Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 67783 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #50 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:27 »

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?

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

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!

If you love Beanie's or hate them, you'll see what I mean.

http://twitpic.com/photos/HodagMedia

cardmaverick · « **Reply #51 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2012, 10:56

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?

ppdd · « **Reply #52 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:43 »

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.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:44 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 09, 2012, 11:36

Quote from: sjlocke on May 06, 2012, 10:56
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?

graficallyminded · « **Reply #54 on:** May 09, 2012, 11:55 »

In this business you need to seriously pick your battles. The occasional image theft is going to happen, and it's inevitable. Like Karimala said, use DMCA claims when you find them. 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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #55 on:** May 09, 2012, 13:27 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:44

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #56 on:** May 09, 2012, 13:31 »

Quote from: PhotoPhan on May 09, 2012, 11:55

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.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #57 on:** May 09, 2012, 13:50 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #58 on:** May 09, 2012, 14:04 »

Quote from: PhotoPhan on May 09, 2012, 13:50

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #59 on:** May 09, 2012, 14:12 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #60 on:** May 09, 2012, 14:14 »

Quote from: bhr on May 09, 2012, 14:12

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.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #61 on:** May 09, 2012, 14:19 »

sjlocke - you might be interested in the code that Pinterest released, to add to your own website or blog.

Quote

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** May 09, 2012, 15:23 »

Quote from: PhotoPhan on May 09, 2012, 11:55

In this business you need to seriously pick your battles. The occasional image theft is going to happen, and it's inevitable. Like Karimala said, use DMCA claims when you find them.

As DMCA is an US law, how does it work if one, two or all of these apply:
1. The artist is not American.
2. The source the image was stolen from is not American (e.g. a non-Amerian agency, with watermark, a non-American website if you could find out where it was lifted from.
3. The unauthorised user/website is not in the US.

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

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

antistock · « **Reply #63 on:** May 09, 2012, 22:55 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:44

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

exactly.
i heard this lame excuse a million times.

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

antistock · « **Reply #64 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:00 »

Quote from: PhotoPhan on May 09, 2012, 11:55

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 !

antistock · « **Reply #65 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:09 »

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

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.

antistock · « **Reply #66 on:** May 09, 2012, 23:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2012, 14:04

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.

Toon Vectors · « **Reply #67 on:** May 10, 2012, 01:14 »

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.

cardmaverick · « **Reply #68 on:** May 10, 2012, 01:34 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 09, 2012, 13:27

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:44
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?

cardmaverick · « **Reply #69 on:** May 10, 2012, 01:37 »

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

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

exactly.
i heard this lame excuse a million times.

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

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.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #70 on:** May 10, 2012, 04:14 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 10, 2012, 01:37

Quote from: antistock on May 09, 2012, 22:55
Quote from: traveler1116 on May 09, 2012, 11:44
Quote from: cardmaverick on May 09, 2012, 11:36
So who forced the content providers to put their stuff out in a public venue where they can freely be taken?
If something is in public and you weren't forced to put it there it can be freely taken? Interesting principle, now where do you park your car?

exactly.
i heard this lame excuse a million times.

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

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** May 10, 2012, 04:38 »

Quote from: Toon Vectors on May 10, 2012, 01:14

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #72 on:** May 10, 2012, 04:45 »

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

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 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".

antistock · « **Reply #73 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:58 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 10, 2012, 01:37

Seriously - you can't reliably sell something that can't reliably be controlled. Why do you think Adobe is migrating all of its programs to an online hosted subscription model?

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

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

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

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

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

antistock · « **Reply #74 on:** May 10, 2012, 05:59 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on May 10, 2012, 01:34

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 ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pinterest anyone? (Read 67783 times)

RacePhoto

cardmaverick

ppdd

traveler1116

graficallyminded

Sean Locke Photography

Sean Locke Photography

graficallyminded

Sean Locke Photography

bunhill

Sean Locke Photography

graficallyminded

ShadySue

antistock

antistock

antistock

antistock

Toon Vectors

cardmaverick

cardmaverick

CarlssonInc

ShadySue

bunhill

antistock

antistock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors