole a pack of chewing gum (for the sake of matching your remark about "just" copying 600 pixel images...).

3. Copyright infringement is not dependent on resolution. If any of my images gets nicked, I do NOT care whether it's high or low res. Either way it is copyright infringement.
Therefore I don't understand your logic.

click_click · « **Reply #85 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:17 »

And it's not Pinterest that publishes any watermarked images (if that makes matters less bad in your opinion) it's the users who do that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #86 on:** May 10, 2012, 13:55 »

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 13:14

Pinterest on the other hand is blatantly copying content to their servers.

And actively, through their "tools" encouraging further redistribution and misuse.

click_click · « **Reply #87 on:** May 10, 2012, 14:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 10, 2012, 13:55

Quote from: click_click on May 10, 2012, 13:14
Pinterest on the other hand is blatantly copying content to their servers.

And actively, through their "tools" encouraging further redistribution and misuse.

Hence my comparison with the file hosters. They need clicks, get them through illegal content and only act in response to copyright claims.

Nice business model.

Apparently this is the way to make money fast these days.

As long as it's written in the terms that contributors are (obviously) not allowed to upload content that they don't own the rights to, everything is just fine and dandy.

It's really schizophrenic.

michaeldb · « **Reply #88 on:** May 10, 2012, 16:20 »

Technical and legal details aside, the bottom line is:
The business model of sites like Pinterest is to use the content of creatives to make a lot of money and pay the creatives nothing.

A movement - powered by forces with a lot of money to spend (money made by using the content of creatives and not paying for it) - is out to destroy intellectual property rights. If that movement succeeds, we creatives won't get paid anymore.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #89 on:** May 10, 2012, 21:09 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on May 10, 2012, 04:14

That is exactly why I don't agree with Pininterest and similars - they aid in devaluing my work by spreading it around, making it less controllable, less exclusive etc. On top of that at some point they will start earning money off it by monitizing the traffic which is driven by our content, and they ain't going to share a penny of it with us.

You could always find a way to monetize something like Pinterest. From what I understand, online stores are the one really making any money off it since it's overwhelmingly a place to pin photos from online clothing sites, etc... I've never EVER associated Pinterest with photography, just womens crafts and fashion.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #90 on:** May 10, 2012, 21:12 »

Quote from: antistock on May 10, 2012, 05:58

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 10, 2012, 01:37
Seriously - you can't reliably sell something that can't reliably be controlled. Why do you think Adobe is migrating all of its programs to an online hosted subscription model?

Because they can actually control them there. That's why. Give it 5-10 years and it will be very rare to find locally installed Adobe programs I guarantee it.

you mean doing something like the games sold on Steam for instance and needing an authentication in a remote server to play or run the app ?
yes, it's called SaS (software as a service), which is the oldest way of computing by the way, the oldest mainframe were run on a "time share" basis or "flat rates" for instance... Bill Gates and Paul Allen were coding on terminals connected to DECs paying by the hour in the '70s.

problem is, i'm still skeptic about applying this logic to apps like Photoshop or Lightroom and i'm in good company.
if they want to kill the whole concept of offline desktop applications they better think twice before making bold moves.

one thing is stuff like Evernote, another whole thing is Photoshop, and imagine being stuck with Lightroom with no web connection and no way to run the program or save your photos ... !

5-10 yrs for the death of the desktop ? yeah but only for things like email, IM, social networks, browsing, bookmarking, sharing, and small stuff, not certainly for Autocad, Photoshop, 3D Studio .... now everybody is hiping about Cloud computing but it's a fad unless you're into storage, for the desktop user is still no big deal, and yet again it's a concept 40 yrs old so what the F.. is the fuss all about ? you call it cloud i call it grid or cluster or just datacenter with virtualization ...

It might not be popular, but I can see this still happening anyways. You'll get a bargain to stay online, pay a huge premium to put it on your local machine. There is also the unique twist of eventual remote super computing for graphics pros. Imagine editing 4K video in Premier on you tablet sitting at a park bench while a super computer in Japan does all the heavy lifting. I'd pay for that!

cardmaverick · « **Reply #91 on:** May 10, 2012, 21:14 »

Quote from: michaeldb on May 10, 2012, 16:20

Technical and legal details aside, the bottom line is:
The business model of sites like Pinterest is to use the content of creatives to make a lot of money and pay the creatives nothing.

A movement - powered by forces with a lot of money to spend (money made by using the content of creatives and not paying for it) - is out to destroy intellectual property rights. If that movement succeeds, we creatives won't get paid anymore.

