Forums > Photography Talk > photographers unite against pinterest

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

this is a thread for a call to action to put a foot down on the encouragement of intellectual property theft.

it's time to flood the news organizations running p.r. news releases for building interest in the web site known as pinterest.  register and comment on the articles written, let it be known "photographers" control their work, not some web site that seeks monetary gain without due compensation to the work put into the craft.

about the site:  it has been around a couple of years, fed by v.c. that allows users to go through the web, pick any image of interest and pin it to their page.  others in turn can view those pages and then pin the image to theirs.

in theory, it's a good concept.  however, in reality the site encourages the theft of intellectual property by not paying for the use of imaging. 

for the site to be in compliance the way it should work is allowing photographers to upload imaging and then get paid for images used by their membership.  they don't think that way, they just encourage people to traverse the web and steal what's out there. 

why photographers need to unite in commenting on the articles:

one, pinterest takes the images their users collect and places them on their servers while stripping the exif data. that is a violation of the law to remove copyright info.

two, users are encouraged to cite a source, but simply citing a source is not due diligence. by rights the creator of the work must give permission prior to outside use which is not required. there's good reason for that requirement, as there are businesses using imaging they didn't rightfully pay for, and there may be contractual stipulations on where such work can be displayed.

third, read their tos that removes their responsibility and places the legal burden on their members.  while they do encourage following dmca for removal, by stripping the exif data it becomes a whack-mole-mole policy due to images being pinned by dozens, hundreds, thousands of members.

people, especially web site owners, need to understand that just because imaging is out there it doesn't mean a free-for-all for anyone to use without express permission.

current web sites running the recent p.r. blitz include:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/tech/soci … pt=hp_abar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 … technology

a side note:  to mm's credit they have removed potd content that was pinned for others to use.

photographers don't have an organization like the riaa to thwart the theft of intellectual property.  we must do that on our own.  if a stand isn't taken against sites like this then what good is copyright protection?

become pro-active.

Apr 06 12 07:09 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

291 wrote:
for the site to be in compliance the way it should work is allowing photographers to upload imaging and then get paid for images used by their membership.  they don't think that way, they just encourage people to traverse the web and steal what's out there.

So, do you get paid by MM when a member puts a photo of yours on a list, or does a hot link of one of your images to facebook?

Just wondering, since that's the "way it should work" and since your image is on my timeline...

*isn't that all the same thing? sharing things we see online as an inspiration to ourselves, others, or something to talk about?

**and really, with all the crap up here http://pinterest.com/ do you seriously think it's a threat to anything we could make money from? 

*** nvm, this is actually pretty cool! http://roombyroom.tumblr.com/post/10190 … hickenshit

Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 07:38 pm Link

Photographer

Photographe

Posts: 2350

Bristol, England, United Kingdom

Hmm, pinterest seems to be inviting it's traffic to purchase goods under "gift" section.

Apr 06 12 07:46 pm Link

Photographer

MichaelClements

Posts: 1739

Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

That is actually pretty cool

Apr 06 12 07:46 pm Link

Photographer

Optix

Posts: 225

Boston, Massachusetts, US

This is about as effective as convincing people not to expect mp3s for free...

The cat's out of the bag.  Time to figure out ways to protect online content, instead of trying to stifle current technology.

Note: Flash 1 HTML5 0

Apr 06 12 07:47 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

Rollo David Snook wrote:
Hmm, pinterest seems to be inviting it's traffic to purchase goods under "gift" section.

So I post some artwork on some site selling artwork, then re-post that as a "gift" on pinterest?

I'd  buy this! http://pinterest.com/pin/173247916885551268/


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 07:48 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Morris Photography

Posts: 20901

Los Angeles, California, US

291 wrote:
this is a thread for a call to action to put a foot down on the encouragement of intellectual property theft.

it's time to flood the news organizations running p.r. news releases for building interest in the web site known as pinterest.  register and comment on the articles written, let it be known "photographers" control their work, not some web site that seeks monetary gain without due compensation to the work put into the craft.

about the site:  it has been around a couple of years, fed by v.c. that allows users to go through the web, pick any image of interest and pin it to their page.  others in turn can view those pages and then pin the image to theirs.

in theory, it's a good concept.  however, in reality the site encourages the theft of intellectual property by not paying for the use of imaging. 

for the site to be in compliance the way it should work is allowing photographers to upload imaging and then get paid for images used by their membership.  they don't think that way, they just encourage people to traverse the web and steal what's out there. 

why photographers need to unite in commenting on the articles:

one, pinterest takes the images their users collect and places them on their servers while stripping the exif data. that is a violation of the law to remove copyright info.

two, users are encouraged to cite a source, but simply citing a source is not due diligence. by rights the creator of the work must give permission prior to outside use which is not required. there's good reason for that requirement, as there are businesses using imaging they didn't rightfully pay for, and there may be contractual stipulations on where such work can be displayed.

third, read their tos that removes their responsibility and places the legal burden on their members.  while they do encourage following dmca for removal, by stripping the exif data it becomes a whack-mole-mole policy due to images being pinned by dozens, hundreds, thousands of members.

people, especially web site owners, need to understand that just because imaging is out there it doesn't mean a free-for-all for anyone to use without express permission.

current web sites running the recent p.r. blitz include:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/tech/soci … pt=hp_abar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 … technology

a side note:  to mm's credit they have removed potd content that was pinned for others to use.

photographers don't have an organization like the riaa to thwart the theft of intellectual property.  we must do that on our own.  if a stand isn't taken against sites like this then what good is copyright protection?

become pro-active.

Pinterest is not theft of intellectual property... it is fre advertising of cool and wonderful imagery!

If you don't want someone looking at your images there are safeguards and tools you can use to stop pinterest from linking to your images or you can just simply not put them up on the inter-web!


Im not buying it!

Apr 06 12 07:51 pm Link

Photographer

c u d a

Posts: 90

Boston, Massachusetts, US

There was a great article I read a while back about photography as a business or something. In the article, which went into details of all sorts of other things, the author made the comment along the lines of, "stop screaming about seeing your image on someone else's website (or whatever); you're not Ansel bleeping Adams, and until you are, get over yourself and be damn happy someone thought it was good.".... Anyway, food for thought....

Apr 06 12 07:59 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8799

Seattle, Washington, US

291 wrote:
this is a thread for a call to action to put a foot down on the encouragement of intellectual property theft.

it's time to flood the news organizations running p.r. news releases for building interest in the web site known as pinterest.  register and comment on the articles written, let it be known "photographers" control their work, not some web site that seeks monetary gain without due compensation to the work put into the craft.

about the site:  it has been around a couple of years, fed by v.c. that allows users to go through the web, pick any image of interest and pin it to their page.  others in turn can view those pages and then pin the image to theirs.

in theory, it's a good concept.  however, in reality the site encourages the theft of intellectual property by not paying for the use of imaging. 

for the site to be in compliance the way it should work is allowing photographers to upload imaging and then get paid for images used by their membership.  they don't think that way, they just encourage people to traverse the web and steal what's out there. 

why photographers need to unite in commenting on the articles:

one, pinterest takes the images their users collect and places them on their servers while stripping the exif data. that is a violation of the law to remove copyright info.

two, users are encouraged to cite a source, but simply citing a source is not due diligence. by rights the creator of the work must give permission prior to outside use which is not required. there's good reason for that requirement, as there are businesses using imaging they didn't rightfully pay for, and there may be contractual stipulations on where such work can be displayed.

third, read their tos that removes their responsibility and places the legal burden on their members.  while they do encourage following dmca for removal, by stripping the exif data it becomes a whack-mole-mole policy due to images being pinned by dozens, hundreds, thousands of members.

people, especially web site owners, need to understand that just because imaging is out there it doesn't mean a free-for-all for anyone to use without express permission.

current web sites running the recent p.r. blitz include:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/tech/soci … pt=hp_abar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 … technology

a side note:  to mm's credit they have removed potd content that was pinned for others to use.

photographers don't have an organization like the riaa to thwart the theft of intellectual property.  we must do that on our own.  if a stand isn't taken against sites like this then what good is copyright protection?

become pro-active.

hide your art under your mattress.

