Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2464
Cleveland, Ohio, 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! +1
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, 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". What the hell is wrong with you? Comparing CI to Nazi warcrimes. Now I know you have issues.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Erick Prince wrote:
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". What the hell is wrong with you? Comparing CI to Nazi warcrimes. Now I know you have issues. They are BOTH crimes. It is only a matter of degree.
Studio36
Photographer
Erick Prince
Posts: 3457
Austin, Texas, US
studio36uk wrote:
Erick Prince wrote:
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". What the hell is wrong with you? Comparing CI to Nazi warcrimes. Now I know you have issues. They are BOTH crimes. It is only a matter of degree.
Studio36 Yeah no shit. That's like comparing Jaywalking to Child Rape. Give me a break.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Erick Prince wrote:
What the hell is wrong with you? Comparing CI to Nazi warcrimes. Now I know you have issues. Both crimes. Simply a matter of degree.
If you can't grasp that, you are correct, your moral compass is badly in need of adjustment.
Photographer
John Robb
Posts: 15
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
The issue of Pinterest usage and any potential copyright infringement is a complex one. It would easy to become heated and draw extreme statements but we should take careful and logical look at the law and see how it applies.
Firstly there is one guiding principle of law that should be respected and that is the "rule of law". Basically it means that a person can only be found guilty of a crime if there is an applicable law and a hearing in a court. This stops governments and police making arbitrary laws against us.
In the case of Pinterest no-one as far as I know has been found guilty of copyright infringement so, as much as some may want to shout and scream thief, there is nothing wrong as yet until someone decides to take the matter to a court and get a ruling.
In the second part, any such ruling in court may indeed rest on the fair use provisions in copyright law. Fair use is there in the law to allow society to reasonably benefit from art without undue restriction of copyright holders - including obtaining permission. (The copyright part of the law is there in the first place to protect the earnings of the artist). Fair use has some specific mentions like education and news reporting but in general it is based around, and cases judged on, four principles:
1 Purpose and character
2 Nature of the copied work
3 Amount and substantiality
4 Effect upon work's value
It's the balance of these factors that will come into play at some stage - no doubt pinterest and their lawyers have thought about them already.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
US - 17 USC §506
§506. Criminal offenses
(a)
Criminal infringement.
(1)
In general. Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18 [18 USC §2319], if the infringement was committed--
(A)
for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B)
by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000; or
(C)
by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.
---
In the UK however, mere possession of an infringing copy "in the course of a business" is a criminal offence. Under our laws pinterest is prima face committing a criminal offence.
The UK and other countries, as well, do not recognise "fair use" but have a much more narrow and restrictive regime of "fair dealing".
I've successfully jumped on YouTube in a past because, and Facebook, who themselves are intimate with Pinterest, is very much in the same boat, YouTube have offices in Ireland [Republic] and choose [it's right there in their terms of service] English [UK] law as their choice of law.
---
In theory one can not rely on the US's "fair use" provisions in any case for what pinterst is doing simply because their purpose does not fall under the normally accepted exemptions; and, as to subtantiality, they can not deal with an image in any form but to reproduce the whole of it.
On the other hand, as to the criminal offence, though the pinterest users may not be seeing any commercial advantage or private financial gain [§506 (a)(1)(A)] pinterest themselves are certainly in it for the money or they wouldn't be doing it.
FWIW 17 USC 101 = The term “financial gain” includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.
---
Bringing "fair use" into this conversation is probably a futile exercise in trying to excuse what they do, and how they are doing it, on several levels.
Studio36
Photographer
Eralar
Posts: 1781
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
David Parsons wrote:
Comparing the murder of 6 million people to someone stealing your photographs from the Internet is ridiculous and offensive. This gets somewhere along with my comment higher. I think it's the one going to the barricades over each scratch that is the saddest one, or the one who will die first of a heart attack anyway.
And when I'm talking about a sense of priorities, I feel about these stupid lawsuits for 100k$ for stealing ONE movie or a few images is quite like shooting at someone for breaking your car's side mirror. Yes it sucks, but is life not more important that a mirror you can replace for a few hundred bucks?
I mean, what Erick is trying to say is not that stealing your work is a good thing, but just that in our days, if you don't want something stolen, just don't post it on the internet.
And lastly, if the images are pinned, even without your consent, you are in fact losing nothing. I'm not talking about magazines making profit out of people's work without their consent, this is something very different. But if I grab one of your images to show a model what style of pose I want from her, have I actually REMOVED money from your pocket?
Edit: that being said, yes we can say that the owners of Pinterest are making money (a commercial use) out of other people's creative work. But they would only need a few minor adjustments to keep it more civilized... too bad they just don't. Like making it an obligation to credit the author or copyright holder of a pinned image.
Photographer
JUSTIN GILL PHOTO
Posts: 532
Los Angeles, California, US
Erick Prince wrote:
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. Yes technological means to find loopholes to copyright laws and safeguards spring up faster than those laws and safeguards can adapt to protect against them. That's true. But just because a fence or gate is penetrable or easy to climb over, doesn't make it right to trespass. It certainly doesn't mean artists the world over should be like "well, fuck it" and not make a collective stand.
When Napster and mp3 sharing and p2p sharing popped up, and musicians and the RIAA complained, iTunes and 99 cent mp3 shopping exploded, and for a while people were generally happy. Rebdoxes are springing up everywhere so people can enjoy a movie for a measly buck and a quarter per day, while movie studios and distributors can rake in licensing fees.
I'm not suggesting they're evil or even malicious, but if sites like Pinterest and Tumblr were viable ways for artists to make an improved living doing what they love, threads like this would sing their praises rather than point out their shortcomings.
Photographer
JUSTIN GILL PHOTO
Posts: 532
Los Angeles, California, US
Eralar wrote:
And when I'm talking about a sense of priorities, I feel about these stupid lawsuits for 100k$ for stealing ONE movie or a few images is quite like shooting at someone for breaking your car's side mirror. Yes it sucks, but is life not more important that a mirror you can replace for a few hundred bucks?
I mean, what Erick is trying to say is not that stealing your work is a good thing, but just that in our days, if you don't want something stolen, just don't post it on the internet. 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.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
John Robb wrote:
no doubt pinterest and their lawyers have thought about them already. Actually, based on the interviews with the executives of Pinterest, they hadn't.
Photographer
Jennifer Jurca
Posts: 104
Portland, Oregon, US
oh come on! pinterest is a great way to get exposure and its not like anybody can make any money off 70 dpi images.
I hate hate hate this mine mine mine mentality. If you really want you can put a huge ugly watermark all over your stuff.
Photographer
ME_
Posts: 3152
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Jennifer Jurca wrote:
oh come on! pinterest is a great way to get exposure and its not like anybody can make any money off 70 dpi images.
I hate hate hate this mine mine mine mentality. If you really want you can put a huge ugly watermark all over your stuff. I have a lawyer right now working on a case for me. A clothing company took my picture and used it for a year to advertise a certain article of clothing they sell. That's how they made money off it.
I will never understand why people think web-sized images are not able to "make money."
Re Pinterest itself: so far I've had about 20 of my pictures taken down from there. I got zero exposure from them because the Pinterest users uploaded them themselves. There are two I have left up there while I decide what to do, because one is linked to my Flickr and the other has my watermark. That person didn't cut it off like the others did.
How are all those uploaded pictures great exposure for me? Nobody knows I took them.
If Pinterest's concept were "Hey, upload or pin pictures YOU took or to which you have usage rights that permit sharing. Then other people will pin them on the site, and other people will re-pin, and so on," then I'd be all for it. But their concept is in fact, "Don't upload your own stuff. Go find other people's pictures and post them here. It's better to only link them from the original source but you can really just find them on google or upload them directly as though they were yours; we never check on anyone to see who really owns them. And BTW, if there is ever any lawsuit brought by the copyright holder, you agree to take all the blame and responsibility - even though WE are telling you NOT to upload your own work."
Photographer
Jennifer Jurca
Posts: 104
Portland, Oregon, US
Ok, you got me, you found a situation where one could use web quality image to make money off of it, but this is still an unlikely scenario, especially from pinterest. But it sounds like you have a lawyer on it which would have been my advice anyway (well, first I would threaten to sue before hiring anybody - scares the shit out of most people).
Photographer
ME_
Posts: 3152
Atlanta, Georgia, US
I can't speak for anyone else but I have had at least four - that I know of - instances of people taking my web-sized pictures and using them to sell a product.
I never post full-sized or even close to it pictures. My typical size is no more than 950 pix wide. Very occasionally I'll post something a little larger. My most-stolen picture, which was taken and used for the cover of a DVD, is 600px square.
I am sure there are other instances of my web-sized pictures being sold or used to sell something and I just haven't found them yet.
Artist/Painter
helleborine
Posts: 33
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jennifer Jurca wrote:
oh come on! pinterest is a great way to get exposure and its not like anybody can make any money off 70 dpi images. I can. I've done nothing but for the past decade.
