Forums > Photography Talk > photographers unite against pinterest

Photographer

Darkness Overcomes Me

Posts: 1077

Washington, District of Columbia, US

Wow - I just saw I have an image there someone pinned 46 weeks ago. I had no idea. 

I guess I suck badly enough that I can only find one of my images... but it was interesting to find.

May 07 12 07:28 pm Link

Photographer

Erick Prince

Posts: 3457

Austin, Texas, US

http://pinterest.com/yahoogames/

Well when we all get sued at least we know they will go after the big boys first. lol

May 07 12 09:47 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Erick Prince wrote:
Well when we all get sued at least we know they will go after the big boys first. lol

Actually, you don't know that....

You could be first...

May 07 12 10:25 pm Link

Photographer

Erick Prince

Posts: 3457

Austin, Texas, US

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Actually, you don't know that....

You could be first...

I'll take my chances.....

May 07 12 11:32 pm Link

Photographer

4 R D

Posts: 1058

Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Some people are just unable to see things in terms of right and wrong. They only see financial motivations because that is what motivates them. Motivated by paper with no real value, no real sense of ethics, no moral base.

Yeah, because you are the posterboy of moral example and ethic behaviour. That is why you would sue me for "everything I have" and I would "face jail time" if I pin one of your pictures. Typical lawyer bully speech to intimidate. That makes you sound more like the stereotypical filthy shark lawyer who gets in litigious mode at the slightest provocation.

But yeah, I do not think in "right and wrong" absolutes. My thinking went beyond dogma long ago.

May 08 12 08:54 am Link

Photographer

Eralar

Posts: 1778

Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada

J u s t i n G i l l wrote:

By your logic, you're saying if you don't want your car's side view mirror busted, you shouldn't park it conveniently on a public street.

Would you leave your Lamborghini parked in a nasty neighborhood in LA for a night, unattended? Some sites are like that, and some pics are definitely worth more than others.

So yes, there's a little bit of that. Choose what you post, and where, based on its value and the chances they will get grabbed.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's today's reality. And no matter how may lawyers will be put on that, it will never even slow this a bit...

Look at drugs and weapons trafficking, and murders. Has any law and criminal lawsuits ever worked at making those crimes less frequent? No, in fact, every time you put a criminal in jail, he will be replaced by a worse criminal, because he "learned" from his predecessor and will just be harder to catch.

May 14 12 07:41 pm Link

Photographer

P O T T S

Posts: 5376

Lake City, Florida, US

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/video/163 … est-Part-2

Short interview I did with a local news station about Pinterest. They had just had a story about it.

May 15 12 07:46 am Link

Photographer

Erick Prince

Posts: 3457

Austin, Texas, US

May 17 12 08:06 am Link

Photographer

El Roi Photography

Posts: 457

Elizabeth, Indiana, US

watermark your work, be professional about it, and accept free publicity, people post photos because its something they like, most do not claim it as their own ...

May 17 12 08:20 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21895

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

El Roi Photography  wrote:
watermark your work, be professional about it, and accept free publicity, people post photos because its something they like, most do not claim it as their own ...

I like BMWs. As soon as I spot one I'm going to take it for a spin.

Studio36

May 17 12 10:06 am Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

A R M wrote:
But yeah, I do not think in "right and wrong" absolutes. My thinking went beyond dogma long ago.

Yeah, you're right up there with Gilberto Sanchez, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, Peter Sunde, Carl Lundstrom, Henry Strangways, Robert Collover, Kim Schmitz, etc...

May 18 12 04:09 am Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

Some of you are missing the boat.  Put your URL on your pic. If someone is impress with your works they will make an effort to visit your site for more.   Consider those images as business card.  That is what I just did... I change my logo:

OLD LOGO
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/091213/18/4b25a2637f541.jpg

NEW LOGO:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120923/18/505fb302881b6.jpg


Now I wish more people would pass my photos around.  I want my URL to be seen by everyone on this planet.

If you like this advice, would be awesome if you can link back to my site from your.  http://barepixels.net   Thnx

Dec 06 12 02:02 am Link

Photographer

Chuck Purnell

Posts: 322

Wilmington, Delaware, US

"The Shoot it" is very much like Pinterest but its for photographers


www.theshootit.com

check it out!