Apr 06 12 08:04 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

291 wrote:
in theory, it's a good concept.  however, in reality the site encourages the theft of intellectual property by not paying for the use of imaging. 

for the site to be in compliance the way it should work is allowing photographers to upload imaging and then get paid for images used by their membership.  they don't think that way, they just encourage people to traverse the web and steal what's out there.

You are on crack.

I, for one, love Pinterest.  I pin my own stuff all the time.  I pin other photography that I like.  No user on Pinterest is making any money off your pictures.  Other than affiliate links that they build into some linkbacks, I'm not sure how they make any money at all.  It certainly isn't from hosting pinboards.

Apr 06 12 08:26 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

interesting comments thus far.

one, and most importantly, it is the author of the creative work that decides how the work is distributed, not a third-party who i may or may not have an interest in them using such work for their exploitation without permission to do so. 

the comment on lists, i'm a member here and as such the lists remain within the membership pool which i have no problem contributing.

as for free advertising, it's pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.  advertising, exposure and thinking that is all well and good is not controlling the brand.  no company that advertises wants someone else to control their brand.  it one does allow that, they have no brand.

hiding work under a mattress:  stupid thought to think that.  it's called protective intellectual property measure.  go write a book.  i'll then copy it iand sell it without providing any royalty.  that's fine with you, or should that book be kept under your mattress?

let me guess, some respondents here wouldn't mind if your images are pilfered to promote someones business without providing you due compensation?  if you don't mind, then your hobby hasn't taken on any value consideration.  your argument here is null, as this goes to those working the craft and receiving due compensation for the value of the craft.

Apr 06 12 08:38 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

291 wrote:
interesting comments thus far.

one, and most importantly, it is the author of the creative work that decides how the work is distributed, not a third-party who i may or may not have an interest in them using such work for their exploitation without permission to do so. 

the comment on lists, i'm a member here and as such the lists remain within the membership pool which i have no problem contributing.

as for free advertising, it's pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.  advertising, exposure and thinking that is all well and good is not controlling the brand.  no company that advertises wants someone else to control their brand.  it one does allow that, they have no brand.

hiding work under a mattress:  stupid thought to think that.  it's called protective intellectual property measure.  go write a book.  i'll then copy it iand sell it without providing any royalty.  that's fine with you, or should that book be kept under your mattress?

let me guess, some respondents here wouldn't mind if your images are pilfered to promote someones business without providing you due compensation?  if you don't mind, then your hobby hasn't taken on any value consideration.  your argument here is null, as this goes to those working the craft and receiving due compensation for the value of the craft.

No one is selling anything that's not theirs, no one is claiming your work to be theirs, and no one is really saying not to protect your images...

However, if you're going to be making money off of images as you think you are, why are you posting them in a way that makes it easy for someone to "rob" you and post them elsewhere? Why not stick to stock sites, galleries on your own website (that are easier to patrol), keep images small, watermark, and a whole range of things that can be done to mitigate something slipping out to the general public on a site like pinterest...


Times change, and the best people making the most in these times are the ones who can harness those changes rather than push against them.


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 08:44 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

David Parsons wrote:
You are on crack.

I, for one, love Pinterest.  I pin my own stuff all the time.  I pin other photography that I like.  No user on Pinterest is making any money off your pictures.  Other than affiliate links that they build into some linkbacks, I'm not sure how they make any money at all.  It certainly isn't from hosting pinboards.

and you are a wise fool.

if you understood the depth of the craft then you would understand how some businesses are using the site to promote their products/services off the backs of those who have rightfully paid for imaging. 

high-level food photography comes to mind, where images are pulled from sites to promote the business without any investment.  is that how you, or your client's would like your work reduced?