I think it's more like this - we all go back to shooting assignments and only the very best shooters can make a living doing that. I think it's much harder to be a successful assignment shooter than a stock shooter, there is simply way more to the whole process. Dealing with the client is the biggest difference, you can do whatever you like in stock and not really have to deal with others opinions and demands.

antistock · « **Reply #92 on:** May 11, 2012, 01:33 »

Quote from: bhr on May 10, 2012, 10:31

which also ultimately made them look evil and backwards.

oh well that's another freetards' myth !

how can it be evil and backward to make a product and sell it for a profit ?
but no, the freetards want free music, free movies, free photos, free news, free books, free software, free games, and finally free beer and free puss-y as well.

now, go in your local pub and ask for a free bar and see the answer...

antistock · « **Reply #93 on:** May 11, 2012, 02:10 »

Quote from: michaeldb on May 10, 2012, 16:20

If that movement succeeds, we creatives won't get paid anymore.

it's also already happening in the real world.
i heard of freelance journalists getting paid 20-30 euro for a 600 words article for national newspapers in europe.

but back to the freetard movement : it won't last long the way it is now as it will finally kill itself, don't you see the actual trend is already about recycling and remixing stolen content and yet they make no sustainable profits from all this ?

the days where they could get 1$ per click on advertising are long gone, it will be soon game over for many of these leechers not to mention it's getting harder and harder to get traffic nowadays unless you buy links and you buy advertising.

even facebook admitted they're scared about users migrating to mobile phones and tablet as this could kill their advertising revenue.
at the moment, if their data is to be believed, they're doing a 20% net gain on investment as they're based in Delaware, if they were based in europe their meager profit would be swallowed by taxes and higher costs ... but since they're operating in europe before or later they will have to pay for that, not just in ireland as they're doing now, that's another factor that could soon kill these scroungers and i really hope so.

facebook, twitter, pinterest, flickr, i dream about a big bonfire of all them.

antistock · « **Reply #94 on:** May 11, 2012, 02:19 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 10, 2012, 21:12

It might not be popular, but I can see this still happening anyways. You'll get a bargain to stay online, pay a huge premium to put it on your local machine. There is also the unique twist of eventual remote super computing for graphics pros. Imagine editing 4K video in Premier on you tablet sitting at a park bench while a super computer in Japan does all the heavy lifting. I'd pay for that!

hahaha you must be a high-tech enthusiast.
problem is, tablets and phones and PDAs will never ever be a professional tool to make products.

photoshop on a tablet ? no thanks, and dont worry it's not gonna emulate a Wacom Tablet too.
i'm not saying it's not doable, it's already doable since a long time actually, i'm saying nobody will seriously use these things for DTP and photography.

Tablets are still a solution waiting for a problem, fact ! there's all this hype about it but what exactly you can do that you can't already do with a netbook or an ultrabook ?

editing photos in touch-screen ? are you joking ??

cathyslife · « **Reply #95 on:** May 11, 2012, 07:36 »

Quote from: antistock on May 11, 2012, 02:10

facebook, twitter, pinterest, flickr, i dream about a big bonfire of all them.

I'm with you on that.

bunhill · « **Reply #96 on:** May 11, 2012, 08:15 »

Quote from: antistock on May 11, 2012, 01:33

Quote from: bhr on May 10, 2012, 10:31
which also ultimately made them look evil and backwards.

oh well that's another freetards' myth !

how can it be evil and backward to make a product and sell it for a profit ?
but no, the freetards want free music, free movies, free photos, free news, free books, free software, free games, and finally free beer and free puss-y as well.

now, go in your local pub and ask for a free bar and see the answer...

Most people are not asking for free content. If you provide a mechanism which enables people to pay for how they want to use content then in many, probably most, cases they will. If you fail to be ahead of the curve on that then you are going to find it difficult to get people to pay for what they have become used to getting for free. This is why it is important that the industry works with rather than against sites like Pinterest which have their own momentum.

You are missing the point wrt the music industry which failed in the first instance to keep up to date with actually behavior and use - they failed to provide a mechanism for people to legally download music. They could have owned and monetized Napster instead of spending years in court. The consequence is that Apple now tells them what to do.

If something has its own inevitability because it is a strong idea (eg PInterest) then it is daft to fight it. You have to find ways to incorporate it.

Did you also once oppose microstock btw ?

michaeldb · « **Reply #97 on:** May 11, 2012, 12:42 »

Quote from: bhr on May 11, 2012, 08:15

...Did you also once oppose microstock btw ?

While we will all never agree on whether or not microstock pays us enough, the basic truth is that microstock is a way to pay creatives. Pinterest is a way to make money from the work of creatives and pay them nothing.

Microstock pays many millions each year to creatives (in 2005, I had never made a dime from making images, now I earn enough from microstock to live on). The only one who will get paid by Printerest is Printerest. It will publish our work and keep the revenues earned for itself.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #98 on:** May 11, 2012, 12:46 »

Quote from: bhr on May 11, 2012, 08:15

Most people are not asking for free content. If you provide a mechanism which enables people to pay for how they want to use content then in many, probably most, cases they will.

The mechanism is there. It's called "go-to-an-online-site-and-license-an-image".

traveler1116 · « **Reply #99 on:** May 17, 2012, 09:20 »

Pinterest gets $100 Million.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18104463

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 60825 times)

antistock

cathyslife

Karimala

Sean Locke Photography

click_click

bunhill

helix7

click_click

helix7

click_click

click_click

Sean Locke Photography

click_click

michaeldb

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

antistock

antistock

antistock

cathyslife

bunhill

michaeldb

Sean Locke Photography

traveler1116

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors