MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Off Topic => Topic started by: gubh83 on May 06, 2012, 10:28
-
Hi! I've been using pinterest for a while now and I'm loving it. Great source of inspiration and great way to share images we love.
Anyone there?
Mine : http://pinterest.com/gubh83/ (http://pinterest.com/gubh83/)
-
So which of your "pins" do you not hold copyright to, to be able to reproduce and redistribute like Pinterest allows you to?
-
Pinterest = p(a)in the butt and should be avoided at all costs! Hopefully won't be long before they are shut down.
-
Pinterest = p(a)in the butt and should be avoided at all costs! Hopefully won't be long before they are shut down.
can you elaborate? i joined awhile ago based on several positive reviews, but have never gotten around to actually doing anything there
-
I am struggling to see the point of this site. I've heard a lot of buzz about it and I have been invited to join but I haven't spent any time in there. I'm told that my images are floating around in there. I'm not sure how they got there nor am I sure how I feel about this.
-
Here you go.
http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/01/26/pinterest-com-and-copyright/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/01/26/pinterest-com-and-copyright/)
-
Here you go.
[url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/01/26/pinterest-com-and-copyright/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/01/26/pinterest-com-and-copyright/[/url])
Nice read, thanks Sean.
Pinterest acts the same way as Megaupload.
The web site owners claim that everything is in order as long as their members adhere to the laws. But providing a platform such as Pinterest (and the fact that the content is copied to their servers) will inevitably motivate people to share stuff that they don't have the rights for.
Naturally, Pinterest would be out of business by the end of next week if they wouldn't copy the images to their servers as through hot-linking (which may be disabled in the first place for some images) domain name, directories and file names change or will be removed in the future. Therefore Pinterest wants to provide a stable and "complete" library.
Highly questionable whether they can get away with this for a long time. Class action lawsuits or at least some big guns like Getty will put them in their place eventually.
I also don't understand the point of Pinterest... Maybe I'm too old for that stuff ???
-
I also don't understand the point of Pinterest... Maybe I'm too old for that stuff ???
I don't use it, but an example I've read is to keep clips as inspiration for home decorating, so any time you see something you might like, you pin it, then you have everything in one place. I'd guess paint, furniture, carpet, etc companies are happy for their images to be collected like this. It's probably a bit easier than saving out all the pics to a folder on your hard drive.
Or if you were researching before going shopping, you could pin all the things you wanted to buy and access them on a mobile device (oh, get me, I sound as though I've joined the 21st century)
I'd think you could collaborate on some sort of project in the same way, e.g. planning a trip, and you could then share ideas online with the people you'll be travelling with.
In that way, it seems like a far more useful system than FB or especially twitter. But like I said, I've never used it, and all the copyright issues noted.
OTOH, look how easy browsers make it just to copy and share images whenever you like.
-
So why am I using the Bookmark function of my browser then???
Did they reinvent the wheel and published something, nobody really needed but now "everyone" because it's hip?
-
I'm not taking sides but..... if I were to cu tan image out of a magazine and pin it up in my home on a pinboard, am I infringing copyright? effectively this is just people collecting and sharing beautiful imagery on a pinboard that is digital, they aren't using images to sell anything, or trying to steal images. We aren't losing any money, because the pinners aren't in the market to buy images. If the site is shut down then that'll be it, we won't suddenly find these people buying our images.
I concede that it's a great place to steal images, but then google image search also is pretty handy for that. There are a lot of watermarked images on the site too, which is actually a form of advertising for your image and the stock site it's been "borrowed" from.
I admit I struggle to see the point of it {pinterest}. Although I have for years collected images in a visual diary, which I have both stuck on my wall and as a folder in Bridge, so I can see its use as a great source of inspiration. i used it briefly last year but I don't often go back to it. Like twitter, I just don't get it. Some ppl have too much time on their hands!
-
no, actually I think its just like FB but without the chit-chat, basically its a waste of time but we do need to have fun too
-
Pinterest acts the same way as Megaupload.
The web site owners claim that everything is in order as long as their members adhere to the laws. But providing a platform such as Pinterest (and the fact that the content is copied to their servers) will inevitably motivate people to share stuff that they don't have the rights for...
It's not at all in the same realm as Megaupload. Sure Pinterest is a similar platform, where they're the neutral ground connecting people who want to share stuff with people who want to get it for free. But the big difference that gets overlooked in photography and various other forms of imagery is that there is no widespread illegal redistribution of content happening.
In various conversations/discussions about Pinterest where fears of images being freely and illegally shared are expressed, I have yet to see any evidence that any significant numbers of usable images are being shared in such a way. I haven't found high-res or vector versions of any of my stuff on there, nor have I seen more than 1 case of a high-res image being shared. Most of the time it's low-res stuff or in the case of stock, watermarked images.
I don't see how Pinterest is a threat to a dime of my money. Unless that changes, I don't see the harm in it.
However one way in which I've seen Pinterest impact photographers' earnings is in the case of wedding photographers. Some wedding shooters have claimed to have booked jobs due to exposure on Pinterest. In some cases, multiple jobs.
-
"I'm not taking sides but..... if I were to cu tan image out of a magazine and pin it up in my home on a pinboard, am I infringing copyright? effectively this is just people collecting and sharing beautiful imagery on a pinboard that is digital, they aren't using images to sell anything, or trying to steal images. We aren't losing any money, because the pinners aren't in the market to buy images. If the site is shut down then that'll be it, we won't suddenly find these people buying our images."
Sorry, this is the kind of nonsense I read over and over.
A: by buying a magazine, you are allowed to modify its physical appearance. Cut it up, whatever. Pin it on your fridge or wall. Copying someone else's work freely to a third party server as you see fit for redistribution is not at all the same. It is also irrelevant whether the thief is making money or if they are 'collecting beautiful imagery'. It is the copyright holder's right to determine where their work is used. Not yours.
" there is no widespread illegal redistribution of content happening."
The entire site is nothing but illegal redistribution of content.
I've got several more articles on my blog for thought.
-
Same as Megaupload? But they only get the thumbs from the sites, right? Or any resolution one may have posted his own images somewhere. Isn't it so?
-
Hmmm.. Interesting to see so much negative feedback on the site. The "pinterest debate" is definitely a heated one and both sides have really good points.
I like that it's a "social" type of bookmarking, I like that it's a "visual" type of bookmarking (unlike bookmarking on your computer)... I'm not getting into the debate on whether it's the best or the worst thing to happen recently, there is plenty of that going around without my 2c, but I thought I'd throw in my personal feelings about it.
I like the concept and have been using pinterest quite a lot for different things, including pinning some recipes (which my hubby loves), home organizing ideas, some GREAT-GREAT-GREAT ideas for activities and diy's with kids (which my toddler loves!) and (of course) some ideas that I like and I'd like to remember to use in my own photo sessions with photography clients.
I also have thought of it as a sort of informal marketing for my photo business and I"ve actually gotten a couple of clients off of it as well as connected with other photographers doing kids and baby and family portraiture... In my book, it's not black or white... more like shades of gray :)
-
I like the concept of being able to easily drag, pin and organise stuff for reference on a virtual pinboard on my own PC. However, I've no interest whatsoever in sharing such a scrapbook online due to the potential copyright infringements that could result.
Does anyone know if such a thing exists purely for local use? Stripped away from the 'social media' context.
-
sjlocke said "It is the copyright holder's right to determine where their work is used. Not yours." - that sums it up perfectly.
It is hard to phantom why there would be any positive reactions from a stock photography forum. It doesn't matter whether these "pinners" earn any money from our images or not, at some point Pininterest will monetize their traffic (or have they already?) to satisfy their investors. Why do they get traffic? Because of our images which are used without our permission, copied to their severs and stripped of metadata. The lame attempt of cleaning their hands by shuffling the responsibility to the pinners to only pin material they are allowed to is ludicrous - Pininterest is without a doubt aiding, enabling and encouraging copyright infringements. May they soon be gone.
-
Pininterest is without a doubt aiding, enabling and encouraging copyright infringements. May they soon be gone.
good luck ... i'm sure in the end nobody will move a finger, as youtube and google images are still there, and what about Yahoo Images where you also have a two advertising boxes above and below the images ??
check this link searching "paris hotel" on yahoo images.
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGdWSneqdPsHIAWhRXNyoA?p=paris+hotel&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=piv-web (http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGdWSneqdPsHIAWhRXNyoA?p=paris+hotel&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=piv-web)
W-TF ... the reason for why G images is still there was because google managed to win a few lawsuits claiming they make no profit from G images, now what about Yahoo ? they indeed are monetizing their image search and making a sh-it load of money ! on top of this if you click an image a new page will open showing the picture in your face and almost completely obfuscating the website it belongs so at this point there's absolutely no gain from web site owners from being popular in yahoo images and i'm seeing the same situation with google images, years ago my indexed images earned a lot of free links and visitors from these services, now it's almost zero.
i'm so fu-cking tired of this "wild west" web.
-
I love Pinterest for marketing my prints and POD products, plus for sending out referral links. It's 1000x better than FB and Twitter, because the pins act like bookmarks with a visual and therefore are much more likely to be forwarded. Plus they remain on my page, categorized as thumbs, where future visitors can easily browse through my stuff. No one wants to browse through a store's history of FB posts or tweets, but it's fun browsing through someone's pin board...so the pin board is acting almost like a second storefront or catalog of my various products on various sites.
I mostly use it as an organizing tool for things like recipes, gardening ideas, and Photoshop tutorials. So much better than standard browser bookmarks!
-
Pininterest is without a doubt aiding, enabling and encouraging copyright infringements. May they soon be gone.
good luck ... i'm sure in the end nobody will move a finger, as youtube and google images are still there, and what about Yahoo Images where you also have a two advertising boxes above and below the images ??
check this link searching "paris hotel" on yahoo images.
[url]http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGdWSneqdPsHIAWhRXNyoA?p=paris+hotel&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=piv-web[/url] ([url]http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oGdWSneqdPsHIAWhRXNyoA?p=paris+hotel&fr=yfp-t-701&fr2=piv-web[/url])
W-TF ... the reason for why G images is still there was because google managed to win a few lawsuits claiming they make no profit from G images, now what about Yahoo ? they indeed are monetizing their image search and making a sh-it load of money ! on top of this if you click an image a new page will open showing the picture in your face and almost completely obfuscating the website it belongs so at this point there's absolutely no gain from web site owners from being popular in yahoo images and i'm seeing the same situation with google images, years ago my indexed images earned a lot of free links and visitors from these services, now it's almost zero.
i'm so fu-cking tired of this "wild west" web.
Huge difference though is that the search engines stops at only indexing the images and linking to their actual location, whilst Pininterest copies and stores the images on to their own servers.
-
I like the concept and have been using pinterest quite a lot for different things, including pinning some recipes (which my hubby loves), home organizing ideas, some GREAT-GREAT-GREAT ideas for activities and diy's with kids (which my toddler loves!) and (of course) some ideas that I like and I'd like to remember to use in my own photo sessions with photography clients.
There's a button on your browser that says "bookmark this page". It allows you to save references to any page you like without infringing the rights of others to determine where their work is redistributed.
-
I like the concept and have been using pinterest quite a lot for different things, including pinning some recipes (which my hubby loves), home organizing ideas, some GREAT-GREAT-GREAT ideas for activities and diy's with kids (which my toddler loves!) and (of course) some ideas that I like and I'd like to remember to use in my own photo sessions with photography clients.
There's a button on your browser that says "bookmark this page". It allows you to save references to any page you like without infringing the rights of others to determine where their work is redistributed.
Nothing like as handy as having them all in one place, rather than having to click each bookmark separately; and nothing like as handy for sharing suggestions with others. E.g., you're organising a night out and want to shortlist several venues. Of course you could email round a list of bookmarks, and your colleagues could click through them all one at a time, but nothing like as handy as having them all easily viewable in one place.
I was quite surprised to see that 'pinning' trumps 'right-click disabled' when I discovered one of my Flickr pics had been pinned. A woman was shortlisting tartans for use in her highland dancing group, so was pinning pics of different tartans actually being worn 'in use' so that people could check them out and vote, and apparently one of my dancers was wearing a relatively unusual design.
-
Nothing like as handy as having them all in one place, rather than having to click each bookmark separately; and nothing like as handy for sharing suggestions with others. E.g., you're organising a night out and want to shortlist several venues. Of course you could email round a list of bookmarks, and your colleagues could click through them all one at a time, but nothing like as handy as having them all easily viewable in one place.
Sad that "easy" seems to trump "not using illegally".
-
Nothing like as handy as having them all in one place, rather than having to click each bookmark separately; and nothing like as handy for sharing suggestions with others. E.g., you're organising a night out and want to shortlist several venues. Of course you could email round a list of bookmarks, and your colleagues could click through them all one at a time, but nothing like as handy as having them all easily viewable in one place.
Sad that "easy" seems to trump "not using illegally".
Can you really imagine that in the above scenario, the venues would be concerned, other than they're not the only ones on the shortlist?
Note again that the browsers make 'saving' and 'sharing' directly from websites so very 'easy'. Even Microsoft, who rush after anyone who comes within a hundred miles of possibly breaching one of their copyrights/trademarks.
Yes, Pinterest is a concern, but on RF, when you find an image you've sold once being used on more than ten different sites, but 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'.
-
Personally I don't care if someone ads my images to his board. What makes me angry is the possibility of embedding of images to another website. I could start new web without paying for images and it would be more or less legal - according to Pinterest.
http://www.northsideseo.com/pinterest-copyright-linkbuilding/ (http://www.northsideseo.com/pinterest-copyright-linkbuilding/)
-
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".
-
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.
-
...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?
-
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).
-
Maybe some of you guys missed the memo, about a month or so ago. Their terms have been updated, due to much controversy.
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 [url]http://pinterest.com/about/terms/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pinterest.com[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/about/terms/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pinterest.com[/url])
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.
-
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/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/)
-
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.
-
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.
[url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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 (http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html)
-
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: [url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url])
So you don't mind your images on pinterest?
your image: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005)
your image pinned: http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/ (http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/)
your image stored by pinterest: http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg (http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg)
-
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: [url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url])
So you don't mind your images on pinterest? [url]http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/[/url])
Wut? PHOTO CREDIT: THE NATIONAL HOT DOG AND SAUSAGE COUNCIL
-
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: [url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url] ([url]http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/p_agents.html[/url])
So you don't mind your images on pinterest?
your image: [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-queso-&-chips-image1786005[/url])
your image pinned: [url]http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/214976582182653960/[/url])
your image stored by pinterest: [url]http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg[/url] ([url]http://media-cache5.pinterest.com/upload/134334001354959698_isLiqbEP_f.jpg[/url])
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.
-
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" ?? :?
-
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.
-
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 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".
-
...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.
-
...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.
-
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/ (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.
-
If you read my article: [url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url]) , 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 !
-
If you read my article: [url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url] ([url]http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/03/24/pinterest-announces-new-terms/[/url]) , 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.
-
http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Copyright-Claim-Agai-5651.shtml (http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Copyright-Claim-Agai-5651.shtml)
-
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]
-
No F*interest in Pintrest same as F*licker, but now that I think about it, I should protect my name and get a page like I did on FL. After reading the thread it reminds me that there's a place for my rejections and funny snaps? ;D They aren't going to sell, so why not have some free fun? Yes I have a Twitpic account, it has four images now. Oh wow! (you'll want to subscribe in case something comes along, it's sarcasm now and oddball observations. http://twitpic.com/photos/HodagMedia (http://twitpic.com/photos/HodagMedia)
Probably just me, but I can't see the big interest and any value in having people pin my images or borrow them for their own use or steal them for commercial use. Is there some kind of ego thing that someone likes my image or found it good enough to steal?
All that matters is that I made them and I like it, or I find the story it tells is amusing.
Now if someone was paying me... then I would care! :D
If you love Beanie's or hate them, you'll see what I mean.
http://twitpic.com/photos/HodagMedia (http://twitpic.com/photos/HodagMedia)
-
So which of your "pins" do you not hold copyright to, to be able to reproduce and redistribute like Pinterest allows you to?
So who forced the content providers to put their stuff out in a public venue where they can freely be taken?
-
I have a question related to this: I use Pinterest to seek out usage of my images in live online settings and I pin those images-in-use. In theory, if my images is used as part of a larger designed composition (and the designer would be the copyright holder of the master design), I could be violating someone else's copyright by pinning a design that uses my image, correct?
This is where it goes down the rabbit hole for me.
-
So which of your "pins" do you not hold copyright to, to be able to reproduce and redistribute like Pinterest allows you to?
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?
-
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. There is a very minute percentage of the pinterest population that is going to be pinning unwatermarked images that they actually bought licenses to.
The question is... do you honestly care if an image buyer pinned a non-watermarked image to pinterest, at a whopping 600pixels? How is this any different than posting it on their blog (which was the entire point of purchasing the license - and at least they were honest enough to do so). Google image search has the image already. So do all of the other visual search engines. What's the difference?
I say let them pin. Pick your battles. If you want to police the internet and investigate every little instance an image of yours is found somewhere on the web, and research whether or not that person has legitimately licensed it, you're missing the entire point of making the best use of your valuable work time.
Go make more images and make some more money. Hotlinking happens... let's build a bridge.
-
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?
Yep. Don't leave your phone lying out anywhere, either.
-
The question is... do you honestly care if an image buyer pinned a non-watermarked image to pinterest, at a whopping 600pixels? How is this any different than posting it on their blog (which was the entire point of purchasing the license - and at least they were honest enough to do so). Google image search has the image already. So do all of the other visual search engines. What's the difference?
I say let them pin. Pick your battles. If you want to police the internet and investigate every little instance an image of yours is found somewhere on the web, and research whether or not that person has legitimately licensed it, you're missing the entire point of making the best use of your valuable work time.
People are not "pinning" things that they licensed from their blog. They are pinning anything they find on any blog anywhere. And then another blog owner comes in and says "hey, I need that image, I'm going to use the embed code to just hotlink to it, so it is on my blog". Or a travel agent pins it on their board titled "Great places I can send you", which is no different from any other commercial use.
Google image search has a true thumbnail, normally less than 200px. Which is a lot different than 600px.
I'm not going to pursue every use I find on the internet. But Pinterest is so egregious in its disregard of copyright, that there is an industry wide concern, not just a single person worry.
-
Okay... because it's really "rocket science" for people using google image search to click on a 200px thumbnail and figure out how to get access to a larger version?
I'm just saying... I feel there are much larger issues for us to worry about when it comes to image theft, than yet another web indexing tool. Also, the people that are going to grab the 600px image for use on their blog, are much different from people who use images from google image search for commercial use anyway? They're the same bunch. They are the miseducated / uninformed / copyright unknowledgeable ones. Plus, they'll get much higher resolution images via google image search, than they will on pinterest.
I understand where you're coming from though, and your points are valid - but I fail to see how Pinterest is different from any other graphic search engine. We should probably just agree to disagree :) Is Pinterest just another outlet where already live-on-the-web, unwatermarked images can be hotlinked? Yes, it most certainly is. Do you think we might see some changes to the way the site is run, or the way images are hotlinked in the near future? Quite possibly... we'll have to wait and see what goes down. Having a hotlink to pinterest's image server vs where the original image was pinned from, doesn't really make much different. My guess is they do things that way so that the pins don't magically go disappearing, from when the original location of the content is moved, removed, or renamed. Or else, you'd see a bunch of missing images all over the website.
-
I'm just saying... I feel there are much larger issues for us to worry about when it comes to image theft, than yet another web indexing tool. Also, the people that are going to grab the 600px image for use on their blog, are much different from people who use images from google image search for commercial use anyway? They're the same bunch. They are the miseducated / uninformed / copyright unknowledgeable ones. Plus, they'll get much higher resolution images via google image search, than they will on pinterest.
I think you're missing the point that google is a means to an end. Google just uses the tiny thumbnail to lead you to the original (or not so original) source.
Pinterest physically copies a full size, usable version of content, on request only (it isn't an index/search engine so they can't use that as a defense), to their servers, and actively encourages people to reuse and redistribute said content, without permission (99% of the time). That is their sole purpose.
-
Jonathan Klein in that interview seems to have a good understanding of how to deal softly with these sorts of issues. It's clearly not in anyone's interest to kill something which has so much gravity.
-
Jonathan Klein in that interview seems to have a good understanding of how to deal softly with these sorts of issues. It's clearly not in anyone's interest to kill something which has so much gravity.
Well, Jonathan Klein doesn't particularly have a personal pony in the game.
-
sjlocke - you might be interested in the code that Pinterest released, to add to your own website or blog.
We have a small piece of code you can add to the head of any page on your site:
<meta name=”pinterest” content=”nopin” />
When a user tries to pin from your site, they will see this message:
“This site doesn’t allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!”
It's not much, but it's something... at least they gave webmasters the option if disabling it. It still doesn't stop people from right click save as or screenshotting, and then uploading to pinterest... but that's a heck of a lot of trouble. I'd think that's too much of a hassle for 99% of pinterest users.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
The question is... do you honestly care if an image buyer pinned a non-watermarked image to pinterest, at a whopping 600pixels?
YES, i do.
it's a matter of principle, and the whole "anything on the web is free" rubbish ideology which is taking over nowadays exists because nobody is moving a finger against theft and copyright infringment.
600px is more than the typical image size used in any online newspaper, for instance NYT and WSJ and they're behind a paywall and making sh-itloads of money and they pay for every image they use, can't see why Joe Bloggs should be different, if you got no money for your blog it's certainly not my business, stop blogging or post in text only, or steal flicker images in CC licence, up to you, not my problem.
first they dont pay for 600px, then they don't pay writers in big media groups like Huffington Post / AOL.
it's a race to the bottom ... and it all starts with us allowing people stealing our work !
-
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 europe you can simply go to your nearest police station and file a report, which will eventually managed by the police force in charge that deals with IT/ICT crimes which can be different from country to country but if i'm not wrong there's now a global Europol branch for that.
the issue is you want to sue somebody in africa, middle east, india, china ... you're basically screwed, especially about china and vietnam.
-
I think you're missing the point that google is a means to an end. Google just uses the tiny thumbnail to lead you to the original (or not so original) source.
Pinterest physically copies a full size, usable version of content, on request only (it isn't an index/search engine so they can't use that as a defense), to their servers, and actively encourages people to reuse and redistribute said content, without permission (99% of the time). That is their sole purpose.
IN THE PAST google and yahoo images were supposed to lead you to the original PAGE, now if you click they fill the whole screen with the resized original image and with crap on the right sidebar, the original PAGE, where you eventually gain something from these services is pretty much invisible to the user, kept hidden unless you scroll down or close the ajax popups !
in short it's yet another dirty trick, a way to legally waste your bandwidth and making money on your shoulders giving nothing back, as Yahoo images puts advertising along with the thumbnails and the full image as well !
i have more than 8000 images indexed in G images for instance, now i make almost zero money with that while years ago i got at least some beer money from this free traffic, now it's simply game over.
----
pinterest : yes they grab the original image and they also store thumbnails and they also offer embedding codes.
it's just fully illegal from any point of view, there's not even need to discuss it and it's yet another big site encouraging outright piracy and contributing to giving users the impression that it's OK to steal and republish copyrighted content.
-
It's a tough situation because Pinterest straddles both sides with many legs of what is right and wrong about the prevailing attitude regarding intellectual property and image distribution on the web.
If you are hosting your own images, Pinterest's practice of copying your image to their own servers can actually be a blessing, since the bandwidth bills for serving a hotlinked image that becomes a social media phenomenon can be cripplingly expensive.
At the same time, you would like to some traction to a site of your own for images disseminated in this manner, and although Pinterest seems to do a reasonable job of source crediting and linking, I have been severely let-down on the actual click-through for this (along with Tumblr and ilk).
In the end, it might seem to be a losing battle against IP-deniers and the only halfway reasonable solution to protect your images is to make sure that anything over ~200px is obnoxiously watermarked.
I will state, however, that the US safe harbor clause of the DMCA (which prevents infringement claims against providers because of bad-behaving contributors as long as they respect takedown notices) is an incredibly important provision for keeping the Internet a usable place. This is a battle that cannot be fought in technology (which will always outpace the situation), nor in laws (which always lag behind), but a battle that can only be fought in culture so that individuals will respect the cry of "you are f*cking me over, please desist" and perhaps make people consider first who might be harmed before something is shared.
-
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?
Yep. Don't leave your phone lying out anywhere, either.
Did you park it with the door opened and the keys in the ignition?
-
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.
I own air, your breathing it, now pay me.
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.
-
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.
I own air, your breathing it, now pay me.
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.
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.
-
In the end, it might seem to be a losing battle against IP-deniers and the only halfway reasonable solution to protect your images is to make sure that anything over ~200px is obnoxiously watermarked.
Difficult to persuade legitimate buyers to do that, though, which makes the images easily sourceable from their sites.
-
That is exactly why I don't agree with Pininterest and similars
The thing is clearly such a strong idea, and is already so popular amongst opinion makers, that it has its own gravity and inevitable momentum. Therefore industries should find ways of working with rather than against it. It's like the tide.
In the full version of the interview with Jonathan Klein which I posted on its own thread here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-cellphones-etc-jonathan-klein-at-south-by-southwest/) 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".
-
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 ...
-
Did you park it with the door opened and the keys in the ignition?
oh c'mon !
and do you lock your fridge when going to the toilet ?
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
In the full version of the interview with Jonathan Klein which I posted on its own thread here ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/pinterest-cellphones-etc-jonathan-klein-at-south-by-southwest/[/url]) 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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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!
I went after an indie site a few years back.
Sorry for my ignorance, what is an "indie" site?
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.
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Pinterest on the other hand is blatantly copying content to their servers.
And actively, through their "tools" encouraging further redistribution and misuse.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 ??
-
facebook, twitter, pinterest, flickr, i dream about a big bonfire of all them.
I'm with you on that.
-
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 ?
-
...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.
-
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".
-
Pinterest gets $100 Million.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18104463 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18104463)
-
The mechanism is there. It's called "go-to-an-online-site-and-license-an-image".
The mechanism could be better. What if you could license an image for blog/web use without going to an agency site? A faster, one-click pay-and-post system where you could see an image on Pinterest, click a button to quickly license it (paid through google wallet or something similar) and post it on your blog.
-
The mechanism is there. It's called "go-to-an-online-site-and-license-an-image".
The mechanism could be better. What if you could license an image for blog/web use without going to an agency site? A faster, one-click pay-and-post system where you could see an image on Pinterest, click a button to quickly license it (paid through google wallet or something similar) and post it on your blog.
So then you'd have to pay pinterest a commission as well as your agency, sort of like the Veer/Alamy thing. Unless pinterest was setting up as an agency.
Otherwise you'd have to have this on every site on the web. Someone might see an image on any site and want to buy it. And again, you'd have the 'extra commission' bother. (OTOH, one might take the view that half of a (usually) meagre commission is better than none).
That's also the problem with them thinking that they can clear themselves of copyright responsibility just by offering a 'no pin' code. You (currently) can't force legitimate buyers to put a 'no pin' code on their site, but pinterest seems to think it can say 'that photo didn't have a nopin so they didn't mind'. What if the site owner hadn't heard of pinterest or 'nopin'?
-
Pinterest gets $100 Million.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18104463[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18104463[/url])
i opened a new thread about it.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/game-over-pinterest-pirates-gets-100-million- (http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/game-over-pinterest-pirates-gets-100-million-)$-!/new/#new
yeah 100 millions ... and this clearly shows that investors are not at all scared by Pinterest's illegal business model.
the only good news about piracy and free access to content is that most of the biggest awful newspapers and magazines are going bankrupt, we may cry about piracy but journalists are in a much worse position than us.... sorry but a photo is still worth a 100 words ! :)
-
So then you'd have to pay pinterest a commission as well as your agency...
Or the agencies could pay to be a part of it. If someone pins an image direct from an agency site, a "License It" button would be visible on the Pin page. Or if the image can be identified as being available on a stock agency site. If the image is available on multiple sites, either the agency that's paying Pinterest would have the transaction go to them, or multiple options would appear. So maybe it's a 2 or 3 click process then. But still easy and do-able.
There was something like this with Google Images at one time. Maybe it's still around. With a certain plugin or extension you could browse Google Images and licensing options would come up for any stock images shown. Something similar could be built into Pinterest, where if a stock image is pinned, licensing options are visible. And this would replace the Embed option. For images that need a license, instead of Embed the only sharing option would be "License It".
-
Hi,
I am new here. As an image copyright-holder, I'm very interested in any regarding Pinterest.
If your material is the subject of large-scale copyright infringement, kindly get in touch with me through the PM system.
-
Hi,
I am new here. As an image copyright-holder, I'm very interested in any regarding Pinterest.
If your material is the subject of large-scale copyright infringement, kindly get in touch with me through the PM system.
Who are you?
Why should we 'get in touch with you'?
What are you going to do about it?
-
"I'm not taking sides but..... if I were to cu tan image out of a magazine and pin it up in my home on a pinboard, am I infringing copyright? effectively this is just people collecting and sharing beautiful imagery on a pinboard that is digital, they aren't using images to sell anything, or trying to steal images. We aren't losing any money, because the pinners aren't in the market to buy images. If the site is shut down then that'll be it, we won't suddenly find these people buying our images."
Sorry, this is the kind of nonsense I read over and over.
A: by buying a magazine, you are allowed to modify its physical appearance. Cut it up, whatever. Pin it on your fridge or wall. Copying someone else's work freely to a third party server as you see fit for redistribution is not at all the same. It is also irrelevant whether the thief is making money or if they are 'collecting beautiful imagery'. It is the copyright holder's right to determine where their work is used. Not yours.
" there is no widespread illegal redistribution of content happening."
The entire site is nothing but illegal redistribution of content.
I've got several more articles on my blog for thought.
If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing them?
-
piccsy (http://piccsy.com/) is another photo sharing / discovery site which is being compared to Pinterest - and which has been generating a bit of buzz recently.
Bruce Livingstone is involved and frequently mentioned in the PR although it is not his company.
-
piccsy ([url]http://piccsy.com/[/url]) is another photo sharing / discovery site which is being compared to Pinterest - and which has been generating a bit of buzz recently.
Bruce Livingstone is involved and frequently mentioned in the PR although it is not his company.
there's new startup like these on a daily basis, just read TechCrunch ... last i've read today was "Stevie", they claim to allow people create a sort of video of the videos and images and text they share on their social networks, that means yet another illegal re-use and distribution of stolen content .. needless to say nobody even mention copyright issues and the readers comments are enthusiastic, and to top it off the demo image is with a video of Lady Gaga as it was fully legal to steal SONY videos ??? unbelievable, i'm surprised the crooks at MegaUpload haven't got a rich VC funding in silicon valley...
-
Personally I don't care if someone ads my images to his board. What makes me angry is the possibility of embedding of images to another website. I could start new web without paying for images and it would be more or less legal - according to Pinterest.
[url]http://www.northsideseo.com/pinterest-copyright-linkbuilding/[/url] ([url]http://www.northsideseo.com/pinterest-copyright-linkbuilding/[/url])
More on the embed code:
http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/exploiting-pinterests-embed-feature.html (http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/exploiting-pinterests-embed-feature.html)
-
Wow, great site. I especially like this one!
http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/collected-messages-from-pinners.html (http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/collected-messages-from-pinners.html)
-
It's going to take another generation to properly sort this out. Today, there is no chance of getting a lawsuit in front of a judge who actually understands concepts like hosting vs. linking, or the subtleties of something like an EMBED tag.
In a nutshell, when we say Pinterest is "hosting" we mean it makes illegal copies of copyrighted material, and then lets other people use those copies any way they want. Pinterest intends to make money, probably by introducing ads at some point. The users may be profiting in any number of ways: for example, the 'pinned' page might be part of a sales presentation. So both Pinterest and its users are making money from imagery created by other people, to whom they've paid nothing.
I don't know how much simpler or more obvious this has to be, for people to see that it's plain wrong - even if it's fun, and lots of cool people are doing it. I was especially impressed by the logic offered by another MSG poster, in another thread: his young daughter used imagery lifted from web sites for a school project; her teacher apparently thinks this is ok; therefore it must be ok for Dad too. It's a beautiful concept: people now making ethical judgments based on what their kids can get away with.
-
It's going to take another generation to properly sort this out. Today, there is no chance of getting a lawsuit in front of a judge who actually understands concepts like hosting vs. linking, or the subtleties of something like an EMBED tag.
Won't work on the next generation.
For about the last five years I was teaching, it was almost impossible to communicate to the weans how serious 'cheating' in exams is, since the word has become totally acceptable through games cheats.
Although I and the computing department at least tried to get over to kids that while they could look for legally available (e.g. PD, CC) images to use in school projects, in real life there were copyright laws, the weans definitely looked at us like, "Old people. Clueless."
-
It's going to take another generation to properly sort this out. Today, there is no chance of getting a lawsuit in front of a judge who actually understands concepts like hosting vs. linking, or the subtleties of something like an EMBED tag.
Won't work on the next generation.
For about the last five years I was teaching, it was almost impossible to communicate to the weans how serious 'cheating' in exams is, since the word has become totally acceptable through games cheats.
Although I and the computing department at least tried to get over to kids that while they could look for legally available (e.g. PD, CC) images to use in school projects, in real life there were copyright laws, the weans definitely looked at us like, "Old people. Clueless."
I get what you're saying, but I guess I'm hoping that even in the future, judges (when they grow up) will still understand the law, and if they also understand something of the technology, "chop shops" like Pinterest will eventually be shut down. Napster isn't coming back; people have decided that although they can ship MP3s around to the friends, a business based on that concept isn't acceptable - even if it pretends to be ignorant of how its servers are actually being used.
On the other hand, if society simply no longer accepts a concept of intellectual property or copyright, then the laws will be taken off the books, and we enter a different world.
-
On the other hand, if society simply no longer accepts a concept of intellectual property or copyright, then the laws will be taken off the books, and we enter a different world.
Yes, a different world where there is no financial benefit to any artistic endeavor. Seems like that world will be pretty barren of creative works. People will be too busy making a living in areas that do pay wages.
-
On the other hand, if society simply no longer accepts a concept of intellectual property or copyright, then the laws will be taken off the books, and we enter a different world.
Yes, a different world where there is no financial benefit to any artistic endeavor. Seems like that world will be pretty barren of creative works. People will be too busy making a living in areas that do pay wages.
I don't imagine for a moment the world will be barren of creative works. There's super stuff on Flickr and DeviantArt and many other places where people can be truly creative, free of commercial restrictions. People paint, do crafts, make music, film, dance and loads of other creative things for love. And these works of love can be truly creative and excellent quality.
-
"...when we say Pinterest is "hosting" we mean it makes illegal copies of copyrighted material, and then lets other people use those copies any way they want.
From Google on down, corporations are using the safe harbor provision of the DMCA as a license to steal. The more they weaken copyright, the more billions in profit they make. Google's business model is essentially that of a magazine. It provides access to the works of writers and artists and makes money by selling ads. Except that magazines pay the writers and artists.
Musicians, film-makers, authors (who sued Google for massive copyright infringement), and now artists and photographers seem to be fighting a losing battle against Google and the social media sites.
Copyright is being deprecated on the internet, and we are heading toward a world where - for the first time since the mid-1700s - people who create original works will not get paid for what they do.
Note though that Google and the other corporations which sactimoniously opposed SOPA are very quick to sue to protect their (questionable) software patents.
-
At some point the pendulum will start swinging back. People still understand compensation for creative work - they just pretend they don't, because the Internet is still new, still a magic place where the old rules don't apply and everything is free. Once the internet becomes really, truly commonplace - just a medium, accessed by appliances - old social contracts will reassert themselves.
-
At some point the pendulum will start swinging back. People still understand compensation for creative work - they just pretend they don't, because the Internet is still new, still a magic place where the old rules don't apply and everything is free. Once the internet becomes really, truly commonplace - just a medium, accessed by appliances - old social contracts will reassert themselves.
Please forgive me if that sounds to me like whistling in the dark. To paraphrase the Godfather, if history has taught us anything it is that rights once lost are difficult to get back. Especially if the usurpers have enough money to buy congressmen, judges, the even whole legislatures (the Polish government reversed itself on copyright protection when it figured out that Poles were making more money from piracy than from selling copyright licenses). The Pirate Party is now getting a significant percentage of votes in German elections.
It seems to me that working to keep our legal rights is a better plan than letting them be lost and hoping that someday somehow "old social contracts will reassert themselves".
-
It seems to me that working to keep our legal rights is a better plan than letting them be lost and hoping that someday somehow "old social contracts will reassert themselves".
It's hard to counter something like Pinterest, while it's still new and everyone thinks it's just, like, totally cool. It took the big money of the recording industry to bring down Napster. It doesn't matter how many pathetic DMCA takedown notices Pinterest receives, and they'll have plenty of money for lawyers - that had to be part of the plan right from the start. Successful legal action would have to come from someone as big or bigger than Pinterest. Or are you suggesting we all contact our Congressmen? Celebrity recording artists could get their attention. Stock photographers can't.
How can meaningful pressure be brought against Pinterest?
-
How can meaningful pressure be brought against Pinterest?
Good question, I wish I knew the answer. You are right that big momentum is with social media now, this was Serban's main argument in the DT thread about Pinterest: you can't resist going along with it. A news article I saw today said that the majority of DMCA notices sent to infringers are not artists or musicians but are sent by Microsoft against sites giving away Windows. But it seems that even with MS's resources they are fighting a losing battle.
Maybe one thing we can do is just to not go along with it. When 'freetards' post anti-copyright propaganda here and in other sites, we should take the time to post opposing arguments. It's a grassroots thing. Refute the idea some people have that Google is a non-profit and Brin and Page's sole purpose in life is to do no evil and make the internet safe for hippies and nerds. And that SOPA was an evil right wing conspiracy.
How did Google, Facebook, Pinterest et al get so much momentum? A lot of it was grassroots-type PR. People posting in forums and writing in blogs, and tweeting. We should take every opportunity to make it clear that it is not fair to use our work to make money and not pay us anything. Maybe doing that will help, at least a little.
-
A few years ago Google Images was full of results direct from iStockphoto. For more or less any stock photo search.
Today much less so. Is that a good thing ? I believe that many people would prefer that iStockphoto would again be better represented at Google Images. The probably reasonable assumption being that this helps push sales. Equally my guess is that the only thing worse than having your images pinned is going to be not having your images pinned. It is important that the agencies work to be on the inside track here. Rather than picking fights, they need to make it work for them.
One thing I am curious about however. In one of the Jonathan Klein interviews he seemed to hint towards collecting based on page impressions or traffic. I wonder what the model for that would be from the artists' perspective.
-
Photoshop helps remove watermark. Thieves!!! Ps must be banned immediately!! Oh wait there are other software, multiple new ones will coming out!!! These thieves are lined up against poor microstockers!! They must be banned!! Ban sofware!! This software is based on math thievery to alter watermark pixels. Ban math!!! Mathematicians are crooks!!! They should pay taxes to microstockers for learning a watermark altering science!!! ...and all this software can downloaded from teh internets! By people!!! An army of thieves hunting for my $0.3 picures!! Let's ban teh internets and the people!!! : ))
I'm sorry but most of you people are a sad joke. Head in the sand & pi%*ing against the wind at the same time, a real circus act. While talking about law and rights, you also managed to call just about everybody using the net -except you of course- a thief. Just wait till they take notice of that and get a lawyer to shove it down your throat.... rightly so.
-
Photoshop helps remove watermark. Thieves!!! Ps must be banned immediately!! Oh wait there are other software, multiple new ones will coming out!!! These thieves are lined up against poor microstockers!! They must be banned!! Ban sofware!! This software is based on math thievery to alter watermark pixels. Ban math!!! Mathematicians are crooks!!! They should pay taxes to microstockers for learning a watermark altering science!!! ...and all this software can downloaded from teh internets! By people!!! An army of thieves hunting for my $0.3 picures!! Let's ban teh internets and the people!!! : ))
I'm sorry but most of you people are a sad joke. Head in the sand & pi%*ing against the wind at the same time, a real circus act. While talking about law and rights, you also managed to call just about everybody using the net -except you of course- a thief. Just wait till they take notice of that and get a lawyer to shove it down your throat.... rightly so.
So lets recap:
1. Most of us are a sad joke - but not you
2. Most of us have our heads in the sand - but not you
3. Most of us are pissing against the wind at the same time - but not you
4. Most of us are a real circus act - but not you
5. You can't wait until we have a legal remedy shoved down our throats - but you are pure as the driven snow.
Since water seeks its own level, why are you even here? This seems to be your modus operandi in nearly every post you make. You are not constructive, everyone is always wrong and you are always right and you like to belittle members instead of constructively disagreeing with them and sharing a well crafted response. Immature is all I can say.
-
How can meaningful pressure be brought against Pinterest?
the only way would be by scaring their potential investors with nasty articles against Pinterest and copyright on WSJ, CNN, FOX, and the other major media companies.
anything else is just B-S.
i mean, at least musicians have the RIAA, stock photographers have nothing, we're simply powerless, these guys have millions in VC funding, if sued they can keep the lawsuit going on forever.
-
Please forgive me if that sounds to me like whistling in the dark. To paraphrase the Godfather, if history has taught us anything it is that rights once lost are difficult to get back. Especially if the usurpers have enough money to buy congressmen, judges, the even whole legislatures
copyright will never go away, the problem is for photography is quickly becoming unenforceable.
-
Photoshop helps remove watermark. Thieves!!! Ps must be banned immediately!! Oh wait there are other software, multiple new ones will coming out!!! These thieves are lined up against poor microstockers!! They must be banned!! Ban sofware!! This software is based on math thievery to alter watermark pixels. Ban math!!! Mathematicians are crooks!!! They should pay taxes to microstockers for learning a watermark altering science!!! ...and all this software can downloaded from teh internets! By people!!! An army of thieves hunting for my $0.3 picures!! Let's ban teh internets and the people!!! : ))
I'm sorry but most of you people are a sad joke. Head in the sand & pi%*ing against the wind at the same time, a real circus act. While talking about law and rights, you also managed to call just about everybody using the net -except you of course- a thief. Just wait till they take notice of that and get a lawyer to shove it down your throat.... rightly so.
So lets recap:
1. Most of us are a sad joke - but not you
2. Most of us have our heads in the sand - but not you
3. Most of us are pissing against the wind at the same time - but not you
4. Most of us are a real circus act - but not you
5. You can't wait until we have a legal remedy shoved down our throats - but you are pure as the driven snow.
Since water seeks its own level, why are you even here? This seems to be your modus operandi in nearly every post you make. You are not constructive, everyone is always wrong and you are always right and you like to belittle members instead of constructively disagreeing with them and sharing a well crafted response. Immature is all I can say.
"everyone is always wrong and you are always right"
thats the pot calling the kettle black. you are not everyone. you are handfull of confused ppl... who think everyone else is wrong, while you'r pure... dude you just described yourself. There are at least 4 lengthy threads of useless whining showing exactly that attitude... Starting make yourselves look not just a fool, but more like crazy self-righteous cult libeling everybody else. Snap out of it.
-
The issues that matter are around commercial use.
If you disrupt or try to kill Pinterest there will be an alternative Pinterest somewhere else. Because it is a strong idea with its own inevitable momentum. So what matters is how the agencies can become involved and to find ways of working with it - and making it work for them. That may very well be about better image tracking in some cases.
If millions of people like something and many of them are opinion and trend makers then the thing to do is to find ways of making it work or you.
ETA: it is a pity that this thread is getting trolled from both people who are for and against the thing. Somewhere in the middle is normally where the sensible conversation is normally taking place.
-
Please forgive me if that sounds to me like whistling in the dark. To paraphrase the Godfather, if history has taught us anything it is that rights once lost are difficult to get back. Especially if the usurpers have enough money to buy congressmen, judges, the even whole legislatures
copyright will never go away, the problem is for photography is quickly becoming unenforceable.
It's not the copyright. Since internet became commonplace there are several things with a pricepoint curving towards zero. This is one of them. Adopt or drop out.
-
The issues that matter are around commercial use.
If you disrupt or try to kill Pinterest there will be an alternative Pinterest somewhere else. Because it is a strong idea with its own inevitable momentum. So what matters is how the agencies can become involved and to find ways of working with it - and making it work for them. That may very well be about better image tracking in some cases.
If millions of people like something and many of them are opinion and trend makers then the thing to do is to find ways of making it work or you.
The agencies have already found a way to make it work for them. It works for them just fine as it is now, because they are concerned with bottom line profits and sales. Pinterest et. al. bring traffic to their site. That's what their intention is. They aren't interested in worrying about copyright. That's the contributor's problem. They do enough to cover their a$$ and the rest is our problem.
-
"...when we say Pinterest is "hosting" we mean it makes illegal copies of copyrighted material, and then lets other people use those copies any way they want.
From Google on down, corporations are using the safe harbor provision of the DMCA as a license to steal. The more they weaken copyright, the more billions in profit they make. Google's business model is essentially that of a magazine. It provides access to the works of writers and artists and makes money by selling ads. Except that magazines pay the writers and artists.
Musicians, film-makers, authors (who sued Google for massive copyright infringement), and now artists and photographers seem to be fighting a losing battle against Google and the social media sites.
Copyright is being deprecated on the internet, and we are heading toward a world where - for the first time since the mid-1700s - people who create original works will not get paid for what they do.
Note though that Google and the other corporations which sactimoniously opposed SOPA are very quick to sue to protect their (questionable) software patents.
the google croocks deserve no more respect than a door-to-door toilet brush saleman.
what is depressing is watching megacorps like Universal and Viacom sueing these croocks and the lawsuit going on and on for many years and it seems they keep losing ground also as some judges openly agree on youtube and google freely stealing videos and photos !
now, if Viacom can't win this battle, who will ?? me ? you ?
-
Yes, a different world where there is no financial benefit to any artistic endeavor. Seems like that world will be pretty barren of creative works. People will be too busy making a living in areas that do pay wages.
if you come in asia you will see that world.
here piracy is dominating any field where the product can be digitalized.
and products that can't be pirated will get copied anyway, statues, paintings, designs, t-shirts, clothes, concepts, ideas.
i've met many artists but they're all starving, unsurprisingly.
either they sell to the few local rich guys in town or they go for rich foreign tourists.
vietnam in particular might be the worst scenario i ever seen, with plenty of art galleries employing dozens of painters paid to repaint exact copies of famous western and asian artists, no space for anything else almost and i wonder if these guys would be ever able to paint something original from scratch !
one i asked a gallerist, "w-t-f is actually invented or created in vietnam ? you guys are now almost 90 millions, why i can't see a single vietnamese piece of art worth of being called original ? all i see are copycats of chinese and western artists, books are also a joke, clothes are made in china or outsourced by chinese companies as well, motos are all japanese Honda, movies are hollywood, chinese, japanese, korean, and zero from vietnam" ... and you see, as anybody else i asked the same question they laugh and they can't see where is the problem in all this, it's the most normal thing for them, they barely distringuish between original and copy and imitation ... if tomorrow everybody stop producing art they could care less, they would happily go on pirating and copying old stuff forever and listening 50-yrs odl songs over and over for the umpteenth time.
i mean look at their buddha temple, not to generalize but they're ALL the F.. same with minimal radical design differences, i've been in maybe 500 or more temples so far, we have 5-6 main architecture styles in east asia for religious temples, very nice by the way when done right, and yet, made photos in all of them, front view, side view, indoors, outdoors, golden buddha inside, some paintings, some carvings, monks, etc i'm so F... sick of seeing the same sh-it once again and ask the monks and they absolutely love it ! never heard a single complaint, never ! to made a new temple stand out from the crowd is unthinkable for them, they will happily built the same stuff even for the next 1000 yrs.
sorry to go a bit off topic but i can tell the skeptics that a world where art is not paid well or recognized as something worth its money is a world where art is merely a cheap product like it was fast food .. go in japan instead and you can literally stop at every step to see art on display and sold for crazy money !
-
I posted this question on DT: "If I submit here an image which includes the Pinterest logo, will DT reject it for IP infringement? If so, why are the IP rights of Ben Silbermann (owner of Pinterest) protected by DT and mine are not?"
Can I start a website and call it mikes-pinterest.com and use the Pinterest logo on it? If I do Ben Silbermann, will sue me to protect his Intellectual Property rights. Why are his Intellectual Property rights protected but he can infringe on mine?
It has been asked, what can we do about this? At least we can complain in every public venue that we have access to that it is wrong and unfair.
-
Good point. Maybe we should flood DT with images with pinterest logo and find out. Though I'm pretty sure of what the outcome will be. >:(
-
Yes, a different world where there is no financial benefit to any artistic endeavor. Seems like that world will be pretty barren of creative works. People will be too busy making a living in areas that do pay wages.
if you come in asia you will see that world.
here piracy is dominating any field where the product can be digitalized.
and products that can't be pirated will get copied anyway, statues, paintings, designs, t-shirts, clothes, concepts, ideas.
i've met many artists but they're all starving, unsurprisingly.
either they sell to the few local rich guys in town or they go for rich foreign tourists.
vietnam in particular might be the worst scenario i ever seen, with plenty of art galleries employing dozens of painters paid to repaint exact copies of famous western and asian artists, no space for anything else almost and i wonder if these guys would be ever able to paint something original from scratch !
one i asked a gallerist, "w-t-f is actually invented or created in vietnam ? you guys are now almost 90 millions, why i can't see a single vietnamese piece of art worth of being called original ? all i see are copycats of chinese and western artists, books are also a joke, clothes are made in china or outsourced by chinese companies as well, motos are all japanese Honda, movies are hollywood, chinese, japanese, korean, and zero from vietnam" ... and you see, as anybody else i asked the same question they laugh and they can't see where is the problem in all this, it's the most normal thing for them, they barely distringuish between original and copy and imitation ... if tomorrow everybody stop producing art they could care less, they would happily go on pirating and copying old stuff forever and listening 50-yrs odl songs over and over for the umpteenth time.
i mean look at their buddha temple, not to generalize but they're ALL the F.. same with minimal radical design differences, i've been in maybe 500 or more temples so far, we have 5-6 main architecture styles in east asia for religious temples, very nice by the way when done right, and yet, made photos in all of them, front view, side view, indoors, outdoors, golden buddha inside, some paintings, some carvings, monks, etc i'm so F... sick of seeing the same sh-it once again and ask the monks and they absolutely love it ! never heard a single complaint, never ! to made a new temple stand out from the crowd is unthinkable for them, they will happily built the same stuff even for the next 1000 yrs.
sorry to go a bit off topic but i can tell the skeptics that a world where art is not paid well or recognized as something worth its money is a world where art is merely a cheap product like it was fast food .. go in japan instead and you can literally stop at every step to see art on display and sold for crazy money !
what a racist slur.
-
Good point. Maybe we should flood DT with images with pinterest logo and find out. Though I'm pretty sure of what the outcome will be. >:(
"Pinterest might be the most illegal network to hit the Internet yet. More illegal than Napster. More illegal than Megaupload.
...Media law attorney Itai Maytal, who's an associate at Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 'In its terms of use, Pinterest actually specifies that users shouldn't pin photos they don't own the rights to, a request that is being ignored to an absurd degree. Even if you link and attribute, that does NOT absolve you of the fact that you took someone else's work and re-appropriated it.'"
Business Insider Kevin Lincoln|February 17, 2012
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-17/tech/31070312_1_copyright-holder-napster-youtube (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-17/tech/31070312_1_copyright-holder-napster-youtube)
-
Photoshop helps remove watermark. Thieves!!! Ps must be banned immediately!! Oh wait there are other software, multiple new ones will coming out!!! These thieves are lined up against poor microstockers!! They must be banned!! Ban sofware!! This software is based on math thievery to alter watermark pixels. Ban math!!! Mathematicians are crooks!!! They should pay taxes to microstockers for learning a watermark altering science!!! ...and all this software can downloaded from teh internets! By people!!! An army of thieves hunting for my $0.3 picures!! Let's ban teh internets and the people!!! : ))
I'm sorry but most of you people are a sad joke. Head in the sand & pi%*ing against the wind at the same time, a real circus act. While talking about law and rights, you also managed to call just about everybody using the net -except you of course- a thief. Just wait till they take notice of that and get a lawyer to shove it down your throat.... rightly so.
So lets recap:
1. Most of us are a sad joke - but not you
2. Most of us have our heads in the sand - but not you
3. Most of us are pissing against the wind at the same time - but not you
4. Most of us are a real circus act - but not you
5. You can't wait until we have a legal remedy shoved down our throats - but you are pure as the driven snow.
Since water seeks its own level, why are you even here? This seems to be your modus operandi in nearly every post you make. You are not constructive, everyone is always wrong and you are always right and you like to belittle members instead of constructively disagreeing with them and sharing a well crafted response. Immature is all I can say.
"everyone is always wrong and you are always right"
thats the pot calling the kettle black. you are not everyone. you are handfull of confused ppl... who think everyone else is wrong, while you'r pure... dude you just described yourself. There are at least 4 lengthy threads of useless whining showing exactly that attitude... Starting make yourselves look not just a fool, but more like crazy self-righteous cult libeling everybody else. Snap out of it.
If you don't like it leave. Your kind response says a lot about you, It's quite funny.
-
"20 B2B Marketers Losing their Brand on Pinterest" February 21, 2012
http://b2bdigital.net/2012/02/21/b2b-marketers-pinterest/ (http://b2bdigital.net/2012/02/21/b2b-marketers-pinterest/)
Some Pinterest pirates are hijacking the logos and brands of companies such as Sprint, FedEx, and Intel. Many of these Pinterest pages have pins linking to pages which are selling products on other sites. Because Pinterest is already making money from some referral fees, Pinterest may get profit from these pinboard pages in the future.
What will DT do if I start one of these pages under the name 'Dreamstime' and with Dreamstime's logo, and I pin whatever I choose on that page and find a way to monetize it for my own profit? I guess DT will just say, "Oh well, it's social media, they can do whatever they want."
-
"20 B2B Marketers Losing their Brand on Pinterest" February 21, 2012
[url]http://b2bdigital.net/2012/02/21/b2b-marketers-pinterest/[/url] ([url]http://b2bdigital.net/2012/02/21/b2b-marketers-pinterest/[/url])
Some Pinterest pirates are hijacking the logos and brands of companies such as Sprint, FedEx, and Intel. Many of these Pinterest pages have pins linking to pages which are selling products on other sites. Because Pinterest is already making money from some referral fees, Pinterest may get profit from these pinboard pages in the future.
What will DT do if I start one of these pages under the name 'Dreamstime' and with Dreamstime's logo, and I pin whatever I choose on that page and find a way to monetize it for my own profit? I guess DT will just say, "Oh well, it's social media, they can do whatever they want."
Here's what we can do to put our point across since they have trouble understanding how this is against the law. We should 'pin' the best selling images of the admin staff (not Serban's. I'm sure he doesn't care while he's getting his millions from DT). Then 're-pin' them on another board. Redirect the link to our sites/blogs and delete the first 'pin'. Then use the code to add those images to our sites/blogs. Maybe then it might sink in how wrong this is. Then during their next BS meeting, they might decide to remove the button.
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
-
Noteworthy sign-up and social media strategy. Good design.
Total fail in providing good content. Completely crap and even duplicate content.
I need to study more because if they have become as successful as they have at this level, then there are things to learn.
Will spend some time now. Probably days/nights. Crap.
-
Noteworthy sign-up and social media strategy. Good design.
Total fail in providing good content. Completely crap and even duplicate content.
I need to study more because if they have become as successful as they have at this level, then there are things to learn.
Will spend some time now. Probably days/nights. Crap.
the product is well done and carefully designed, but they spent millions to advertise it with several PR firms, SEOs, and paid marketing campaigns on the major US medias, so at the moment each of their users costed them a few dollars and they still have to make any profit.
if they plan to get rich with advertising let me say one thing, i have a few sites with my own photos and i always struggled to make people click on ads, tried every positions and combinations, but readers can barely look at both text ads and graphical ads as they're smaller than my photos and just a nuisance to watch, the best CTR i managed to reach was 0.2% ! (which is still a lot better than Facebook ads).
i guess their grand plan is therefore on "added value" services, like paying for unlimited storage space, unlimited pinning or whatever, and finally to sell Prints and merchandising, which is awfully illegal considering 99% of their images are pirated !
but they will get away with that, as lawsuits will take years to get anywhere, and if even Viacom and Universal can't manage to shut down youtube i can't see why Pinterest should make exception, these guys are already millionaires, and if someone will pay for the massaive theft it's gonna be the next fool who is buying Pinterest's shares on their IPO.
it's a thieves world !
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
If your image is on pinterest send a DMCA request to pinterest.
-
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.
-
Noteworthy sign-up and social media strategy. Good design.
Total fail in providing good content. Completely crap and even duplicate content.
I need to study more because if they have become as successful as they have at this level, then there are things to learn.
Will spend some time now. Probably days/nights. Crap.
It all depends on how you measure success. Right now, they are backed by approx $135 million in venture capital and claim to make no money. They are the social media darling whose popularity has been supercharged by the musings of blathering housewives living out their own virtual fantasies. Half of the women on there probably couldn't fit into the haute couture dresses they pin. If you are selling baby rattles, beauty creams and bacon snacks, there's money to be made by engaging there.
As sjlocke sums up, it's a freetard mentality at pinterest. If you have lithe blonde brides in your image inventory and especially pics of their Swarowski encrusted shoes, your images will be pinned. And no, hey won't come back to buy them. Let's be serious here. Any traffic would get would just be free-seeking just looking for more fodder. If you shoot the isolated orange over and over, consider yourself safe from the Pinhags.
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
If your image is on pinterest send a DMCA request to pinterest.
iStock insist that we deal with misuses through CR. I always found doing it myself resulted in a quicker result, but they are adamant about it. I'm just not sure how long to give it. I was also hoping to get an official iStock line on pinterest, but of course, what we're likely to get is just whichever rep gets my email thinks about it - unless they get a lot, then they might make an 'official statement'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If you are selling baby rattles, beauty creams and bacon snacks, there's money to be made by engaging there.
As sjlocke sums up, it's a freetard mentality at pinterest. If you have lithe blonde brides in your image inventory and especially pics of their Swarowski encrusted shoes, your images will be pinned. And no, hey won't come back to buy them. Let's be serious here. Any traffic would get would just be free-seeking just looking for more fodder. If you shoot the isolated orange over and over, consider yourself safe from the Pinhags.
at the moment we can't know if pinterest is made of junk-traffic or if instead it's made of high-spenders.
as far as i can tell, high spending girls already flood sites like Etsy and similar fashion-addict stuff buying rubbish, for anything else they may waste some more time on FB or Pinterest but i rest of the opinion that if some one wants to buy he goes straight to an e-commerce site rather than clicking ads for curiosity.
-
To sum up, people like free stuff. End of story.
yes and i can tell you that if we look back to the roots i remember AOL and Compuserve giving away CDs to get on the internet for free, with free email, and bla bla bla ... and yet nobody heard about this internet stuff, and nobody wanted it even for free, computers were still a geeky thing and whoever was chatting on a pc was seen as a nerd .. e-commerce was non existant, the only thing you could do was connecting at awfully slow speed and watch po-rn sites for free, chat on IRC, download warez via FTP, read some newsgroups, and guess what nobody even then was willing to pay half a dollar for that, everything was meant to be free, stolen, or pirated, besides no one would have trusted pay online by c/c.
then after many years of trial and error they managed to "monetize" the web, but sorry it's still mostly a free/pirate world !
and it's getting worse as it's just too easy to publish and copy and remix and clone and steal and throwing ads on a site and see what sticks.
maybe, i say maybe, the mass switch to mobile platforms will give birth to a sort of micro credit payment accepted worldwide but i'm skeptic about it, the operators are too fragmented, mobiles are also locked in many uncompatible garden walls, app stores, contracts, etc
iPhone users started paying well for commercial services, just to switch to free services soon after, and now to free games and free apps .. who is making money now on apps ? not many ... and it's become a cut-throat business where free apps will finally kill the market as they did for desktop software in many ways.
so now we already see free app-stores for android, and soon we will have free app-aggregators and search engines, reviews, and articles, a gigantic mess where once again i ask myself where is the money to be made ! ?
the point is ... a digital copy costs nothing to copy ... it's not a physical product ... these users are 99% leechers and scroungers, the REAL market of paying users is very very small .. maybe 1% of the total, maybe ... all this fuss about internet is absolutely overestimated when we look at the hard data, the few companies making serious profits are still the once selling real products or commercial services .. Amazon, Ebay, just to name a few, Google if we count advertising as a service (and it is) ..
-
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 ! :(
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
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
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(http://www.lizworld.com/PIce.jpg)
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 (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 (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).
-
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.
-
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 :o
-
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 :o
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.
-
...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.
-
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?
-
it doesnt matter whether the image is watermarked or not. pinning and repinning images is copyright infringement, period.
-
it doesnt matter whether the image is watermarked or not. pinning and repinning images is copyright infringement, period.
Other than when your distributor decides not only to allow it, but to encourage it. :(
-
it doesnt matter whether the image is watermarked or not. pinning and repinning images is copyright infringement, period.
Other than when your distributor decides not only to allow it, but to encourage it. :(
It's still copyright infringement, send a DMCA notice and get your work taken down.
-
it doesnt matter whether the image is watermarked or not. pinning and repinning images is copyright infringement, period.
Other than when your distributor decides not only to allow it, but to encourage it. :(
It's still copyright infringement, send a DMCA notice and get your work taken down.
iStock warned of immediate exclusion from site if we did that, way back when GIS was new.
They can break their side of the contract on a whim, but I bet they'd hold us to every iota of ours.
Added: I see your comment on Sean's post, so await an official forum comment. I think Sean has only identified half of the problem in his post. The real issue for me is that, apparently it's quite OK for pinners to pin/repin unwatermarked iStock images from presumably legitimate buyers. In that scenario, iStock doesn't gain either.
OTOH, it migh be that some legitimate buyers would, unthinkingly, put a 'pin this' or whatever it's called symbol on their page, hoping to get 'out there'. That's a whole other issue.
-
it doesnt matter whether the image is watermarked or not. pinning and repinning images is copyright infringement, period.
Other than when your distributor decides not only to allow it, but to encourage it. :(
It's still copyright infringement, send a DMCA notice and get your work taken down.
iStock warned of immediate exclusion from site if we did that, way back when GIS was new.
They can break their side of the contract on a whim, but I bet they's hold us to every iota of ours.
WHAT? That's unbelievable! I'm really shocked. I'm sorry this is happening to you, Sue.
-
That was for possibly harassing real buyers, no one that posts your work on pinterest can have the right to do so since you own the copyright.
-
That was for possibly harassing real buyers, no one that posts your work on pinterest can have the right to do so since you own the copyright.
Of course, you're right. But that doesn't seem to be the way they (iStock) see it. They'd probably think we are 'harassing real affiliates'. I gave them the link: they didn't seem to think it was an issue.
I'll await confirmation, and if it's OK, I'll do it tomorrow. Off to bed now, it's 02:19.
@graphix04: Tx; I'm sure it's not just me. I bet you'd all find your images on there if you spend long enough on GIS.
-
I think they gave you bad info, CR doesn't seem to be very coordinated and the next time you ask the question you'll probably get a different answer. I've gotten many conflicting responses from them and others that made me wonder what they were there for.
-
People are not "pinning" things that they licensed from their blog. They are pinning anything they find on any blog anywhere. And then another blog owner comes in and says "hey, I need that image, I'm going to use the embed code to just hotlink to it, so it is on my blog".
And I don't understand why they do this. There are so many high quality images available as Creative Commons, I don't know why anyone would want to flirt with copyright laws just to fill up their blog. The CC images I use for my Disney blog are super high quality, with at least two of my most used photographers being long term Getty shooters. And they encourage me to use them, they love the exposure (no pun intended). There is absolutely no reason to steal anything.
-
horrible news from istock !
if even the agencies dont protect their own photos, who will ????
so, 554px low res are now considered "thumbnails" and therefore are FREE for grabbing and then fair-use and bla bla bla ??
550px is more than enough to illustrate articles on BBC web site, and on CNN, FOX, Telegraph, WSJ, NYT, etc etc ... next time i will tell them to stop paying subscriptions to getty and AP/AFP/Reuters and just grab free pics from Pinterest with no credit line and no links.
550px is also more than enough for small merchandising sold on POD sites, think about pins, mugs, small stuff where the image is just 3-4cm big.
-
And I don't understand why they do this. There are so many high quality images available as Creative Commons, I don't know why anyone would want to flirt with copyright laws just to fill up their blog. The CC images I use for my Disney blog are super high quality, with at least two of my most used photographers being long term Getty shooters. And they encourage me to use them, they love the exposure (no pun intended). There is absolutely no reason to steal anything.
they steal from agencies because our photos are well keyworded, that's why.
on Flickr instead it's a gigantic mess, they only use tags, and most of the pics have only 3-4 tags, usually wrong and not pertinent to the image.
licencing is also another black hole on Flickr.
why wasting half an hour on Flickr rather than 20 seconds on iStock ?
-
I've never had a problem finding relevant photos inside of Flickr. It's not as slick as the agencies, but it has never failed me.
-
I think they gave you bad info, CR doesn't seem to be very coordinated and the next time you ask the question you'll probably get a different answer. I've gotten many conflicting responses from them and others that made me wonder what they were there for.
I very much agree - I've had at least five different answers to one repeated request (on different occasions), some directly conflicting each other, some at odds with the contract I signed and some, probably the majority, which I'd interpret as being correct within the contract.
I think the CR people are under phenomenal pressure to get through tickets, and they just see the word pinterest in the title, don't read any more, and hit the 'it's an affiliate' button, without seeing that my issue was that the pictures in question are not watermarked, backlinked or easily traceable to iStock for possible purchase.
-
As that's now plenty time for iStock to have provided online official explanation or guidance, and they have opted not to, I filled in pinterest's own takedown form.
Later: that was pleasantly quick and easy. I got an email saying they'd cleared it, but it could take up to 24 hours for the images to be removed from all servers. However, on the page I screendumped above, only the iceberg that isn't mine remains.
:D
Still should we really have to keep checking GIS to watch out for this?
Will we ever get a clear explanation from iStock as to the nature of pinterest being an 'affiliate' site, and why they have allowed this?
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
If your image is on pinterest send a DMCA request to pinterest.
I'm pushing 5000 DMCA take downs in 9 weeks. What do I do?
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
If your image is on pinterest send a DMCA request to pinterest.
I'm pushing 5000 DMCA take downs in 9 weeks. What do I do?
5000? How come so many of your images ended up on there?
-
5000? How come so many of your images ended up on there?
Crafting instructions. There's a lot to pin; I've been doing this for a decade.
I can barely keep my nose above water. I may be a little faster at the take-down than they are at the pinning, but the infringement is close to steady-state.
-
I have not yet had a reply from iStock's CR about my image which has been pinned (and repinned) from (presumably) a legitimate buyer's site - so is unwatermarked. That's a whole week since I took out the ticket. Is that how long tickets are taking at the moment, or is my ticket in the 'ignore' pile?
If your image is on pinterest send a DMCA request to pinterest.
I'm pushing 5000 DMCA take downs in 9 weeks. What do I do?
I did it straight on their website and the pics were down within 90 mins, but 5000 would take forever. :(
-
5000? How come so many of your images ended up on there?
Crafting instructions. There's a lot to pin; I've been doing this for a decade.
I can barely keep my nose above water. I may be a little faster at the take-down than they are at the pinning, but the infringement is close to steady-state.
Have you sent pinterest an email telling them this, just curious what their response would be?
-
5000? How come so many of your images ended up on there?
Crafting instructions. There's a lot to pin; I've been doing this for a decade.
I can barely keep my nose above water. I may be a little faster at the take-down than they are at the pinning, but the infringement is close to steady-state.
Have you sent pinterest an email telling them this, just curious what their response would be?
I sure did send them a threatening email. They told me to use the no-pin tag. Did that help? Maybe by 10%. Hardly made a difference. And I wasted a month re-coding old-fashioned static pages. For NOTHING.
You got to realize... Pinterest doesn't give a rat's tutu about you or me, or copyrights, or the law. Only themselves.
-
I did it straight on their website and the pics were down within 90 mins, but 5000 would take forever. :(
You think they remove them. They don't remove them all. I bet I could find your images still on their servers.
I have this fancy Excel worksheet that spits out lists of every image version from a single input. That ensures all versions are gone.
They're not nice people. They're pirates.
-
I did it straight on their website and the pics were down within 90 mins, but 5000 would take forever. :(
You think they remove them. They don't remove them all. I bet I could find your images still on their servers.
OK, fair enough. They only claimed to have removed the instances I told them about. There could easily be others didn't show up on the page I posted above.
The 'do not pin' code isn't much use for avoiding pinning from sites that have legally purchased (or are illegally using) your content until the agencies put it into the T&C that this is required, whereupon a maximum of about 50% of buyers will do so (based on the percentage of unattributed editorial in-uses I've found).
-
OK, fair enough. They only claimed to have removed the instances I told them about. There could easily be others didn't show up on the page I posted above.
Yes, that's why their online form is useless. They make you input a page URL instead of an image URL. That gives them "permission" not to erase all versions of the image, you see? They're underhanded in everything they do. Down to the tiniest detail.
The only way to get them to remove every version is to list every version. By email.
The 'do not pin' code isn't much use for avoiding pinning from sites that have legally purchased (or are illegally using) your content until the agencies put it into the T&C that this is required, whereupon a maximum of about 50% of buyers will do so (based on the percentage of unattributed editorial in-uses I've found).
I have not sold images to anyone, they are only on my websites. The images are pinned directly from my site. They just ignore the "no pin" message. The nopin tag is a joke.
-
I can't stress this enough.
You might be delighted that your images are pinned, you might enjoy creating pinboards, you may think copyright is a thing of the past and should be done away with.
Even if I were to agree with all of the above... and despite all the sweet propaganda about being "authentic" posting other people's creations... Pinterest is a horrible, horrible web citizen.
From their linking scheme designed to rob artists of their rightful search engine traffic to boost their own rank, to the way they handle take down requests... even leaving the frame of the image that's been taken down so everyone knows the identity of the bad guy that's not cool and taking the pretty pictures away... and not removing all images when it would be so easy for them, and giving you a hard time... and their sneaky DCMA online form... their useless nopin metatag that is an OPT-OUT feature when the LAW and good web citizenry dictactes that it should be OPT-IN... and how many things have escaped my notice?
They hired the guy that monetized Facebook a few weeks ago, it's a matter of time before they monetize my work on their website, and I'm not getting a cut. The only cut I'm getting is an hour and a half every day chasing my content and filing notices.
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I agree that pinterest is not a good web citizen - their entire model almost requires that their uses break the law, and although they give it lip service they mostly just suggest you go trolling around the web pinning whatever you see.
I found one of my de-activated images from IS there and I tried to post a comment with a link to Featurepics where it is as an experiment. Pinterest wouldn't let me post the comment and haven't answered my inquiry yet.
-
Why don't we all join and pin thousands of images with just text, explaining that we make money from our images and don't want them to be used this way? Explaining the various licenses, how cheap we sell compared to the traditional sites and that were already being screwed by some of the microstock sites. Could also have lots of links to where they can buy our stuff. Then they will know exactly how we feel about this and will have no excuses if legal action has to be perused later on.
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/ (http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/)
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
Excellent idea.
-
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
That's brilliant! I disabled hotlinking via my .htaccess file but I like your method better. Think I may have to pinch it ;)
-
'Pinch-it'
That's what they should use instead of 'Pin-it'.
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
I don't think this will work out in your favor.
-
How is serving up an image of my choice when someone tries to have the Pinterest servers illegally copy it from my domain for redistribution against the site terms not "going to work out in my favor"?
-
How is serving up an image of my choice when someone tries to have the Pinterest servers illegally copy it from my domain for redistribution against the site terms not "going to work out in my favor"?
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
-
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
I would leave it. The words are small enough for them to understand.
-
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
That's what you can come up with? Maybe change your name to "dribble".
Besides, if it is the wording you don't like, I asked for suggestions to change it. Would you prefer "Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow, Pretty please don't pin my stuff?"...?
-
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
That's what you can come up with? Maybe change your name to "dribble".
;D
-
I don't really have time for this, so what this all boils down to... in a nutshell: you can't criminalize the behavior of the vast majority of ppl in a democracy (you can in the soviet union, or the nazi germany) so at the end of the day, one way or the other, you are going to be the outcast.
That's what you can come up with? Maybe change your name to "dribble".
Besides, if it is the wording you don't like, I asked for suggestions to change it. Would you prefer "Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow, Pretty please don't pin my stuff?"...?
It's not about me liking anything. I already asked you once: If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing, instead of this useless whining? now available in .jpg too :)
-
It's not about me liking anything. I already asked you once: If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing, instead of this useless whining? now available in .jpg too :)
As I've already said, it isn't materially affecting me yet. So, I'm not suing anyone. I just don't like it, so I'm raising awareness. Speaking of useless, why not reply to this post too?
-
It's not about me liking anything. I already asked you once: If it's such a clear case, how come you are not suing, instead of this useless whining? now available in .jpg too :)
As I've already said, it isn't materially affecting me yet. So, I'm not suing anyone. I just don't like it, so I'm raising awareness. Speaking of useless, why not reply to this post too?
So you are wasting your time in an anti unicorn, manly way basically. By whining... good luck. :)
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
How did you modify the file? I tried blocking the user_agent myself but that didn't work. You must have a better solution. Can you share?
What is the exact code?
It's affecting me materially.
-
This is too funny. Within seconds of testing that method, some pinner commented:
The pin links directly to the orginal website. I don't understand how that is stealing?
WE NEED TO EDUCATE
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
How did you modify the file? I tried blocking the user_agent myself but that didn't work. You must have a better solution. Can you share?
What is the exact code?
It's affecting me materially.
I'll share what I've got:
To just block the hotlinking, change the last line in the .htaccess code to:
RewriteRule \.(jpeg|jpg|gif|png)$ - [F]
To do what Sean has done, you'd need to do this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(.*\.)?yourwebsite.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(.*\.)?anotheroneofyoursites.net [NC]
RewriteRule \.(jpeg|jpg|gif|png)$ http : //outsidewebsite.com/replacementimage.jpg [NC,R,L]
You'd have to change the 3rd, 4th and 5th line that I have in red. (get rid of the spaces before and after the semicolon from the 4th line)
The 4th line is used if you want to allow one of your other sites to hotlink images from your site. If you have more sites, you can add more lines like the 4th line otherwise you can delete it.
The 5th line is the image you want them to see. you'll have to host the image somewhere else otherwise it will loop back onto your site and won't work.
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
Share the code I'd like to do that on a few sites that I run. What I did for the one that was running a bot that linked to our sites and stole photos (also claimed they are free background and screensavers) was altered the image for the link they used and then changed the code so my site only showed the proper image.
Before I have to go learn something new like .htaccess is it an easy change?
Hey look, another one bites the dust. SportyDesktops is gone. Domain name is for sale. I wonder what happened? But here's what people there saw instead of my images...
(http://www.gizex.com/gallery/mississippi/pikes-peak-iowa-web.jpg)
-
To do what Sean has done, you'd need to do this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(.*\.)?anotheroneofyoursites.net [NC]
RewriteRule \.(jpeg|jpg|gif|png)$ http : //outsidewebsite.com/replacementimage.jpg [NC,R,L]
You'd have to change the 3rd and 4th line that I have in red. (get rid of the spaces before and after the semicolon from the 4th line)
The 3rd line is used if you want to allow one of your other sites to hotlink images from your site. If you have more sites, you can add more lines like the 3rd line otherwise you can delete it.
The 4th line is the image you want them to see. you'll have to host the image somewhere else otherwise it will loop back onto your site and won't work.
The code doesn't mention Pinterest anywhere specifically as user_agent?
Because on simple hotlinking protection doesn't stop pinning.
-
Before I have to go learn something new like .htaccess is it an easy change?
Super-easy, and it works site-wide. I've been looking for a .htaccess solution but have not been successful.
-
To do what Sean has done, you'd need to do this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(.*\.)?yourwebsite.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http(s)?://(.*\.)?anotheroneofyoursites.net [NC]
RewriteRule \.(jpeg|jpg|gif|png)$ http : //outsidewebsite.com/replacementimage.jpg [NC,R,L]
You'd have to change the 3rd, 4th and 5th line that I have in red. (get rid of the spaces before and after the semicolon from the 4th line)
The 4th line is used if you want to allow one of your other sites to hotlink images from your site. If you have more sites, you can add more lines like the 4th line otherwise you can delete it.
The 5th line is the image you want them to see. you'll have to host the image somewhere else otherwise it will loop back onto your site and won't work.
The code doesn't mention Pinterest anywhere specifically as user_agent?
Because on simple hotlinking protection doesn't stop pinning.
I haven't done what Sean's done. I've just blocked hotlinking and replaced the image they hotlink to. A white square image. I just put up my code in case someone wants it.
-
I haven't done what Sean's done. I've just blocked hotlinking and replaced the image they hotlink to. A white square image. I just put up my code in case someone wants it.
Can I test if I can pin from your website and get the image I try to pin, or the one you redirect to?
-
This is what I finally put together:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Pinterest [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(jpe?g|gif|bmp|png)$ http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/upload/269793833897646473_AVQPpkbR_f.jpg (http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/upload/269793833897646473_AVQPpkbR_f.jpg) [R]
For some reason, using the HTTP_REFERRER was not working, but the USER_AGENT var did.
Just put that into your .htaccess file at the top level directory or wherever your apache looks for it.
-
This is what I finally put together:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Pinterest [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(jpe?g|gif|bmp|png)$ [url]http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/upload/269793833897646473_AVQPpkbR_f.jpg[/url] ([url]http://media-cache3.pinterest.com/upload/269793833897646473_AVQPpkbR_f.jpg[/url]) [R]
For some reason, using the HTTP_REFERRER was not working, but the USER_AGENT var did.
Just put that into your .htaccess file at the top level directory or wherever your apache looks for it.
Yes, pinning is identified with "user_agent" - I'm implementing this now.
-
I haven't done what Sean's done. I've just blocked hotlinking and replaced the image they hotlink to. A white square image. I just put up my code in case someone wants it.
Can I test if I can pin from your website and get the image I try to pin, or the one you redirect to?
Don't push your luck, I'm anonymous here :) Besides, as I mentioned a few days ago, I'm revamping my site so it's off the air for a while.
I like Sean's code but does it block all hotlinking or just pinning from Pinterest?
There was an error in my code that I just noticed. I deleted one too many lines but I've added it back.
-
When someone tries to pin to Pinterest, they get the fake hand-slap image on their pinboard (although they'd notice it in the interface first) instead of what they wanted. You could obviously modify it to block whoever. Or everything. Since the graphic is Pinterest specific, I just blocked Pinterest.
-
Hotlinking protection and Pitnerest protection use different principles.
I have hotlinking protection but that doesn't help against Pinterest.
I'm so excited with that .htaccess image substitution. It's just what the doctor ordered. AMEN and THANK YOU!
-
OMG
The bozos at Pinterest do know my name. :D
I just found out Sean's code doesn't work for me. Why?
Because Pinterest is now magically, without telling me, blocking people from pinning anything from any domain of mine that I emailed them months ago. I had sent them a list of 22 domains, many of which never had anything pinned.
All of them are now blocked from pinning.
This is as fresh as wet paint.
Those rat finks still control the effin' message and say "Sorry, pinning is not allowed from this domain. Please contact the site operator if you have any questions"
It should say contact your ATTORNEY if you have any questions.
BUT I'LL TAKE IT
THE GODDAM SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE BUCKET OF GREASE
What I have had to go through to get to this point... they sure didn't give in easy... they should have done this many DMCA notices ago.
But I never had to re-code thousands of web pages with no-pin tags... all they had to do was to block from their end. They chose not to, they chose to give that low priority.
-
This is too funny. Within seconds of testing that method, some pinner commented:
The pin links directly to the orginal website. I don't understand how that is stealing?
WE NEED TO EDUCATE
impossible.
i gave up a long time ago.
my only hope was on lawyers and judges but it's turning out to be a smack in the face too.
photo agencies should AT LEAST recognize the piracy problem instead of treating it like a minor issue, it's not minor, it's major, and some of them are even encouraging the scroungers at Pinterest !
yet another disaster of the RF licence, we all knew it would end up like this and it can only get worse.
-
When someone tries to pin to Pinterest, they get the fake hand-slap image on their pinboard (although they'd notice it in the interface first) instead of what they wanted. You could obviously modify it to block whoever. Or everything. Since the graphic is Pinterest specific, I just blocked Pinterest.
what about setting up .htaccess only for Pinterest IPs ? i guess they only use static IPs to steal images, no need to block everybody.
-
impossible.
i gave up a long time ago.
my only hope was on lawyers and judges but it's turning out to be a smack in the face too.
photo agencies should AT LEAST recognize the piracy problem instead of treating it like a minor issue, it's not minor, it's major, and some of them are even encouraging the scroungers at Pinterest !
yet another disaster of the RF licence, we all knew it would end up like this and it can only get worse.
I don't think it's a disaster of the RF license at all, I think it's a disaster of social media sites, their lack of respect for copyright infringement, and the lack of respect from the court system towards copyright infringement.
-
I don't think it's a disaster of the RF license at all, I think it's a disaster of social media sites, their lack of respect for copyright infringement, and the lack of respect from the court system towards copyright infringement.
I think that's what he meant - that it's a disaster of the RF license because of the lack of respect of our copyright from social media, the law and even worse now, from the very people that we pay to protect us, our agents. What hope do we have now that they've jumped on the bandwagon to give our images away for free.
-
impossible.
i gave up a long time ago.
my only hope was on lawyers and judges but it's turning out to be a smack in the face too.
photo agencies should AT LEAST recognize the piracy problem instead of treating it like a minor issue, it's not minor, it's major, and some of them are even encouraging the scroungers at Pinterest !
yet another disaster of the RF licence, we all knew it would end up like this and it can only get worse.
I don't think it's a disaster of the RF license at all, I think it's a disaster of social media sites, their lack of respect for copyright infringement, and the lack of respect from the court system towards copyright infringement.
It is a 'disaster' of the RF license and the micro business model. You are the the happiest, and it actually works best when a pic just piles and piles up downloads. How on earth do you expect it not to pop up everywhere after that? How do you expect anybody to know if it's legal or not with the almost unlimited use RF model? That model is so ragtag even it's name is incorrect *. Whats wrong with you ppl? Are you adults? No brain? No common sense? Unbelievable...
-
I don't think it's a disaster of the RF license at all, I think it's a disaster of social media sites, their lack of respect for copyright infringement, and the lack of respect from the court system towards copyright infringement.
I think that's what he meant - that it's a disaster of the RF license because of the lack of respect of our copyright from social media, the law and even worse now, from the very people that we pay to protect us, our agents. What hope do we have now that they've jumped on the bandwagon to give our images away for free.
I see, sorry, I misread it. You are right, I think that's what he meant to. Thanks for pointing it out, grafix. Sorry antistock. Sometimes I skimread a little too much. :'(
-
Is there anyway to make it so that when they pin an image from your web site they actually get a different image - perhaps one that says "I am trying to steal content online", or maybe a really nasty porno image.
I've modified my .htaccess file on my seanlockephotography.com site, so any attempt to pin from the Pinterest agent gets this image instead:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897646473/[/url])
(which I host on their server, which is awesome)
Any ideas for better text? That was just temp text... I don't think anyone takes from my domain - I just wanted to write a blog post about it...
Absolutely brilliant Sean! Well done :D
-
Lol, thx. Here's the kindler, gentler one for dribble.
http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897648337/ (http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897648337/)
-
Lol, thx. Here's the kindler, gentler one for dribble.
[url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897648337/[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pin/269793833897648337/[/url])
I liked the other one better, but this one gets the job done too. I can see why it had to be softened up for Drugal. He's such a kind, gentle sort himself. Always going out of his way to avoid causing offense... ;)
-
interesting ... in their career page there's this job position :
"Search and Data Mining Engineer
You will be responsible for mining our deeply linked data set connecting millions of people to the objects they love. Our data set gives us the opportunity to provide personal recommendations of unprecedented specificity and quality. Your work will help millions of people discover products, services and places they love."
so, it seems they recognize their search function sucks and they're realizing that unkeyworded images are impossible to find easily, their job description also clearly mention they plan on working on automted "recommendation" .. what's that exactly ? "related images" ? related pins ? related links to e-commerce sites ? how will this work, of course by cross checking the keyworkding and making keyword ranks on density etc .. hmm ...let's see ...
they also clearly state "discover products" and this can only mean they will add something suggesting links to buy products related to their pins ... if i steal and pin a photo of the Tour Eiffel i will be served with a box with ads from travel agents, hotels, etc .. i guess !
so, a poor man's Adsense basically but i'm afraid they're going to integrate everyting inside pinterest in a huge pin & buy scenario, a mix of Flickr, Ebay, and Amazon more or less, all based on stolen photos !
-
interesting ... in their career page there's this job position :
"Search and Data Mining Engineer
You will be responsible for mining our deeply linked data set connecting millions of people to the objects they love. Our data set gives us the opportunity to provide personal recommendations of unprecedented specificity and quality. Your work will help millions of people discover products, services and places they love."
so, it seems they recognize their search function sucks and they're realizing that unkeyworded images are impossible to find easily, their job description also clearly mention they plan on working on automted "recommendation" .. what's that exactly ? "related images" ? related pins ? related links to e-commerce sites ? how will this work, of course by cross checking the keyworkding and making keyword ranks on density etc .. hmm ...let's see ...
they also clearly state "discover products" and this can only mean they will add something suggesting links to buy products related to their pins ... if i steal and pin a photo of the Tour Eiffel i will be served with a box with ads from travel agents, hotels, etc .. i guess !
so, a poor man's Adsense basically but i'm afraid they're going to integrate everyting inside pinterest in a huge pin & buy scenario, a mix of Flickr, Ebay, and Amazon more or less, all based on stolen photos !
In an interview with Financial Time, Rakuten CEO calls it "discovery shopping".
http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2012/05/rakuten-ceo-pinterest/ (http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2012/05/rakuten-ceo-pinterest/)
And in case you missed it Rakuten is the new $100mil investor in Pinterest. In effect, all the mindless Pinhags will become shills for Pinterest. So Antistock, you're correct in your assessment here. It will become all about the commerce. Rakuten now also controls Buy.com, so look for a head to head battle with Amazon.
Now let's take it a little further - let's suppose that pinterest is somehow willing to pay the pinhags a penny per sales conversion, or issue "Rakuten Points" as Buy.com does (I use Buy.com and points are issued to buyers for each purchase based on sales price.). The trailer trash housewives will be in a pin frenzy and will be able to get their chocolate covered bacon snacks for free. They won't be interested in stock photos anymore. It will be a fast sprint to get the Louis Vuitton handbags the husbands wont' let them buy.
And another article of interest
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/rakuten-ceo-on-the-100b-pinterest-round-we-want-pinterest-users-to-pin-images-and-buy-using-our-id/ (http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/rakuten-ceo-on-the-100b-pinterest-round-we-want-pinterest-users-to-pin-images-and-buy-using-our-id/)
-
yeah, i'm really sad and tired.
i can't see any exit from all this ... and by the way :
- pirating mp3s with napster was judged illegal and the service shut down, but uploading on youtube a video made of a screenshot with a stolen mp3 seems to be fully OK these days, i can find ANY possible song i can remember even the most obscure ones as well as B-sides, bootlegs, remixes, lyrics, subtitles, etc
- sharing pirated warez on torrents and P2P is illegal and some trackers got shut down, on the other side uploading on MegaUpload and getting well paid for that seems to be now OK for the NZ courts ! Kim Dotcom will soon be free and back to business, all he's risking is to be banned to operate in the US and to set foot in the US.
- and now photos, which are free to be shared and stolen everywhere particularly on Pinterest, as if Flickr and google images weren't bad enough, now they will also use our photos to sell their sh-it on Buy.com and their other spinoffs, fully legal and backed by their horde of lawyers.
-
The trailer trash housewives will be in a pin frenzy and will be able to get their chocolate covered bacon snacks for free. They won't be interested in stock photos anymore. It will be a fast sprint to get the Louis Vuitton handbags the husbands wont' let them buy.
exactly !
stealing photos will not be enough for these scroungers.
they will encourage pinners to pin like crazy and make some tea money with that, maybe also with bonuses, coupons, microcredits, or even a real affilation contract like amazon does with affiliate advertisers (and paying a pittance).
-
yeah, i'm really sad and tired.
i can't see any exit from all this ... and by the way :
- pirating mp3s with napster was judged illegal and the service shut down, but uploading on youtube a video made of a screenshot with a stolen mp3 seems to be fully OK these days...
As an aside by commenting on the youtube aspect here, back maybe 6-8 mo ago, there was a video that gained popularity in photoworld and of course the photos were gaga bcause the video was made by a 13 yr old boy with a dslr, or something like that. But he snatched the music. When you turned the sound off, it was just another piece of youtube crappola. I've been editing video for a very long time, and I know garbage when I see it.
So back to the pinners - guess at a corporate level there's nothing like getting cybermules to do all the dirty work for you. And let them take the rap if things implode by twisting and obfuscating the law.
-
So back to the pinners - guess at a corporate level there's nothing like getting cybermules to do all the dirty work for you. And let them take the rap if things implode by twisting and obfuscating the law.
yes, and they know very well that if somebody takes them in court it can go on for years and they can appeal and go forth again, and in the meantime the company can be sold to the next su-cker.
win-win situation ? they provide a free service and users provide the content, but wait a second, all the content is not even theirs ! it's stolen from us !!
-
This is a must read:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/ (http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/)
Brace yourselves, it's a long one, but you won't regret the time investment.
Now that I'm substituting my pinned images with that .htacess trick, pinners just back up a page in their browser, and pin from the search engine result pages. PIN HAGS can die in a fire.
-
This is a must read:
[url]http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/[/url] ([url]http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/[/url])
Great link! Here's one of the comments I particularly liked:
“Why are we willing to pay for computers, iPods, smartphones, data plans, and high speed internet access but not the music itself?”
It’s because it’s far more difficult to steal the aforementioned items. The people who steal music would also steal iPods and data plans if the chance of being caught was remote. There have always been, and always will be, self-entitled people who disregard others.
-
more on using .htaccess against pinterest:
http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html (http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html)
-
more on using .htaccess against pinterest:
[url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html[/url] ([url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html[/url])
hahaha i like the "Pinning is Stealing" one !
-
more on using .htaccess against pinterest:
[url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html[/url] ([url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/06/educate-pinners-with-htaccess.html[/url])
hahaha i like the "Pinning is Stealing" one !
We should all create accounts and pin them directly from hummingbird's blog. That will fill up Pinterest's front page with these pins if we all do it at the same time. We could all schedule to pin them every Friday at an agreed time. Ya wanna? ;D
-
You shouldn't be able to pin images from the blog because I hotlink them from a domain that Pinterest is now blocking from their end.
You can have fun re-pinning from here:
http://pinterest.com/pinhammer (http://pinterest.com/pinhammer)
This being said... there are some things I'd like to know and cannot find out without someone else's help. Anyone wants to play?
I need to find out if pinners still receive a personal email from Ben Silbermann when one of their pins is DMCA'd, and what that letter now says, if there is one. That game needs two to tango. One "infringer," and one "complainant" with an email attached to a Pinterest account.
I need to find out how many times you can have pins removed before Pinterest disables your account. I suspect the answer is... never. This game needs many players. One "repeat infringer" and a multitude of "complainants" because variety of complainants is important. Couple of weeks to infringe on your buddies with a total of approx 100 images, and another couple of weeks for the "complainants" to trickle DMCAs at a natural-looking rate.
-
You shouldn't be able to pin images from the blog because I hotlink them from a domain that Pinterest is now blocking from their end.
You can have fun re-pinning from here:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pinhammer[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pinhammer[/url])
This being said... there are some things I'd like to know and cannot find out without someone else's help. Anyone wants to play?
I need to find out if pinners still receive a personal email from Ben Silbermann when one of their pins is DMCA'd, and what that letter now says, if there is one. That game needs two to tango. One "infringer," and one "complainant" with an email attached to a Pinterest account.
I need to find out how many times you can have pins removed before Pinterest disables your account. I suspect the answer is... never. This game needs many players. One "repeat infringer" and a multitude of "complainants" because variety of complainants is important. Couple of weeks to infringe on your buddies with a total of approx 100 images, and another couple of weeks for the "complainants" to trickle DMCAs at a natural-looking rate.
I'm game. I'll one or more of your infringers. I'll set up a dummy account tomorrow.
About pinning your images from your blog. Re-pinning is no good as it re-pins don't appear on the front page. What I'd love to see is their front page with nothing but copyright violations to quickly educate the public. Imagine the number of pinners that would see them in one go? If you're game, we can do it from a Google search but we'd need a three of four people pinning.
-
This is a must read:
[url]http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/[/url] ([url]http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/[/url])
What a wonderfully written piece. Thank you for posting this. I'll share it as much as possible. I loved his 'unsticking it to the man' reference. If youngsters can start to sense that ripping off artists is decidedly not 'sticking to the man' and is entirely 'uncool', we might start to get somewhere.
I remember when I was a child, there was an ad campaign on TV that said 'Home taping is killing music'... Although later derided as propaganda on the part of the big labels, I was exposed to it at such a young age that it affected me powerfully and pretty much set my moral position on the side of the artist. Prior to that, I didn't have a clue about the artist/money relationship.
I just tried to find it on YouTube, only to discover that it has been hijacked by someone who thinks all musicians are as rich as Madonna and only want money for jet planes and cocaine. It's a long road... but that article is a real energy boost.
(Edited for clarity).
-
You shouldn't be able to pin images from the blog because I hotlink them from a domain that Pinterest is now blocking from their end.
You can have fun re-pinning from here:
[url]http://pinterest.com/pinhammer[/url] ([url]http://pinterest.com/pinhammer[/url])
This being said... there are some things I'd like to know and cannot find out without someone else's help. Anyone wants to play?
I need to find out if pinners still receive a personal email from Ben Silbermann when one of their pins is DMCA'd, and what that letter now says, if there is one. That game needs two to tango. One "infringer," and one "complainant" with an email attached to a Pinterest account.
I need to find out how many times you can have pins removed before Pinterest disables your account. I suspect the answer is... never. This game needs many players. One "repeat infringer" and a multitude of "complainants" because variety of complainants is important. Couple of weeks to infringe on your buddies with a total of approx 100 images, and another couple of weeks for the "complainants" to trickle DMCAs at a natural-looking rate.
I'm game. I'll one or more of your infringers. I'll set up a dummy account tomorrow.
About pinning your images from your blog. Re-pinning is no good as it re-pins don't appear on the front page. What I'd love to see is their front page with nothing but copyright violations to quickly educate the public. Imagine the number of pinners that would see them in one go? If you're game, we can do it from a Google search but we'd need a three of four people pinning.
I'm game, but you'll have to tell me EXACTLY what to do. You can sitemail me if you like.
-
About pinning your images from your blog. Re-pinning is no good as it re-pins don't appear on the front page. What I'd love to see is their front page with nothing but copyright violations to quickly educate the public. Imagine the number of pinners that would see them in one go? If you're game, we can do it from a Google search but we'd need a three of four people pinning.
You can try pinning from here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40998831@N04/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/40998831@N04/)
I'm game.
I *think* repinning an image a lot keeps in the front page. You can repin repeatedly and fill up a folder with repeated images, Pinterest doesn't know the difference. So if we "catch" one on pinterest's main main, we ought to repin it madly to keep it there.
-
I'm game, but you'll have to tell me EXACTLY what to do. You can sitemail me if you like.
grafix04 volunteered to infringe, so you can be infringed. Send him a PM with a link to a page with one of your images, and grafix04 will pin it. You will then file a DMCA through Pinterest's online form. Watch your email to see if you get a note of the removal from Ben or his minions.
In fact, since we have a volunteer infringer, everyone else can be an infringee, to answer the second question "how much infringement before they cut off your account?" We just need to PM grafix04 with a list of pages where we want him to pin. Two weeks later, we start asking Pinterest to remove the material. Not everyone at once! We don't want to look un-natural.
@grafix04 - you could do an advanced google search for images in Creative Commons, and fill up a few folders, just so the proportion of infringed material isn't 100%, again we don't want to trigger something un-natural. I don't think Pinterest checks anything at all, but just in case.
-
I'm game, but you'll have to tell me EXACTLY what to do. You can sitemail me if you like.
grafix04 volunteered to infringe, so you can be infringed. Send him a PM with a link to a page with one of your images, and grafix04 will pin it. You will then file a DMCA through Pinterest's online form. Watch your email to see if you get a note of the removal from Ben or his minions.
In fact, since we have a volunteer infringer, everyone else can be an infringee, to answer the second question "how much infringement before they cut off your account?" We just need to PM grafix04 with a list of pages where we want him to pin. Two weeks later, we start asking Pinterest to remove the material. Not everyone at once! We don't want to look un-natural.
@grafix04 - you could do an advanced google search for images in Creative Commons, and fill up a few folders, just so the proportion of infringed material isn't 100%, again we don't want to trigger something un-natural. I don't think Pinterest checks anything at all, but just in case.
shouldn't we go to private emails to continue this?
-
Q: Pinterest anyone?
A: No thank you.
-
Do we have that letter from Ben?
-
This is an ill-conceived idea which has the potential to get people into trouble. And is potentially not good news for this board either.
Most importantly - you are effectively proposing that you agree with each other to 'infringe' your own IP. De facto you are granting permission. In which case there is no infringement. And then you are proposing to raise bogus and arguably fraudulent legal notices against these fictitious infringements.
So not good already. On another thread here - someone was proposing that photographers should be personally sending out demands for payment against perceived infringements (as opposed to letting their agencies deal with legal issues). And - though the two threads might be separate - it wouldn't take a leap of imagination to cook this all together and call it a fraudulent conspiracy.
People should let their agencies or legal professionals deal with legal issues. Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down. Half-cocked schemes like this are likely to backfire and get people into trouble.
I'm game, but you'll have to tell me EXACTLY what to do. You can sitemail me if you like.
grafix04 volunteered to infringe, so you can be infringed. Send him a PM with a link to a page with one of your images, and grafix04 will pin it. You will then file a DMCA through Pinterest's online form. Watch your email to see if you get a note of the removal from Ben or his minions.
In fact, since we have a volunteer infringer, everyone else can be an infringee, to answer the second question "how much infringement before they cut off your account?" We just need to PM grafix04 with a list of pages where we want him to pin. Two weeks later, we start asking Pinterest to remove the material. Not everyone at once! We don't want to look un-natural.
@grafix04 - you could do an advanced google search for images in Creative Commons, and fill up a few folders, just so the proportion of infringed material isn't 100%, again we don't want to trigger something un-natural. I don't think Pinterest checks anything at all, but just in case.
-
This is an ill-conceived idea which has the potential to get people into trouble. And is potentially not good news for this board either.
Most importantly - you are effectively proposing that you agree with each other to 'infringe' your own IP. De facto you are granting permission. In which case there is no infringement. And then you are proposing to raise bogus and arguably fraudulent legal notices against these fictitious infringements.
So not good already. On another thread here - someone was proposing that photographers should be personally sending out demands for payment against perceived infringements (as opposed to letting their agencies deal with legal issues). And - though the two threads might be separate - it wouldn't take a leap of imagination to cook this all together and call it a fraudulent conspiracy.
People should let their agencies or legal professionals deal with legal issues. Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down. Half-cocked schemes like this are likely to backfire and get people into trouble.
I think that this is designed as a fact-finding mission, not to get anyone in trouble. If I choose to "infringe" my own images, that's my business. What is illegal is a whole lot of other people infringing my images, but I guess you are OK with that?
As far as sending out our own DMCA notices...istock has the rule that contributors can't do that. None of the other sites do. None of the agencies do anything about this copyright infringement (maybe for you, yes, if you are an exclusive with istock, but you can't lump the rest of the hundreds of thousands of contributors in with you), so the only way to get anything done is to do it ourselves. I don't get how you say "Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down" when some agencies are directly contributing to the problem, like DT posting pinterest share buttons on everyone's images!
With all that being said, I agree with you that the above "scheme" does sound fraudulent, and since it was broadcast publicly here instead of being handled offsite, I won't be participating. But the day contributors don't have the right to send out DMCA notices and try to collect money for images they hold copyright to that have been stolen, is the day contributors need to get serious about taking a stand. If agencies won't help with the problem, as far as I'm concerned, they are accessories to the crime.
-
So not good already. On another thread here - someone was proposing that photographers should be personally sending out demands for payment against perceived infringements (as opposed to letting their agencies deal with legal issues).
People should let their agencies or legal professionals deal with legal issues. Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down.
None of the agencies do anything about this copyright infringement (maybe for you, yes, if you are an exclusive with istock, but you can't lump the rest of the hundreds of thousands of contributors in with you), so the only way to get anything done is to do it ourselves.
Nope, iStock weren't at all concerned about my pinned third party page with several of my pictures, because, apparently "Pinterest is an iStockphoto affiliate". They have not replied to my query about how pinning third party pages with unwatermarked photos can be in their interest or mine, and it's fallen off my 'open support tickets'.
But I got the photos taken own myself by using pinterest's own system for reporting misuse, which is more than I can say for stumbleupon.
-
Nope, iStock weren't at all concerned about my pinned third party page with several of my pictures, because, apparently "Pinterest is an iStockphoto affiliate". They have not replied to my query about how pinning third party pages with unwatermarked photos can be in their interest or mine, and it's fallen off my 'open support tickets'.
But I got the photos taken own myself by using pinterest's own system for reporting misuse, which is more than I can say for stumbleupon.
So istock isn't even helping exclusives, apparently. And they are contributing to the problem, as well (like DT). I don't get how more contributors aren't up in arms about this. I guess some contributors really do believe that this whole pinterest thing is going to make them more money. And yet lots are complaining about their sales taking a nosedive. <sigh>
-
The scheme to find out if Ben Silbermann still sends letters to pinners when a pin is taken down is perfectly legit. Just take a snapshot that you don't care about, and get an "infringer" to pin it, and you file an online DMCA. No one cares, the DMCA & the Ben letter (if Pinterest still sends letters) are through an automated system.
"Pinterest is an iStockphoto affiliate"
WOW - that's in quotes, so erm this is an actual quote? That means that Pinterest gets a cut if a purchase is made at iStock when someone follows a link from Pinterest?
That's what affiliate means. GETS A CUT. Not "Pinterest is an iStockphoto friend" but AFFILIATE.
Who will buy an iStock image from Pinterest? When I want iStock pictures (I do use them on occasion), I go straight to iStock. I can see this LOSING money when I hotlink the Pinterest image rather than paying iStock.
-
"Pinterest is an iStockphoto affiliate"
WOW - that's in quotes, so erm this is an actual quote?
Yes.
That means that Pinterest gets a cut if a purchase is made at iStock when someone follows a link from Pinterest?
That's what affiliate means. GETS A CUT. Not "Pinterest is an iStockphoto friend" but AFFILIATE.
Who will buy an iStock image from Pinterest? When I want iStock pictures (I do use them on occasion), I go straight to iStock. I can see this LOSING money when I hotlink the Pinterest image rather than paying iStock.
I guess the theory is that if a linked watermarked image is seen, there's a vague chance that a new buyer might follow the link and buy the image at iStock.
But that can't work with an unattributed, unwatermarked image.
-
After I bumped this thread
http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_31459 (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_31459)
to the top over on the DT forum, I got this message from Serban:
Cathy, as soon as a conclusion will be drawn we will update this thread. There is no need to bump it, we will not forget. We expect to have a resolution in the first weeks of July.
Thanks for your patience.
I guess he's referring to a resolution as to whether pinterest is actually doing DT any good, or whether they will remove the pinterest share buttons from contributor's images?
-
Question:
Are there any stock photo websites that are not allowing pinning?
I want to give them my business.
-
Question:
Are there any stock photo websites that are not allowing pinning?
I want to give them my business.
Alamy don't like it, http://www.alamy.com/pressrelease/releases/archive/2012/06/28/154.aspx (http://www.alamy.com/pressrelease/releases/archive/2012/06/28/154.aspx)
but whether they're actively preventing it, I couldn't say as I'm not on pinterest.
That said, their reponse to unpurchased uses of RM images (nothing do do with pinterest) is IMO disappointing.
-
Question:
Are there any stock photo websites that are not allowing pinning?
I want to give them my business.
When I look at my images on SS, underneath the image is a share button. When I expand that, it only shows facebook and twitter. I assume that means that at least SS isn't contributing to the pinning directly by having a pin button there.
-
Question:
Are there any stock photo websites that are not allowing pinning?
I want to give them my business.
When I look at my images on SS, underneath the image is a share button. When I expand that, it only shows facebook and twitter. I assume that means that at least SS isn't contributing to the pinning directly by having a pin button there.
iStock doesn't have a pin button that I can see, just FB, Twitter and LinkedIn.
I don't see any share buttons at all on Alamy images.
-
Question:
Are there any stock photo websites that are not allowing pinning?
I want to give them my business.
When I look at my images on SS, underneath the image is a share button. When I expand that, it only shows facebook and twitter. I assume that means that at least SS isn't contributing to the pinning directly by having a pin button there.
iStock doesn't have a pin button that I can see, just FB, Twitter and LinkedIn.
I don't see any share buttons at all on Alamy images.
I just don't know enough about it to say that those visible buttons mean that images are not being pinned. :(
-
I just don't know enough about it to say that those visible buttons mean that images are not being pinned. :(
I'm guessing that unless prevented, the images can be pinned; the buttons just encourage it.
-
On another thread here - someone was proposing that photographers should be personally sending out demands for payment against perceived infringements (as opposed to letting their agencies deal with legal issues). And - though the two threads might be separate - it wouldn't take a leap of imagination to cook this all together and call it a fraudulent conspiracy.
People should let their agencies or legal professionals deal with legal issues. Especially as the industry is clearly focused on resolving these issues top down. Half-cocked schemes like this are likely to backfire and get people into trouble.
So let me get this straight. People who license their images on their own sites (not via an agent) should allow the public to steal their images and do nothing about it? There is nothing wrong with telling those are using our images illegally that they have to pay if they want to continue to use them. You're making a big deal out of nothing. I'm not sending a letter of demand, I'm simply asking for payment before I get formal with them. Why are you so scared to request payment for goods and services you've provided? They are your images, they do not belong to any agent who as we now know, don't take copyright seriously.
-
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".
I think the real problem is that what people really wan't - better search returns - isn't there. I had to find a background for a client and we simply gave up. We would have paid money just to use a more advanced search engine. We ended up just finding a location and shooting it ourselves.
-
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
-
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
One of the biggest uses of stock images is in composites, what we really needed was the ability to search based on specific perspectives and angles. I would gladly pay money to access a search tool that let me sketch out what I want to find and then search based on my own visual sketch - even better would be the ability to also search based on lenses and camera bodies used as well..... I know of only one agency right now that is actively working on making this happen.
-
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
Weed out or penalise spam in the keywords.
Oh, iStock was going to do that with BM2, but they gave that up.
-
Describe how a "more advanced search engine" would work.
Weed out or penalise spam in the keywords.
Oh, iStock was going to do that with BM2, but they gave that up.
Istock actually the worst results for us. They are biasing results towards exclusive images, even if they are highly irrelevant or a low match to my search. Drove me crazy! The only way I could find something decent was to do a very broad search and then weed threw a few thousand shots.
-
More sophisticated and effective search is obviously a huge opportunity for the microstock industry. Actually cleaning up existing keywording for 20 million images is prohibitively expensive; so a new agency, starting fresh while maintaining good consistent keyword standards, could eventually have a big advantage.
Searching and categorizing based on any sort of visual attributes is probably beyond anyone's capabilities today. A breakthrough would take serious R&D investment and top technical talent, and it isn't going to come from any of today's microstock agencies. My bet would be on a major 'search' player like Google to develop such technology and eventually make today's microstock sites obsolete. Google won't sell the images themselves but will provide deep search and indexing into the archives of image brokers, who will pay sales commissions to Google (and maybe, still, some tiny token to the contributing photographers).
Just my own wild speculation...
-
What does the istock search have to do with pinterest? Or has this thread been derailed?
-
At your earliest convenience:
Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer
Make a statement!
-
At your earliest convenience:
Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer
Make a statement!
Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.
-
At your earliest convenience:
Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer
Make a statement!
Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.
Yes you do.
I'm waiting for them to send me an invite and then i can re-pin. To have any sort of real impact, we'd have to have a few people pinning all the images at the same time to fill up a page. The thing is though, I don't see too many people here that are overly concerned about Pinterest or copyright for that matter. It kind of feels like we're wasting our time.
I have found it strange that so many photographers not caring about their own property. If we ourselves don't care, how can we expect our micros to care. Why would we expect the general public or sites like Pinterest to care? The lack of response here and everywhere has sent a clear message to Pinterest and probably the legal system that copyright isn't to be taken too seriously.
It's disappointing to say the least.
-
At your earliest convenience:
Frenetically REPIN as many images as you feel like from pinterest.com/pinhammer
Make a statement!
Do I have to join pinterest in order to re-pin? If so, I will, but I sure don't want to.
Yes you do.
I'm waiting for them to send me an invite and then i can re-pin. To have any sort of real impact, we'd have to have a few people pinning all the images at the same time to fill up a page. The thing is though, I don't see too many people here that are overly concerned about Pinterest or copyright for that matter. It kind of feels like we're wasting our time.
I have found it strange that so many photographers not caring about their own property. If we ourselves don't care, how can we expect our micros to care. Why would we expect the general public or sites like Pinterest to care? The lack of response here and everywhere has sent a clear message to Pinterest and probably the legal system that copyright isn't to be taken too seriously.
It's disappointing to say the least.
Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.
My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
-
Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.
My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
[/quote]
I don't agree. Technology isn't pushing us towards it, we're pushing us towards it. Technology can be used to protect IP, but who's going to bother when there's such a small demand for it? We keep sending the message out there "do whatever you want with our images, we won't do anything about it". Even our own micros have little respect for our IP these days. We've done this to ourselves. Imagine if every photographer, illustrator and artist in the world banded together and packed the streets in protest over our copyright issues. That would send a clear message to the world about how we feel about it and it would educate the world on IP and copyright. But as a group, as a whole, we don't care. As a group, we're too lazy to even speak up about it let alone take the streets in protest. Every other profession would never allow something like this to happen. Every other profession has their peers protesting together over everything and we can't even round up even 50 people on this forum to agree to protect the very backbone of our business. There's no hope, not because of technology, but because of our poor attitudes.
-
Technology is revealing all the flaws and in my opinion, fantasies, that copyright laws represent. Technology is pushing us towards a society that will eventually abandon IP laws either formally or by an even greater force - the market - as well as business models that rely entirely on such a shaky system. Look at the Adobe cloud, I know a lot of people swear they will never "cloud compute" but the message is pretty clear - if you can't reliably control something, you can't reliably sell it. Subscriptions to cloud hosted programs is one of the ways a company can control it's programs more reliably. Forward thinking companies see the writing on the wall with IP laws being a relic of the past. It's the beginning of the future like it or not.
My personal prediction for photography is that photo libraries will always exist, but you'll be paying for advanced search tools and other services you can't just download from a torrent site. I also think there will always be a place for assignment photographers, but only the best shooters will be able to compete in that arena since it tends to require far more business skills than the typical photographer has.
I don't agree. Technology isn't pushing us towards it, we're pushing us towards it. Technology can be used to protect IP, but who's going to bother when there's such a small demand for it? We keep sending the message out there "do whatever you want with our images, we won't do anything about it". Even our own micros have little respect for our IP these days. We've done this to ourselves. Imagine if every photographer, illustrator and artist in the world banded together and packed the streets in protest over our copyright issues. That would send a clear message to the world about how we feel about it and it would educate the world on IP and copyright. But as a group, as a whole, we don't care. As a group, we're too lazy to even speak up about it let alone take the streets in protest. Every other profession would never allow something like this to happen. Every other profession has their peers protesting together over everything and we can't even round up even 50 people on this forum to agree to protect the very backbone of our business. There's no hope, not because of technology, but because of our poor attitudes.
[/quote]
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
-
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
So am I ;)
Whether we agree on the above, it doesn't matter. The outcome is going to be the same regardless of what or who is to blame. There's no point even fighting it any more.
-
I am also evolving to a business model where my content will be more restricted; users will have to pay instead of getting it for free (though sponsored by advertisement).
Just because I see the writing on the wall and am adapting (I'm lucky I have alternative avenues, not every type of material does) does not mean that I'm going to take it lying down. I can adapt AND stand for what is right, stand for the rights the law grants me, and stand for the community of artists.
-
Hmmm, a new trick they've evolved.
The last time I found a pinned image, I filled in their form, and the pics were removed.
I've found more, and am trying to fill in the form, but although I'm copying the URL from the URL line of each page, I'm repeatedly getting an answer 'invalid link to pin'.
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
It's 01:39, so it's on my ticklist for tomorrow.
I see the same image on weheartit, so there's another hassle. Wonder if it's also an iStock affiliate.
You know, I really resent having to give these companies my name, snail address, email address and phone number just to get them to remove my material.
Grrrr. >:(
Later: I screendumped the reporting form for pinterest, and contacted them via their support page, attaching a jpg of the screendump. We'll see how that goes.
-
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
Selling stuff on eBay?
-
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
Selling stuff on eBay?
Far far from that....
-
We'll have to just disagree. Personally, I'm moving forward with ideas and business models that do not rely on IP or copyright laws to succeed.
Selling stuff on eBay?
Far far from that....
share with us ;D
-
You have until July 25 to make a difference!
Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is asking for input from artists, musicians and assorted creators to "Help Us Shape Our Strategy for Intellectual Property Enforcement".
http://www.regulations.gov/# (http://www.regulations.gov/#)!submitComment;D=OMB-2012-0004-0002
-
OK, back to pinterest.
Say we have a legitimate buyer who has a page with our image on it and a pin it logo.
Then we ask for the photo to be removed, and it is removed.
And the person whose photo was removed contacts the legitimate buyer as they just followed the pin.
The LB wanted to be pinned as publicity for them, and contacts the agency (in my case iStock, in your case, whoever) and complains.
What is the agency going to say? It's may nbot actually forbidden for them to encourage pinning.
E.g. it might be against iStock's licence agreement:
You may not ...
4.10 sub-license, re-sell, rent, lend, assign, gift or otherwise transfer or distribute the Content or the rights granted under this Agreement;
11 install and use the Content in more than one location at a time or post a copy of the Content on a network server or web server for use by other users;
12 use or display the Content in an electronic format that enables it to be downloaded or distributed via mobile devices or shared in any peer-to-peer or similar file sharing arrangement;
but iStock considers them affiliates and declined to contact pinterest about the files I pointed out.
BTW, of course, the people who had pinned my images had other images there, some originating from iStock some from elsewhere. But they don't seem to think, Oh, I've had one pin taken down, I'd better check the others. In most cases, all the others are still up there.
-
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.
Why are you removing the end "/" ?
-
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.
Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.
-
You have until July 25 to make a difference!
Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is asking for input from artists, musicians and assorted creators to "Help Us Shape Our Strategy for Intellectual Property Enforcement".
[url]http://www.regulations.gov/#[/url] ([url]http://www.regulations.gov/#[/url])!submitComment;D=OMB-2012-0004-0002
No one responded to your post, but just thought I would say that I saw it, and submitted my input.
-
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.
Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.
I finally requested an invitation from pinterest and got it yesterday, just so I could have a look around. It all looks very confusing. Which is likely the way they want it. >:(
-
I've been very careful not to include the end /, and can't imagine what's wrong with their own URL.
.
Why are you removing the end "/" ?
To try to eliminate the problem, but it turned out that you can't link to the main page with all their pins on it (a gallery of pins) and indicate your image on it, you have to actually link to the single page your photo is on, which makes sense.
I finally requested an invitation from pinterest and got it yesterday, just so I could have a look around. It all looks very confusing. Which is likely the way they want it. >:(
I have to say that once I worked out the 'go to the single page your image is on' thing, they have been very fast at implementing takedown notices through their own scheme, even at weekends. That's my experience so far anyway.
-
What does the istock search have to do with pinterest? Or has this thread been derailed?
(http://www.myerscollectibles.com/store/image/1iwgq/Vintage_Photographs_Vintage_Images_2_of_a_Chinese_Train_Wreck_8_X_10.jpg)
I think I have a Pinterest account, can't remember the password. I just wanted to block my name. ???
Yes I found it confusing and I still don't understand why? Is it like the people who post links to music videos on Facebook? (who I dropped, because "who cares") If it was their band or someone else, fine, but how many times can I be interested in The Turtles doing Elenore or Happy Together. Sure fine songs, but what's the point? It's not like a new discovery of some obscure fine tunes.
OK why would I pin a photo? To show that I found something, and then someone else can pin it, to say, I looked at it too. Oh Kewl Dude I pinned a picture of a cute little penguin. :-\
-
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.
She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission. The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media. As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.
This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.
-
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.
She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission. The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media. As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.
This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.
Yes, talked about here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new)
-
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.
She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission. The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media. As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.
This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.
Yes, talked about here:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new[/url])
Maybe Hummingbird's post can be added to that thread. It certainly adds info I hadn't known, such as the fact that her cautionary tale is spreading and causing others to take down their infringing content. Very good news!
-
Romance author Roni Loren, who keeps a blog full of infringing images, has been put in the unfortunate position to settle with an unnamed photographer even after having promptly removed the content.
She blogged about the experience, which is a great cautionary tale against using images without permission. The post is spreading through Twitter and other social media. As a consequence, many fellow authors/bloggers have been frightened into removing their own infringing material, and this fear has spread to pinners to some extent.
This gives me hope that it wouldn't take more than a dozen copyright infringement settlements against pinners for the whole phenomena to implode.
Yes, talked about here:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/bloggers-beware-you-can-get-sued-for-using-pics-on-your-blog/msg264811/?topicseen#new[/url])
Maybe Hummingbird's post can be added to that thread. It certainly adds info I hadn't known, such as the fact that her cautionary tale is spreading and causing others to take down their infringing content. Very good news!
Kind of why I wondered if she really had to pay or if it's a cautionary tale because of a threat and scarey take down? Or a way to drive traffic to her site...
Whatever, I agree, more people reading it and understanding and believing it could cost them money, might add some thought to people who figure they can just use the revolving door policy and be free of any responsibility or liability. This could be good.
-
Seems like the iStock/Pinterest affiliaton only works in one direction:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=345797&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=345797&page=1)
-
Why they dont pin it in da assa???
-
Taking the issue to the webmaster community, who have Google's ear somewhat more than artists and photographers:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4491591.htm (http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4491591.htm)
Another viable Pinterest competitor emerges from the riff raff:
http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/unrequited-love-at-loveitcom.html (http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/unrequited-love-at-loveitcom.html)
Meet the worst crowdsourced content scraper yet:
http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/ehows-spark-undetectable-unstoppable.html (http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/ehows-spark-undetectable-unstoppable.html)
-
BTW, I'd love it if a few photographers would join the discussion on webmasterworld!
-
Good Stuff Hummingbird and I learned a new term today: "crowdsourced content scraping" thanks!
-
Another viable Pinterest competitor emerges from the riff raff:
[url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/unrequited-love-at-loveitcom.html[/url] ([url]http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/09/unrequited-love-at-loveitcom.html[/url])
Whether you like Pinterest or not, the site you quoted offers one of the worst responses to Pinterest and LoveIt on the web. The article leads off with "Pinterest is little more than a dumb platform..." Brilliant. Pinterest is dumb. Great. Right away this is coming across as some that shouldn't be taken seriously.
The author then suggests using an .htaccess trick to replace pinned images with a replacement image, one suggesting that pinning content is "like stealing from the poor to give to the rich." Right. So we content providers are all poor, starving artists, and all of the website owners are the Monopoly guy (who, by the way, is trademarked and probably shouldn't be used in that graphic anyway). I'm not a starving artist. I will not "draw for food." This isn't a 99% vs. 1% Occupy Wall Street thing, and I think this sort of graphic sends the wrong message about you, your work, and why you oppose Pinterest or LoveIt.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with this amateurish approach to protecting copyrights and I think people can find better ways to make statements against Pinterest.
-
Whether you like Pinterest or not, the site you quoted offers one of the worst responses to Pinterest and LoveIt on the web. The article leads off with "Pinterest is little more than a dumb platform..." Brilliant. Pinterest is dumb. Great. Right away this is coming across as some that shouldn't be taken seriously.
Yup, you've lost all the pinterest lovers right away - many probably won't read on to consider the concerns.
Remember, lots of mainstream magazines and websites encourage pinterest in particular, so I'm sure lots of people really think it's fully OK.
BTW, it's not just pinterest and LoveIt - there is a huge range of pin sites out there, from weheartit to the many in different orthographies. Seems to be very popular in East Asian countries. It's a natural follow on to the site fka del.icio.us, which has been around for years now.
-
The blog in question is mine.
I'm not trying to convince pinners - they are not my audience. I think they are beyond convincing. They know they're infringing, they know they're hurting artists already. They don't need me telling them that. They choose to do something questionable because they know they'll get away with it.
I claim fair use for my depiction of Mr Moneybags. ;) It is an editorial and critical purpose and transformative as well. I believe I pass the test.
Pinterest has received multitudes of millions from venture capitalists. Even the most successful among us are "poor" in comparison. I'm sorry you don't like the picture... but I have you down on my official list of people that don't want to be associated with it :'(
-
I'm not trying to convince pinners - they are not my audience. I think they are beyond convincing. They know they're infringing, they know they're hurting artists already. They don't need me telling them that. They choose to do something questionable because they know they'll get away with it.
I disagree. I bet the vast majority see it as being extremely convenient and don't even think about the IP issues, even if they've heard of IP issues, (or the same in other terminology).
If you are reading a website and it invites you to pin, and you have no other stake in IP in your life, why would you think it is an infringement? Loads of people have NO IDEA about that stuff. I realise that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', I just don't think it's deliberate.
-
I look at my visitor logs, and my visitors are largely referrals from fellow artist sites. Pinners aren't even finding my blog. That frees me of having to take an angle of trying to convince pinners to stop pinning. Further, there are 10,000,000+ pinners. There's one of me. Even if I shifted my emphasis to convincing pinners, I wouldn't make a dent.
I'm trying to provide news, opinions, and bits of discovery to content providers about crowdsourced scrapers. I know I'm not perfect, but I give 100% of what I got in me. It is what it is.
I think what you might be trying to say, indirectly, is that you'd like to see some blog or website making persuasive cases devoted to illuminating pinners with regards to IP issues. Something you could refer pinners to, with hopes that they may abandon the activity. Something pinners could find when they google "pinning is bad" ;)
You can refer them here:
http://mansurovs.com/pinterest-copyright-infringement-made-cool (http://mansurovs.com/pinterest-copyright-infringement-made-cool)
He's making that tactful case against pinning that all pinners should read. He's done a splendid job of it, it's one of my favorites. And because he's done it so well, I don't have to.
There is also this article about the music business, but the parallels with pinning are easily inferred by the interested reader:
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/ (http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emily-white-at-npr-all-songs-considered/)
-
...I'm not trying to convince pinners - they are not my audience. I think they are beyond convincing...
Then why create the .htaccess graphic that is aimed at people who pin your images, and includs a message that clearly tries to convince them that it is wrong to do so?
-
...I'm not trying to convince pinners - they are not my audience. I think they are beyond convincing...
Then why create the .htaccess graphic that is aimed at people who pin your images, and includs a message that clearly tries to convince them that it is wrong to do so?
Once a pinner decides to infringe on material that belongs to someone keen on defending their copyright, that's the time to give them the message - beats letting them infringe, then finding the stuff, and filing endless DMCAs.
I'm not sure why a blog addressed to webmasters and content creators allowing them to substitute copyright warning or educational images is a problem, though.
-
I have a couple of friends who love pinterest. I explained to them what was happening with the copyright infringement. I might as well have been talking to the wall. They love pinning, the infringement doesn't affect them, so they don't care. >:(
-
From Achilles on DT today - http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31459_pg1 (http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31459_pg1)
Good news: starting today all images pinned from Dreamstime will include attribution and will not lose it when re-pinned. We're also working with Pinterest to populate/fix all images pinned in the past, so they will include attribution too.
This was a long wait and frustrating for many people, thanks to everyone for their patience. @Cleaper, you are correct, that would've been the safest approach. But then, there were efforts to do this and we had to see the impact and potential going any further with back-end implementation. Thanks again for your support.
-
From Achilles on DT today - [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31459_pg1[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/forumm_31459_pg1[/url])
Good news: starting today all images pinned from Dreamstime will include attribution and will not lose it when re-pinned. We're also working with Pinterest to populate/fix all images pinned in the past, so they will include attribution too.
How is this attribution implemented? I'm thinking of images lifted from pinterest and used elsewhere.
-
Attribution is a step, but it does no good when the audience pinterest is catering to has no interest in buying images. And is the attribution to each individual contributors port and their name, or is it attributed to DT? I don't care enough to go read the thread, because in my opinion, agencies shouldn't be touching pinterest with a ten foot pole. But they seem to think it's going to translate into millions of dollars for everyone. I don't have my images with an agency so they can promise that my name will be used with my image. I have my images with agencies to make money.