Apr 06 12 08:46 pm Link

Photographer

c u d a

Posts: 90

Boston, Massachusetts, US

291 wrote:
interesting comments thus far.

one, and most importantly, it is the author of the creative work that decides how the work is distributed, not a third-party who i may or may not have an interest in them using such work for their exploitation without permission to do so. 

the comment on lists, i'm a member here and as such the lists remain within the membership pool which i have no problem contributing.

as for free advertising, it's pissing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining.  advertising, exposure and thinking that is all well and good is not controlling the brand.  no company that advertises wants someone else to control their brand.  it one does allow that, they have no brand.

hiding work under a mattress:  stupid thought to think that.  it's called protective intellectual property measure.  go write a book.  i'll then copy it iand sell it without providing any royalty.  that's fine with you, or should that book be kept under your mattress?

let me guess, some respondents here wouldn't mind if your images are pilfered to promote someones business without providing you due compensation?  if you don't mind, then your hobby hasn't taken on any value consideration.  your argument here is null, as this goes to those working the craft and receiving due compensation for the value of the craft.

Don't put your images online then if you want to "control the brand"....

Apr 06 12 08:46 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

291 wrote:
high-level food photography comes to mind, where images are pulled from sites to promote the business without any investment.  is that how you, or your client's would like your work reduced?

What are you talking about, and please cite examples.


(specific examples, and ones that don't involve the words "club, promoter, (local) band, model, 'clothing designer'". I want examples where clients with money made your sky fall.


Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 08:48 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
No one is selling anything that's not theirs, no one is claiming your work to be theirs, and no one is really saying not to protect your images...

really?  i'm going to promote my business using your images.  your copyright is stripped, you are out of the picture.  i create business from your imaging.  what do you get for the hard work put into creating the imaging?

Apr 06 12 08:48 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

291 wrote:
really?  i'm going to promote my business using your images.  your copyright is stripped, you are out of the picture.  i create business from your imaging.  what do you get for the hard work put into creating the imaging?

Where did you get that from?

Your OP was people posting images they thought were neat on a social site that's a clusterfuck - which in your mind morphed into people posting images to promote their business for free...


What are you drinking?



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 08:50 pm Link

Photographer

Neil Snape

Posts: 9473

Paris, Île-de-France, France

Really, anyone that posts there should know that it's a portal for blasting images everywhere.

I won't, go there, I already have pictures here and on FB.

I will say that knowingly posting to Pinterest, you are allowing and encouraging inappropriate use of your images.

That be your choice>

Apr 06 12 08:51 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

20C wrote:
Don't put your images online then if you want to "control the brand"....

while i'll agree with that, it still doesn't open the door to theft if one does so.  it's called copyright protection and what you're saying is it's no different that telling authors to not put books in stores.

is that your mindset?

Apr 06 12 08:53 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3956

Seattle, Washington, US

None of the images on Pinterest are being sold.  So what's your issue?  I could just as easily download your images (or anyone elses) from MM to my home computer and make a collection of images I like that way.  What's the difference?  If anything, it gets you free exposure when other people see your work.  The images on Pinterest aren't being used for anything, or sold, only viewed.  Your copyright isn't being "stripped."  If your image has a watermark, it remains on the image, plus there's a link back to where the original image came from.  Not sure why so many photographers are so upset about Pinterest, it's essentially the same as when your images come up on google under "google images".  People look at your images, it's a good thing.

Apr 06 12 08:55 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
Where did you get that from?

maybe you should spend some time on that site before posting shit you are unaware of from those pinning. 

there are many promoting their businesses through link-backs to their site, which the more attractive the imaging, the more people will launch to a site selling related products and services.

shall i promote my business using your imaging?

Apr 06 12 08:56 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

MelissaAnn  wrote:
None of the images on Pinterest are being sold.  So what's your issue?  I could just as easily download your images (or anyone elses) from MM to my home computer and make a collection of images I like that way.  What's the difference?  If anything, it gets you free exposure when other people see your work.  The images on Pinterest aren't being used for anything, or sold, only viewed.  Your copyright isn't being "stripped."  If your image has a watermark, it remains on the image, plus there's a link back to where the original image came from.  Not sure why so many photographers are so upset about Pinterest, it's essentially the same as when your images come up on google under "google images".  People look at your images, it's a good thing.

nice unaware reply.

1)  the exif data is stripped that provides copyright info;

2)  who are you to decide my exposure value;

3)  images are being used to promote business users sites without paying for the imaging.  is that fair?

4)  google is an indexing service.  learn the difference.

Apr 06 12 09:00 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

291 wrote:
shall i promote my business using your imaging?

If you feel the need to. It's not like I'm going to get worked up over some random photographer stealing images I have up online anyway. I'm sure it's happened before, and I'm sure it will happen again.

If I see them I'll take them down.



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 09:01 pm Link

Photographer

c u d a

Posts: 90

Boston, Massachusetts, US

291 wrote:
while i'll agree with that, it still doesn't open the door to theft if one does so.  it's called copyright protection and what you're saying is it's no different that telling authors to not put books in stores.

is that your mindset?

Books dont make it into bookstores until most parties are in agreement about who is getting paid what. Authors dont throw their stories up online, that I know of, or even give the full manuscripts to new publishers, until they are under some sort of contract and agreement.

Anyway, the web is the web. If you put something out there that is your property, standby for someone to come along and trespass.

EDIT: But I would like to add something about authors. Look at all the blog authors who do write online for nothing. Some are very good writers, very good, but I don't know of any bitching about someone jacking their writing. Somehow they have it figured out. They just keep doing good work, and people find them. Dont try and protect your property from unwanted use on the web, its futile. Do what you can to make it know that your style of work is yours and people know it. I think that's all anyone, who cares to, can do...

Case in point: Neil Snape, above. I drool over his work and I would know his images if I saw them somewhere...

Apr 06 12 09:05 pm Link

Model

MelissaAnn

Posts: 3956

Seattle, Washington, US

291 wrote:
nice unaware reply.

1)  the exif data is stripped that provides copyright info;

2)  who are you to decide my exposure value;

3)  images are being used to promote business users sites without paying for the imaging.  is that fair?

4)  google is an indexing service.  learn the difference.

Oh, it's not fair? When you post images on the internet, somebody might download them and use them for their own purposes. Deal with it.  I can download your images from MM and use them for my own purposes just as easily as pinning them on Pinterest.  Still don't know why you're so angry about it.  If Pinterest was shut down tomorrow, guess what?  The people that used that site wouldn't be buying your images. You're not losing any money. Oh, and the vast majority of people on Pinterest are not using the images to promote their businesses.  It's a fun site to post images you like.  I think it's a great idea and support it.

Edit:  Most people want exposure.  If you don't, perhaps you should close your MM account and remove all the images you have posted on the internet so people can't "steal" them.

Apr 06 12 09:08 pm Link

Photographer

R A V E N D R I V E

Posts: 15867

New York, New York, US

291 wrote:
nice unaware reply.

1)  the exif data is stripped that provides copyright info;

2)  who are you to decide my exposure value;

3)  images are being used to promote business users sites without paying for the imaging.  is that fair?

4)  google is an indexing service.  learn the difference.

haha so much unwarranted fail here

1) you don't lose your copyright info because the EXIF data isn't there

2) irrelevant to this "issue", sorry that nobody agrees with you

3) welcome to the world wide web

4) irrelevant to this "issue", this is a semantical problem that no user cares about as they get a similar user experience from both sites

Apr 06 12 09:09 pm Link

Photographer

Mortonovich

Posts: 5560

San Diego, California, US

At some point, Pinterest will be given a dollar value and that value will have been built on the backs of uncompensated individuals.

Similar to Huffington Post, built with free content and then sold to AOL for 315M. But at least with Huffington Post, the content was submitted by the authors.

Apr 06 12 09:10 pm Link

Photographer

Andrew Thomas Evans

Posts: 24078

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

MelissaAnn  wrote:
If Pinterest was shut down tomorrow, guess what?  The people that used that site wouldn't be buying your images. You're not losing any money. Oh, and the vast majority of people on Pinterest are not using the images to promote their businesses.  It's a fun site to post images you like.  I think it's a great idea and support it.

+1



Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Apr 06 12 09:12 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

Digital Soup wrote:

Pinterest is not theft of intellectual property... it is fre advertising of cool and wonderful imagery!

If you don't want someone looking at your images there are safeguards and tools you can use to stop pinterest from linking to your images or you can just simply not put them up on the inter-web!