Dec 06 12 07:18 am Link

Photographer

kl-photographics

Posts: 296

Lemgo, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

as we r all grown up people n most of us can read, we may should do that sometimes. u know there comes a disclaimer when u register for pinterest. if u would read it n not just click ya i read it, i'm ok with ur shitty conditions of use. u wouldn't need to cry later. just be conscious about what u sign n confirm. same as u r using ur credit card. if u r not comfortable with that don't use it. but all those stupid actions will not change anything in those contracts

karsten

Dec 06 12 07:31 am Link

Photographer

JimPixLA

Posts: 54

Los Angeles, California, US

I think this is funny ...

You guys seriously have time to be worried about all of this?

Going back to work now.

Pinterest is here to stay whether we like it or not.

Dec 06 12 08:28 am Link

Photographer

Mortonovich

Posts: 5536

San Diego, California, US

^^^^
Karsten, your photos can be boosted and used on Pinterest without your knowledge or consent.

Dec 06 12 08:28 am Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

So your photos get seen by more people..  Isn't that the reason to have it on the net in first place?

Instead of trying to fight with the tide, go with the flow and turns the situation toward your advantage ... watermark of your URL on your pic.  Let them market you.

I use tide as analogy because it's so easy now days own a pinterest clone.  If you are familiar with php apache mysql ect.. and can spare few hundred dollars you too can own one too.  If you are not web development savvy  but wants a site like pinterest contact me and I will help you toward your goal within a week.

Hit me up on here or at my photography site http://barepixels.net or at my web portfolio site http://webpixels.us

Dec 06 12 09:14 am Link

Photographer

New Art Photo

Posts: 701

Los Angeles, California, US

If the Rolling Stones can't stop their entire albums being put on Youtube, we, as photographers are not going to be able to control use of our photos on the Web
(unless it's a business using it for advertising.)

I guess the best you can do is put your name on the photo and hope someone sees and likes it-- and offers you paid work.

Dec 06 12 09:31 am Link

Photographer

Shot By Adam

Posts: 5938

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

barepixels wrote:
So your photos get seen by more people..  Isn't that the reason to have it on the net in first place?

No, it's not.

It's about finding the right quality of customer, not the huge volume of non-customers. What you are saying is tantamount to how people collect "friends" on Facebook and MySpace. There is no point to it other than to boost a self-inflated ego.

Let me ask you this. You're based in San Diego, correct? How many bookings has Pinterest gotten you because your photo was shared in the Ukraine, or in Tokyo, or in Perth, or in Ottowa, or in Tupelo Mississippi? I'll answer that for you, you haven't. Or how many publications have you been published in because a senior editor saw your photo on Pinterest? I'll answer that one for you too...you haven't.

What Pinterest is GREAT for is having your copyright stolen and your images shared and used by people all over the world without paying you a license fee to do so. Personally, I take a -VERY- aggressive stance when people steal my property and my photos are my property. They aren't for "sharing" they are for "purchasing".

Dec 06 12 09:47 am Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

then watermark on your pic 

DO NOT SHARE MY PIC ON PINTEREST OR TUMBLR OR ANY SITES ALIKE.


am sure pinterest users see that and will flag (report) for it to be remove.

I had a choice of doing just that or put my URL on all my new pics.  I don't want to waste time searching the net to see who is sharing my pics and DCMA.  I rather use it on more productive things.  I guess you can say I have given up on fighting them but now turns table toward my advantage.

I wonder how many on here complains about Pinterest but have borrowed a song or a software in the past.

Dec 06 12 09:53 am Link

Photographer

Shot By Adam

Posts: 5938

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

barepixels wrote:
I don't want to waste time searching the net to see who is sharing my pics and DCMA.  I rather use it on more productive things.  I guess you can say I have given up on fighting them but now turns table toward my advantage.

That's quite sad actually. What you see as a waste of time I see as a revenue stream.

Dec 06 12 10:40 am Link

Photographer

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

Posts: 8789

Seattle, Washington, US

barepixels wrote:
Some of you are missing the boat.  Put your URL on your pic. If someone is impress with your works they will make an effort to visit your site for more.   Consider those images as business card.  That is what I just did... I change my logo:

OLD LOGO
[image]

NEW LOGO:
[image]


Now I wish more people would pass my photos around.  I want my URL to be seen by everyone on this planet.

If you like this advice, would be awesome if you can link back to my site from your.  http://barepixels.net   Thnx

i would consider branding instead of watermarking. (click image for larger version)

http://archives.marklaubenheimer.com/image.php?image=/models/2012/08-06-2012_Sam_Harrison/samweb21.jpg&quality=70&width=600

Dec 06 12 10:42 am Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

I really like how you approach that Mark.  I may do the same ... make PS action.  Thanks

Dec 06 12 10:47 am Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

DougBPhoto wrote:
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.

