Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
GRAF wrote:
I just searched under my name.
I found one of my images posted under the heading "Fashion".
My name was below the image, but there was no link back or any indication where it had come from.
I know it was ripped off from the Behance network because it is the only place I ever posted it.
I don't mind that it is on Pinterest, but it would have been nice it there had been a link back. That pretty much sucks. You should mind exactly because a full, and complete, unauthorised copy is held on pinerest's servers AND THAT COPY IS AN INFRINGING COPY!
Someone, a pinterest user, infringed your work by pinning it there, and pinterest is infringing it further by holding the copy, stripping it's identity and source, and facilitating additional unauthorised copies of it being made.
Ta-dah!
Studio36
Photographer
ME_
Posts: 3152
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Just an FYI for those who attempt to get pins removed:
I found another of my pictures there on Saturday. Uploaded by user, no link to me, no credit to me. I submitted a DMCA on Saturday. When I went back to check on whether the picture was still there, it was; and had been re-pinned twice. Last time I DMCA'd, I included every URL on their form, as it indicates that you must submit the URL of every instance of infringement of the same picture. This time I wanted to see if the re-pins would also be removed once the original was removed so I did not send more DMCA notices in for the two re-pins. As of Sunday night, both original pin and re-pins were gone.
Also - I thought that last time I had to DMCA them I got a notice from Pinterest telling me my IP had been removed. I didn't get one this time - I had to go look myself to make sure they were gone. Actually the thumb when doing a search still showed; but when I clicked on it I got a notice saying "This pin has been removed." A short while later, that picture no longer even came up in the search results.
Photographer
Grafanovitchi
Posts: 573
San Marcos, California, US
studio36uk wrote:
GRAF wrote:
I just searched under my name.
I found one of my images posted under the heading "Fashion".
My name was below the image, but there was no link back or any indication where it had come from.
I know it was ripped off from the Behance network because it is the only place I ever posted it.
I don't mind that it is on Pinterest, but it would have been nice it there had been a link back. That pretty much sucks. You should mind exactly because a full, and complete, unauthorised copy is held on pinerest's servers AND THAT COPY IS AN INFRINGING COPY!
Someone, a pinterest user, infringed your work by pinning it there, and pinterest is infringing it further by holding the copy, stripping it's identity and source, and facilitating additional unauthorised copies of it being made.
Ta-dah!
Studio36 [/quote
I see. Thank you for that clarification.
Photographer
Revenge Photography
Posts: 1905
Horsham, Victoria, Australia
Nothing of mine on there, I must suck haha
I don't think I'd care too much if there was, though I'd be happier if the didn't remove exif contact and copyright information.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
This thread should not disappear...
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
ME_ wrote:
Just an FYI for those who attempt to get pins removed:
I found another of my pictures there on Saturday. Uploaded by user, no link to me, no credit to me. I submitted a DMCA on Saturday. When I went back to check on whether the picture was still there, it was; and had been re-pinned twice. Last time I DMCA'd, I included every URL on their form, as it indicates that you must submit the URL of every instance of infringement of the same picture. This time I wanted to see if the re-pins would also be removed once the original was removed so I did not send more DMCA notices in for the two re-pins. As of Sunday night, both original pin and re-pins were gone.
Also - I thought that last time I had to DMCA them I got a notice from Pinterest telling me my IP had been removed. I didn't get one this time - I had to go look myself to make sure they were gone. Actually the thumb when doing a search still showed; but when I clicked on it I got a notice saying "This pin has been removed." A short while later, that picture no longer even came up in the search results. This seems to demonstrate a positive change. Pinterest's terms of use no longer claim ownership or the right to sell images pinned there. The pressure does seem to be making a difference.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
I just did a catalog - online catalog for a fashion client. As a result of Pinterest and other sites like it, every image has the client's logo and URL splashed across it. The metadata is all input to protect copyright and help bring people who look at it to the client's website, but we can't rely on the metadata staying intact.
For those who claim that visible watermarks, etc. are detrimental to the image? They are no longer a matter of taste. Pinterest and sites like it have made them essential.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Seems that pointing out legal liability doesn't sit well with some. From my messages:
"I have zero interest in thread hijacking...
...so to avoid doing so I'm going to address you personally.
I don't know what issue you have with Pinterest and quite frankly I don't care but at present time your information is flawed. You chose to respond to a much earlier post I made as opposed to responding to the one about the updated TOS (the one that went live on April 6, 2012 which is AFTER all of the links you posted were published) which specifically notes that " Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms." and "We released simpler tools for anyone to report alleged copyright or trademark infringements."
If there's someone on the site using your images without your permission and you feel the need to be sue happy as opposed to reporting copyright infringement then that's your choice. It's also my choice to use the site for doing things like sharing recipes with my mom or simply just showcasing books or shoes or whatever that I think is awesome in a single place so that like minded people can see it too.
I don't sell any of these images. I also don't claim that they're mine.
Pinterest doesn't sell any of these images. And EVERY SINGLE PIN links back to it's original source, in fact about 50% of the things that I've included thus far on my boards have "pin it" buttons that are specifically for use with their sites because those people recognize the fact that it's great tool for sharing their work and their brands.
So what's the issue?
Seriously. Do you play music at your shoots? Provided you're not claiming you wrote the song when you didn't you're free to enjoy it, you're even free to play it at a shoot if you think it'll help set a certain mood or play it for a friend if you think they'll enjoy it. It's called sharing and not sharing in the way sites like Napster where sharing because it was never intended that those files be shared for free among the masses BUT if someone posts something online PUBLICLY (as opposed to in a password protected gallery or something similar)there's zero difference between me sending the link to 1 or 100 people and me posting it on Pinterest. Just like there's no harm in you playing a song at a shoot."
My response:
"You seem to be badly informed about copyright law.
Doesn't matter if they sell them or not. Immaterial.
If you pin an image on Pinterest without the permission of the Copyright holder, you are in violation of the Berne Treaty, US Copyright Law and international copyright law.
Even Pinterest's TOS reflects that - quote "You agree not to post User Content that:... infringes any third party’s Intellectual Property Rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or other personal or proprietary rights;"
And:
"8. Indemnity
You agree to indemnify and hold harmless Pinterest and its officers, directors, employees and agents, from and against any claims, suits, proceedings, disputes, demands, liabilities, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees (including costs of defense of claims, suits or proceedings brought by third parties), arising out of or in any way related to (i) your access to or use of the Services or Pinterest Content, (ii) your User Content, or (iii) your breach of any of these Terms."
Might want to read the section immediately after that - the disclaimers, as well.
What that really means?
Anything that you pin that you do not own or have the express permission of the copyright holder to pin is a violation of copyright. It doesn't matter if you sell it or not. It doesn't matter if you claim they are yours or not.
YOU ARE VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAW. And making yourself liable for action under copyright law (which could cost you a serious amount of money). And not only are you responsible for your infringement, but you are also responsible for any legal costs, fees and penalties that Pinterest incurs as a result of your infringement.
That's the issue."
I take it that no one reads the licenses that are on DVDs, Blu-Rays and CDs either.
Photographer
Isaiah Brink
Posts: 2328
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Andrew Thomas Evans wrote:
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 Well Andrew, it's quite a bit different with somebody putting you on a list here on MM. You can see if any of your images are on a list here, and you can remove said image from the list without so much as contacting a moderator or mm at all.
Photographer
michaelGIORDANO
Posts: 594
Wilmington, North Carolina, US
@Al Lock Photography
Looks like, "ignorance is bliss" for a lot of folks who use Pinterest. Then again it is up to the Copyright holders to be proactive with DMCA takedowns (which does not make them money to do that - time is money). Frankly pursuing copyright infringers is a VERY costly business (to sue). The copyright Office is looking to make some provisions with the new Copyright Act (The Copyright Act of 1976 took 15 years in the making - the new one will take just as long) adding Moral Rights and possibly Small Claims court options even though it is a Federal Court issue.
Photographer
K Photographic Dreams
Posts: 1788
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
hide your art under your mattress. +1. Once anything is online, it's out of your hands. Put whatever safeguards you will, but they can be cracked and the files accessed.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
michaelGIORDANO wrote:
@Al Lock Photography
Looks like, "ignorance is bliss" for a lot of folks who use Pinterest. Then again it is up to the Copyright holders to be proactive with DMCA takedowns (which does not make them money to do that - time is money). Frankly pursuing copyright infringers is a VERY costly business (to sue). The copyright Office is looking to make some provisions with the new Copyright Act (The Copyright Act of 1976 took 15 years in the making - the new one will take just as long) adding Moral Rights and possibly Small Claims court options even though it is a Federal Court issue. I think our copyright specialist is right. Sue. DMCA notices are not helping, they hurt. There is no penalty. The image comes down, and nothing else happens. No pain for the person who infringed on copyright - no cost.
The only way our rights will be respected is if people start paying the cost for doing so. Which is why I strongly support ASMP and APA bringing class-action suits against Pinterest on behalf of their membership.
Of course, according to the TOS of Pinterest, that will mean that the people who have been pinning those images will have to pay the legal fees, any fines, penalties, etc.
And I think that just might be a good thing.
Time for the "freetards" to learn that photographs and artwork are entitled to protection and you can't take them without the permission of the copyright owner.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
I think our copyright specialist is right. Sue. DMCA notices are not helping, they hurt. There is no penalty. The image comes down, and nothing else happens. No pain for the person who infringed on copyright - no cost.
The only way our rights will be respected is if people start paying the cost for doing so. Which is why I strongly support ASMP and APA bringing class-action suits against Pinterest on behalf of their membership.
Of course, according to the TOS of Pinterest, that will mean that the people who have been pinning those images will have to pay the legal fees, any fines, penalties, etc.
And I think that just might be a good thing.
Time for the "freetards" to learn that photographs and artwork are entitled to protection and you can't take them without the permission of the copyright owner. 'freetard"? what's that?
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Of course, according to the TOS of Pinterest, that will mean that the people who have been pinning those images will have to pay the legal fees, any fines, penalties, etc.
And I think that just might be a good thing.
Time for the "freetards" to learn that photographs and artwork are entitled to protection and you can't take them without the permission of the copyright owner. So I see we still hate technological advancements. I MM stalk you to keep my moral compass in check. lol. Reformed freetard
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
michaelGIORDANO wrote:
@Al Lock Photography
Looks like, "ignorance is bliss" for a lot of folks who use Pinterest. Then again it is up to the Copyright holders to be proactive with DMCA takedowns (which does not make them money to do that - time is money). Frankly pursuing copyright infringers is a VERY costly business (to sue). The copyright Office is looking to make some provisions with the new Copyright Act (The Copyright Act of 1976 took 15 years in the making - the new one will take just as long) adding Moral Rights and possibly Small Claims court options even though it is a Federal Court issue. This is precisely the direction that the UK is going. We have had moral rights for years, but there is now a move afoot to enable a quick and dirty "small claims" style court procedure for very small** infringement claims to be addressed fast and cheep, even without a lawyer.
NOTE** It is difficult to say how much a very small claim in a copyright case might involve or how the evidence might have to be presented. That depends on the system that is set up in the end. There are, however, procedures now for on-line filed claims in cases where the claim is entirely one of a money issue, e.g. loans, breach of contract, credit defaults, ect, that can cover claims up to UK£99,999.99 where the cases are decided entirely on written submissions and no court appearance is necessarily even required.
Studio36
Photographer
Eralar
Posts: 1781
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Optix wrote:
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 Hahaha! Sorry, this made me laugh so much 
You have to be a real retard not to be able to grab an image when displayed in Flash... and what good is it when half the people will just leave your site BECAUSE it is made with Flash? (and I consider myself quite illeterate technology wise, but I can Google tech forums, where everything is explained)
Just look at all the threads here and everywhere else... only a very few site are well constructed with Flash, all the other ones are awful to navigate. Viva right click navigation!
Like most people say, if you don't want your stuff grabbed, don't put it on the internet.
Yes, I'm for going after people who steal online content... but up to a certain point. You can't sue someone for 1/2 million dollars, when they would only be sued for almost nothing if they stole some stuff in a grocery store.
No matter how photography (or movies, or any creative content) is important to their creator, publisher or productor, it's not more important than physical objects in physical businesses, so the penalties should not be that much disproportionate.
I do, however, have nothing against criminal files for some offenders.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
The penalty for Copyright Infringement in France (where it is not just a civil matter, but a criminal matter):
30,000 Euros per infringement (that's fine, not damages)
6 months in jail per infringement
Requirement for a public apology (if in a magazine, on the cover of the next issue following the ruling - if online, on the homepage of the website - top half).
Plus damages.
I think those sorts of penalties might get people's attention.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
So I see we still hate technological advancements. I MM stalk you to keep my moral compass in check. lol. Reformed freetard Got nothing to do with technological advancements. Has to do with respecting the rights of others.
I realize that most people have no concept of their rights are or how badly they have been infringed upon, but that doesn't mean we should just give our rights away.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Eralar wrote:
You can't sue someone for 1/2 million dollars, when they would only be sued for almost nothing if they stole some stuff in a grocery store. So, which has more value?
The invention of binary code or a loaf of bread?
The Mona Lisa or a jar of peanut butter?
I think you are wrong. Intellectual Property is worth far more than anything in a grocery store. And the penalties should reflect that.
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Got nothing to do with technological advancements. Has to do with respecting the rights of others.
I realize that most people have no concept of their rights are or how badly they have been infringed upon, but that doesn't mean we should just give our rights away. PSA: Did you know that even though you opted out of pinterest anyone can right click and save you're image onto their computer which is easier than Pinning?
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
PSA: Did you know that even though you opted out of pinterest anyone can right click and save you're image onto their computer which is easier than Pinning? Yeah, I know that. And did you know that anyone who does that is scum with no morals or respect for themselves?
Do you do that?
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
'freetard"? what's that? Without any offence to the genuinely disabled who we recognise have no or limited control over their state of mind, "freetard" is an entirely derogatory term applied to those of presumably normal ability who, in-spite of warnings, and often after several attempts attempts to educate them, seem to irrationally believe that they have the right to take and use anything they find for free, particularly on the Internet, and completely ignore any legal prohibitions, limitations, constraints or obligations whatsoever. Unlike the truly disabled, who can be forgiven their life's difficulty, the typical "freetard" operates quite knowingly and wilfully.
Studio36
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Yeah, I know that. And did you know that anyone who does that is scum with no morals or respect for themselves?
Do you do that? lol. Welcome to the internet. So if pinterest is bad then why not address the makers of the computer and software that allow me to take you're image whenever I want and give you absolutely zero credit if I choose. Seems to me the "right-click" and save feature is far more dangerous and pervasive than pinterest.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
lol. Welcome to the internet. So if pinterest is bad then why not address the makers of the computer and software that allow me to take you're image whenever I want and give you absolutely zero credit if I choose. Seems to me the "right-click" and save feature is far more dangerous and pervasive than pinterest. Sorry, nope. Wrong.
The makers of the software didn't design it with the intention that copyrighted works would be stolen.
Pinterest was designed with that in mind.
Did you defend Napster as well?
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Sorry, nope. Wrong.
The makers of the software didn't design it with the intention that copyrighted works would be stolen.
Pinterest was designed with that in mind.
Did you defend Napster as well? Ok. So what is the difference between me right clicking and taking you're image and left clicking and taking you're image? I'm not defending anyone. I'm not a fan of selective outrage. Either CI isn't okay or it is. You can't pick and choose. One way or another I can take the image and do what I want with it and infringe on you're copyright. I can take it, blow it up, and put it on my wall and you have no clue. At least with pinterest you get credited. I'm not saying it's ok (but I do use and will continue to use pinterest for professional reasons) to steal but you can't just look at the negatives of something. You can't target one and not the other. What exactly did shutting down Napster do? It forced people to come up with better ways of pirating. It's easier today than it ever was to steal copy written material.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
Ok. So what is the difference between me right clicking and taking you're image and left clicking and taking you're image? I'm not defending anyone. I'm not a fan of selective outrage. Either CI isn't okay or it is. You can't pick and choose. One way or another I can take the image and do what I want with it and infringe on you're copyright. I can take it, blow it up, and put it on my wall and you have no clue. At least with pinterest you get credited. I'm not saying it's ok (but I do use and will continue to use pinterest for professional reasons) to steal but you can't just look at the negatives of something. You can't target one and not the other. What exactly did shutting down Napster do? It forced people to come up with better ways of pirating. It's easier today than it ever was to steal copy written material. Actually, you're a fan of not making sense.
Do you really think it is easier today to steal than it was when Napster was running? Are you fucking kidding me? Or just too young to actually remember Napster?
No, Copyright Infringement is not OK. And maybe you haven't noticed, but that's been pointed out multiple times in this thread.
What also has been pointed out (that you seem to have completely missed) is that Pinterest violated the DMCA by stripping metadata and that it DOES NOT always credit anyone.
So that bit about "at least you get credited"?
Is basically bullshit.
Plus, that credit doesn't put any food on my table, does it?
Read what Harlan Ellison has said and done when it comes to his works being infringed upon.
Might also read about what happened in his lawsuit against AOL.
To quote Harlan Ellison: "If you put your hand in my pocket, you’ll drag back six inches of bloody stump"
That's the attitude all of us who create intellectual property need to take to protect our property.
Photographer
RHF Studios Limited
Posts: 30
Temple, Texas, US
Here the sad fact if you post something online odds are good that 1 out of 1,000,000 people who finds your work will in fact lift it or in this case pin it. To which I say so what? Someone enjoyed your work enough to post it on website somewhere.. Just shows you have real talent. After all, I think it was poet Amy Lowell who said something to the effect that the point of art was to fill man's desire to express himself as he creates a lasting record of himself.
In fact I can't think of single master artist or photographer who took up their craft with only a hunger to make money as their only guiding factor. Keep in mind I don't think claiming someones work as your own is right. So as long as the artist, photographer, and or model is credited by the person posting I don't see an issue. I mean would any of you be just as upset if an online magazine posted your work along with an article provided they credited you as the photographer who took the image?
That my take at least..
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Richard E Wallace II wrote:
I mean would any of you be just as upset if an online magazine posted your work along with an article provided they credited you as the photographer who took the image? Without asking in advance? They can pay me or they can ..........
![https://www.signsbypost.com/sm_images/BITE-ME-0450.jpg]()
Studio36
Photographer
hbutz New York
Posts: 3923
Ronkonkoma, New York, US
I was spammed by Pinterest, who harvested one of my email addresses. They subscribed me to a "permission based" mailing list. I called "Shenanigans" on them.
I received an email back from "Pinterest Operations" who said, quote, "Thank you for your concern about an email you received from Pinterest. Pinterest currently only sends email to people who have explicitly created an account on our site. If you believe you are receiving messages in error, we are happy to investigate further."
So... they're liars as well as spammers. Bad news when a company uses predatory practices.
Photographer
michaelGIORDANO
Posts: 594
Wilmington, North Carolina, US
@ Al Lock Photography I like and agree with you on the French fines for infringement. In case some of you have not see the Harlan Ellison Video...it is a classic video for those that have not seen it. http://youtu.be/mj5IV23g-fE @Studio36UK on "Bite me" lol
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
michaelGIORDANO wrote:
@Studio36UK
on "Bite me" lol QOTD
"I don't even take a piss without getting paid for it..."
- - - Harlan Ellison
Studio36
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Richard E Wallace II wrote:
I mean would any of you be just as upset if an online magazine posted your work along with an article provided they credited you as the photographer who took the image? I (and a group of other photographers) are currently suing a magazine for doing just that.
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Actually, you're a fan of not making sense.
Do you really think it is easier today to steal than it was when Napster was running? Are you fucking kidding me? Or just too young to actually remember Napster?
No, Copyright Infringement is not OK. And maybe you haven't noticed, but that's been pointed out multiple times in this thread.
What also has been pointed out (that you seem to have completely missed) is that Pinterest violated the DMCA by stripping metadata and that it DOES NOT always credit anyone.
So that bit about "at least you get credited"?