Im not buying it!

The issue is that Pinterest's terms require that you have permission from the copyright holder to re-license any image you pin.  For the vast majority of pins, the pinner does not have the legal permission to grant license to a third party.

Pinterest is fantastic, but it cannot continue operating in the way that it currently does.  The only sustainable solution I see is for them to stop copying full-sized copies of images pinned and only store thumbnails.

Apr 06 12 09:14 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

291 wrote:

and you are a wise fool.

if you understood the depth of the craft then you would understand how some businesses are using the site to promote their products/services off the backs of those who have rightfully paid for imaging. 

high-level food photography comes to mind, where images are pulled from sites to promote the business without any investment.  is that how you, or your client's would like your work reduced?

The depth of the craft?  Sites are putting Pin it buttons on their product pages so people can share things that they like, or are interested in.  It leads to sales from the originating site, which is why they do it.

Commercial photographers don't charge per web page impression, so the number of people that view the pictures is a meaningless complaint.

If websites are stealing photography to sell stuff, that has nothing to do with Pinterest.

Apr 06 12 09:18 pm Link

Photographer

R_Marquez

Posts: 4624

San Francisco, California, US

So, who is going to make the thread to take down facebook? There should be a thread to take down MM, also. When people post images from other sites without consent, that's copyright infringement. etc...

I don't mean to say that it's okay that people violate copyright but it's not something I'll lose sleep at night over. Protect your copyrights.

Even if you did have the funds to sue Facebook/Pinterest/theintraweb, they would claim their EULA states that users should have permission before uploading pictures, so you'd have to sue individuals.

It's like trying to get Comcast shut down because users pirate software.

Apr 06 12 09:20 pm Link

Photographer

NothingIsRealButTheGirl

Posts: 33594

Los Angeles, California, US

They tell you not to post other people's stuff.

Then they tell you not to self-promote your own stuff, either.

Apr 06 12 09:23 pm Link

Photographer

David Parsons

Posts: 972

Quincy, Massachusetts, US

291 wrote:
3)  images are being used to promote business users sites without paying for the imaging.  is that fair?

Are you aware that Model Mayhem posts on Facebook that feature member pictures, and they don't pay for the usage.  Is that fair?  It drives visits to the site and is in effect advertising for MM.

Apr 06 12 09:23 pm Link

Photographer

TRENT FETFAN

Posts: 1026

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, US

291 wrote:

while i'll agree with that, it still doesn't open the door to theft if one does so.  it's called copyright protection and what you're saying is it's no different that telling authors to not put books in stores.

is that your mindset?

Doesnt facebook remove all exif data when you upload a pic to it?

Apr 06 12 09:27 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

SMASSH STUDIO wrote:

Doesnt facebook remove all exif data when you upload a pic to it?

Facebook isn't primarily based on uploading other people's images to your Facebook portfolio.

When you link to a web page on Facebook, they will copy a thumbnail sized image to go along with the link to the page.  Facebook does not require that users grant license to the image when a link is posted.

However, when you do the same on Pinterest, they will copy the full sized image and store it on their servers.  They do require that the user doing the pinning grants the necessary license to display such an image, and virtually no one on Pinterest has those rights.

Apr 06 12 09:38 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

R_Marquez wrote:
It's like trying to get Comcast shut down because users pirate software.

It's not so much like Comcast as it is like Napster.  Pinterest is designed to allow users to upload full sized copies of other people's copyrighted images for public consumption.  Eventually, they won't be able to claim that they aren't aware that the vast majority of their users are violating their terms of service.

Apr 06 12 09:42 pm Link

Photographer

c u d a

Posts: 90

Boston, Massachusetts, US

Brian Diaz wrote:
Facebook isn't primarily based on uploading other people's images to your Facebook portfolio.

When you link to a web page on Facebook, they will copy a thumbnail sized image to go along with the link to the page.  Facebook does not require that users grant license to the image when a link is posted.

However, when you do the same on Pinterest, they will copy the full sized image and store it on their servers.  They do require that the user doing the pinning grants the necessary license to display such an image, and virtually no one on Pinterest has those rights.