I was amazed at the first page of responses on this topic. "It's no big deal because no money is being made..."

"It's the internet, deal with it!" "Hide all your images under your bed" Really? Either allow your images to be used in ways you've never authorized or go hide under a rock? Really? That's the compromise? Are you serious?

If you drove your car to the store and someone hopped in and took it for a ride would your solution be, "Oh well...shouldn't have gone to the mall? If you don't want your car stolen keep it hidden in your garage!" That's not a solution for the problem.

Part of copyright ownership is the OWNER deciding where the images go and how they're used...not some third party, regardless of any monetary association or intent.

Pinterest is coasting on their Napster mentality of "oh, it's not us...it's our members and we have no control over that...take it up with them. " We all know that defense isn't effective for the long-term.

I'm shocked on a site for industry professionals so many have such little value for their intellectual property. Are these the same people who fall for the "I'll pay you in great exposure" farce?

Dec 06 12 11:09 am Link

Photographer

C R A W F O R D

Posts: 1266

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

291 wrote:
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.

2) and who exactly are YOU to decide everyone elses exposure value.

and while im at it who are YOU to sit here and insult everyone's opinion who doesnt agree with you?

3) have you paid all the models in your portfolio for their work? ( work being modeling)  If not.. then why are the images in your portfolio being used to promote your photography business with not even so much as a name/credit for any of the models in your profile.

Ok now go ahead and insult me and indirectly tell me how much of an idiot I am like you've done with most everyone else. smile


EDIT....

I almost forgot to mention. I dont have a pinterest account wink

Dec 06 12 11:24 am Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

Humm  I just notice that. The OP doesn't gives credits to the models whom he works with but he is very concerns with credits to his body of works.  O.o

Dec 06 12 02:19 pm Link

guide forum

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 21895

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

Shot By Adam wrote:
There is no point to it other than to boost a self-inflated ego.

In my words = "mental masturbation"

Studio36

Dec 06 12 02:42 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

I was amazed at the first page of responses on this topic. "It's no big deal because no money is being made..."

"It's the internet, deal with it!" "Hide all your images under your bed" Really? Either allow your images to be used in ways you've never authorized or go hide under a rock? Really? That's the compromise? Are you serious?

If you drove your car to the store and someone hopped in and took it for a ride would your solution be, "Oh well...shouldn't have gone to the mall? If you don't want your car stolen keep it hidden in your garage!" That's not a solution for the problem.

Part of copyright ownership is the OWNER deciding where the images go and how they're used...not some third party, regardless of any monetary association or intent.

Pinterest is coasting on their Napster mentality of "oh, it's not us...it's our members and we have no control over that...take it up with them. " We all know that defense isn't effective for the long-term.

I'm shocked on a site for industry professionals so many have such little value for their intellectual property. Are these the same people who fall for the "I'll pay you in great exposure" farce?

Well said.

Dec 06 12 09:45 pm Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

I will try to explain why many sites strip out EXIF info and other text info from images while generating thumbnails and final size for the site standard.

You see crafted hackers have know to use this area in an image to embedding malicious codes to hack the target site.

One common safe practice web developers do is to have the server make a new blank image and copy the pixels/colors over from the original upload to ensure it is safe.

From there it will resize to proper size for the site and generate more versions such as thumb nails and crop thumbnail at predetermined compression ratio.  Original version will be discarded.

An additional benefit is the file size will be smaller.  This is important for sites that serve millions of photos daily...band width, server load, ect...

If you want to read more on the subject google embedding php codes in images.  Or just read this to start with
http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070604/passi … imagesize/

Another defensive thing they do is changing original file name to something random but I wont bore you with details and why.

Dec 07 12 11:31 am Link

Photographer

J Allen Photographic

Posts: 209

Vancouver, Washington, US

barepixels wrote:
I will try to explain why many sites strip out EXIF info and other text info from images while generating thumbnails and final size for the site standard.

You see crafted hackers have know to use this area in an image to embedding malicious codes to hack the target site.

One common safe practice web developers do is to have the server make a new blank image and copy the pixels/colors over from the original upload to ensure it is safe.

From there it will resize to proper size for the site and generate more versions such as thumb nails and crop thumbnail at predetermined compression ratio.  Original version will be discarded.

An additional benefit is the file size will be smaller.  This is important for sites that serve millions of photos daily...band width, server load, ect...

If you want to read more on the subject google embedding php codes in images.  Or just read this to start with
http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070604/passi … imagesize/

Another defensive thing they do is changing original file name to something random but I wont bore you with details and why.