Is basically bullshit.
Plus, that credit doesn't put any food on my table, does it?
Read what Harlan Ellison has said and done when it comes to his works being infringed upon.
Might also read about what happened in his lawsuit against AOL.
To quote Harlan Ellison: "If you put your hand in my pocket, you’ll drag back six inches of bloody stump"
That's the attitude all of us who create intellectual property need to take to protect our property. Whoa whoa whoa. Settle down old timer. You might have a heart attack over there. lol
It is BY FAR easier to steal copy written material today than in the late 90's and early 2000s. Infinitely so. That has been established time and time again. Computers are faster, storage is bigger, and content is everywhere. There isn't ONE piece of mass produced content/material we can't get for free right now from somewhere. It's the world we live in. No idea what technological time warp you live in but anything we want is a click away.
You've gotten so worked up you've missed my point. I could care less about Pinterest. The tech and genie is out of the bottle. If it's gets shutdown people will find the next thing that comes right after. Same with Napster. As soon as it went down Bearshare, PirateBay, and several other sites were up. Look at Piratebay today. They are a machine and the legal equivalent to Teflon. lol. Point is you stop pinterest and something else much worse will come along. I guarantee it. I'm not saying don't. Just don't be all outraged and shocked when the new one comes online.
My point in all of this is that it's pointless at this point in history to spend the time and money going after these companies. What needs to be done is better material protection at the production level. It's on you to convince people to take a stand against piracy and given the selfish and greedy nature of people, good luck.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
My point in all of this is that it's pointless at this point in history to spend the time and money going after these companies. What needs to be done is better material protection at the production level. It's on you to convince people to take a stand against piracy and given the selfish and greedy nature of people, good luck. And I suppose you would claim it was pointless to try the Nazis for warcrimes. After all, it was done, and it had been done before and it would be done again....
Must be a sad life you live to not give a shit about your rights. Think that's called "a sheep".
Photographer
Dobias Fine Art Photo
Posts: 1697
Haddon Heights, New Jersey, US
Years back, one of my shots went viral through MySpace and became a common background. I didn't find out about it until a couple of years later.
Was that wrong and copyright infringement?
Yup.
Did it actually benefit me in the end through free advertising?
Yup.
By the way, who owns the copyright to this post? Is MM making money off of me? If you cut and paste this post into an e-mail or put it in your blog, does that mean you stole it? (Just had to stir that pot....)
And do I have pictures up on Pinterest?
Yup.
Are they being repinned?
Yup.
Do they link to my store so people can buy the prints from me?
Yup.
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
And I suppose you would claim it was pointless to try the Nazis for warcrimes. After all, it was done, and it had been done before and it would be done again....
Must be a sad life you live to not give a shit about your rights. Think that's called "a sheep". Comparing the murder of 6 million people to someone stealing your photographs from the Internet is ridiculous and offensive.
Photographer
Jeff Martin Photography
Posts: 13
Aransas Pass, Texas, US
Bottom line for me is this:
If I leave my Jeep(tm) parked outside with the keys in it and it gets stolen shame on the guy that ripped me off but shame on me for making it easy. There are a TON of ways to keep your images off of Pinterest.
Do some research.
I've had people rip images off from me and go down to their local WalMart and print photos from images they copied off of FB. They even had my watermark on them. I got tired of that and stopped selling prints completely. I also stopped giving them a 'sneak preview' on FB. I changed my business practice to deal with this kind of theft. Does that suck? Yup, but that's business. You'll get over it.
I understand why _some_ websites strip EXIF data. Some idiots were posting mobile phone photos that included GPS coords on them and getting stalked. I think it should be up to the owner/uploader to strip EXIF. Actually, it's the only beef I have against Pinterest. Technically they are modifying my photo to remove my copyright. This is not cool.
Other than that. I use pinterest all the time to get wardrobe ideas and to stay current in fashion.
Photographer
ESP NY
Posts: 470
Palm Beach, Florida, US
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 6209
San Diego, California, US
Jeff Martin Photography wrote:
. . .. There are a TON of ways to keep your images off of Pinterest.
Do some research. Really? How?
|