Then eventually, and probably in the not too distant future, the OP's problem will be solved, no?

I do think the OP is taking a little bit of a thrashing. I hate to see these threads go like this b/c his intent is legitimate, but its a cold, cold world when it comes to the web... Stuff gets stolen, copyrights are infringed, people flame, congress comes up with laws to stop it, we complain when they do, then we complain b/c there is no protection, etc, etc.... ITS THE WEB.... Its a cold cold place...

Apr 06 12 09:43 pm Link

Photographer

Brian Diaz

Posts: 63192

Danbury, Connecticut, US

20C wrote:

Then eventually, and probably in the not too distant future, the OP's problem will be solved, no?

I think it will.  Pinterest has changed their terms once (those actually went into effect today) but I don't think it has fixed their fundamental issue.  But I do have confidence that Pinterest is listening to the community, so people who care about intellectual property should make their voices heard.

Apr 06 12 09:50 pm Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

Brian Diaz wrote:
The issue is that Pinterest's terms require that you have permission from the copyright holder to re-license any image you pin.  For the vast majority of pins, the pinner does not have the legal permission to grant license to a third party.

Pinterest is fantastic, but it cannot continue operating in the way that it currently does.  The only sustainable solution I see is for them to stop copying full-sized copies of images pinned and only store thumbnails.

about time someone posted who has a clue!

with as much screaming on this site in countless threads about copyright infringement when a web site is making its bank from doing so it seems there's no problem.

the suggestion here is for those to think in a bigger picture mode toward their work that it does matter when a site is allowed to use it without due compensation.  if that doesn't matter then so be it.  move on.  just don't piss and moan when the work is being used for the benefit of someone else without credit or compensation for doing so.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
They tell you not to post other people's stuff.

Then they tell you not to self-promote your own stuff, either.

with a wink-wink, nudge-nudge.  and their terms of service absolve the site from any legal discrepancy.

i know for a fact a lawsuit is in the works that may just turn the site upside down.   

David Parsons wrote:
Are you aware that Model Mayhem posts on Facebook that feature member pictures, and they don't pay for the usage.  Is that fair?  It drives visits to the site and is in effect advertising for MM.

which could be seen as direct correlation which is the right of mm through their tos.  pinterest does not have such direct correlation as users are able to pin images from sources other than their own.

R_Marquez wrote:
It's like trying to get Comcast shut down because users pirate software.

no, it's vastly different.  comcast is not a property that relies on survival of broadcasting or providing a service that by design secures intellectual property without due compensation.  should such infringement take place through monitoring a number of mechanisms then comcast ensures best effort to cease the activity. 

20C wrote:
I do think the OP is taking a little bit of a thrashing. I hate to see these threads go like this b/c his intent is legitimate, but its a cold, cold world when it comes to the web... Stuff gets stolen, copyrights are infringed, people flame, etc, etc....

thanks for seeing that. 

what it really comes down to is there really isn't an entity to fight for photographers. 

it's a little disheartening some feel the effort isn't worth fighting for, and if that's the case this isn't for them.  this thread was for those who do care, and wish to enlist in their own one-man army to protect the investment because there isn't an organization to do that for them when hard work is put into making a buck in this craft. 

dog knows, it's tough enough to try to do so as it is without those who so freely think they can pull the rug out from underneath.

Apr 06 12 09:52 pm Link

Photographer

DougBPhoto

Posts: 38621

Portland, Oregon, US

It is disappointing that on a site primarily made up of photographers and models, that SO many people have so little respect or concern for intellectual property, not just your own, but all of ours.

While today it may not be your property (or the property of a photographer you have worked with) tomorrow it may be your images (or images that you contributed to) that are being stolen.

Okay, you may not care if your neighbor's house across the street is being stolen from, or the house to the right of you, or the house to the left of you, but one of these days it WILL be your house.

Why sit around and say that it is no big deal UNTIL they come to your house to take your property.

Be a professional and stand up for all of our rights, and it does not matter if you think your images (or my images) are worth anything, it IS important to stand up and protect all of our property.

Apr 06 12 10:02 pm Link