I'm fine with sites such as facebook, model mayhem, flickr, and the like doing this, where we as IP owners are uploading the content by choice. What Pinterest is doing is a blatant and intentional copyright violation.

Dec 07 12 11:54 am Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12116

Tampa, Florida, US

I saw this one when I was watching that fantastic Nickelback parody about Instagram. "Lo-Fi...Lo-Fi!"

The Fall of Pinterest
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/67785 … -pinterest

Dec 07 12 12:01 pm Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

J Allen Photographic wrote:
I'm fine with sites such as facebook, model mayhem, flickr, and the like doing this, where we as IP owners are uploading the content by choice. What Pinterest is doing is a blatant and intentional copyright violation.

If I build a Pinterest like site that celebrate Art Nudes but requires everyone to only post their owns, will you guys join?

I can have a report button next to every image making it easy to report violators.

Thing is I can't possible monitor every photos 24/7  I will have to replies on members helping policing.

Maybe I will make it invite only.  New members has to be invited in by existing members.

With every pic you can link back to your site.

Will you help me promote it? Show them that this is how it should be done right.  Protecting the artist IP should be a high piority.

If I can get few to agree with the above I will start making a prototype and have something to show within few days.

Dec 07 12 12:48 pm Link

Photographer

J Allen Photographic

Posts: 209

Vancouver, Washington, US

Even though I don't shoot very much nude work, I would join a site like that. Sounds like it would be more interesting than Redbubble.

Dec 07 12 12:54 pm Link

Photographer

LeenaHannonen

Posts: 10

Julian, California, US

barepixels wrote:

If I build a Pinterest like site that celebrate Art Nudes but requires everyone to only post their owns, will you guys join?

I can have a report button next to every image making it easy to report violators.

Thing is I can't possible monitor every photos 24/7  I will have to replies on members helping policing.

Maybe I will make it invite only.  New members has to be invited in by existing members.

With every pic you can link back to your site.

Will you help me promote it? Show them that this is how it should be done right.  Protecting the artist IP should be a high piority.

If I can get few to agree with the above I will start making a prototype and have something to show within few days.

If it's for Art Nudes and doesn't turn into a porn site, I would definitely join!

Dec 07 12 01:38 pm Link

Photographer

Al Lock Photography

Posts: 16071

Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand

barepixels wrote:

If I build a Pinterest like site that celebrate Art Nudes but requires everyone to only post their owns, will you guys join?

I can have a report button next to every image making it easy to report violators.

Thing is I can't possible monitor every photos 24/7  I will have to replies on members helping policing.

Maybe I will make it invite only.  New members has to be invited in by existing members.

With every pic you can link back to your site.

Will you help me promote it? Show them that this is how it should be done right.  Protecting the artist IP should be a high piority.

If I can get few to agree with the above I will start making a prototype and have something to show within few days.

Why only nudes? Why not any photos that actually belong to a member that they wish to post? You could have categories for all sorts of stuff.

Like you said, show it done right.

Btw, I shoot very few nudes but I would support a site that protected artist IP properly and with them having the control regardless.

Dec 07 12 01:41 pm Link

Photographer

barepixels

Posts: 2910

San Diego, California, US

Well am back with the prototype.  Any one wants an exclusive look?  PM me your email and I will send and invites.  Hope I can impress you.

Dec 09 12 01:37 pm Link

Photographer

Teila K Day Photography

Posts: 1943

Richmond, Indiana, 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.

The bottom line is that if you upload photographs to the internet, you by default opt in for the likelihood of seeing your images show up elsewhere.  Unless you're just totally naive at that fact, you know what you're getting into before putting your images out there for the public to use at their whim.

If you don't want images stolen then invest a lot of money to at least make it touch for Molly-McButter to swipe them.

What do I think?

1.  Keep your "art" or "craft" off the internet, and show it to prospective customers, clients, friends, family, etc.. as a hard copy only and only via email, if you trust email with stuff you don't want others to view or in this case 'steal'.  I don't trust email nor the cloud for critical information/(personal-nature) client photographs/etc.

2.  Upload only photographs that you can stand to have 'lifted' from your site.  Doesn't mean you like or condone the practice, but whether you like or hate internet theft isn't going to sway reality one bit.

3.  Focus on more important business aspects which would probably be more financially beneficial to you than worrying about photographs that (for most photographers) wouldn't have made any significant amount of money via sale in the first place...

Pick one wink

Dec 09 12 02:06 pm Link