Artist/Painter
helleborine
Posts: 33
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Artist/Painter
helleborine
Posts: 33
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Vito wears a dress, now? ;-) I've started a new blog so that I can rant and rant and rant. Feel free to follow the blog (it's not at all creepy) and pass the link around if you like it. A "follow" means support! If you want to add a post, by all means! Please propose it. I have many more posts coming, the ideas are just pouring in. Watch that space: http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
helleborine wrote:
Vito wears a dress, now? ;-) Nah... it was Vito what took the pich'a. 
Studio36
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Jennifer Jurca wrote:
oh come on! pinterest is a great way to get exposure and its not like anybody can make any money off 70 dpi images. People make money off 72 dpi images all the time.
I hate hate hate this mine mine mine mentality. If you really want you can put a huge ugly watermark all over your stuff. Life, liberty and property.
The basic rights of mankind.
Don't like it? Give up your claim of being human...
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Great stuff. Have shared a few on Facebook. You'd probably get more traction if you actually pinned them on Pinterest.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
David Parsons wrote:
You'd probably get more traction if you actually pinned them on Pinterest. I don't pin to Pinterest. I don't use Pinterest. IN any way.
I do sue people who put my images on Pinterest.
Photographer
michaelGIORDANO
Posts: 594
Wilmington, North Carolina, US
Jennifer Jurca wrote:
I hate hate hate this mine mine mine mentality. If you really want you can put a huge ugly watermark all over your stuff. MySpace started the Me, me, me attitude. Now it's facebook...."Look at what I am doing!" attitude. It's still a me, me, me attitude. And in this day an age people think they are entitled to everything. So, the natural defense would be, "Hey that's mine!"
Photographer
Andrew Thomas Evans
Posts: 24079
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Al Lock Photography wrote:
I do sue people who put my images on Pinterest. I'm sure that's happened many times.
Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 6209
San Diego, California, US
Photographer
4 R D
Posts: 1141
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Al Lock Photography wrote:
I don't pin to Pinterest. I don't use Pinterest. IN any way.
I do sue people who put my images on Pinterest. Let us take one of your images as example:
![https://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110821/03/4e50d7f3cf3c7.jpg]()
This is your avatar. It has 1122 views so far. It is watermarked and I assume you have shown it in different online resources as part of your port. Question: What is the comercial value of this specific image after you have watermarked it and shared it in different venues? Who would want to buy from you this image as it is? What is its ACTUAL value?
Now, based on that figure, how much would you sue me for if I open an account on pinterest and post it there? How much money would you actually be losing from me doing such a thing? How much should you pay your lawyer?
Please explain me how pursuing such a legal claim would be good business for you.
Photographer
michaelGIORDANO
Posts: 594
Wilmington, North Carolina, US
Most of these cases are settled out of court. Especially when the photographer has a piece of paper from the copyright office detailing the registration of the image. It essentially becomes a loss for your case. Actual damages are not needed to present in court especially if the infringement was willful. That comes after. Statutory damages come first...especially that paper from the Copyright Office. Then there is Discovery. Where they start to trace how and where the image was implicitly stolen. Then if the person has an e-commerce site making money off the image directly or indirectly the court determines that based on your earnings. The burden is on the infringer to produce the figures.
Keep in mind if you decide to proceed to court which you will not be able to afford because these types of cases are very expensive...you'll settle. Courts will award anywhere from $750-$150,000 plus his attorney's fees plus court costs which you'll pay for. Hence the reason these cases are settled out of court to prevent that expense that the infringer must pay. It's not something you want to chance. That's why Andy Baio settled with Jay Maisel. He wasn't financially able to challenge it.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
A R M wrote:
This is your avatar. It has 1122 views so far. It is watermarked and I assume you have shown it in different online resources as part of your port. Question: What is the comercial value of this specific image after you have watermarked it and shared it in different venues? Who would want to buy from you this image as it is? What is its ACTUAL value?
Now, based on that figure, how much would you sue me for if I open an account on pinterest and post it there? How much money would you actually be losing from me doing such a thing? How much should you pay your lawyer?
Please explain me how pursuing such a legal claim would be good business for you. Are you aware that value is not the only basis for award in copyright infringement?
I've won a few copyright infringement lawsuits. The first one was against a little magazine that could have paid me $200 for the usage. Instead, they used the image (an image much like the one you chose from my port) without permission as their center spread.
That cost them $5000.
A year later (roughly), the same magazine did it again. This time it cost them $80,000. The magazine publisher had to sell his house to pay the judgement.
In conjunction with some other photographers, I am currently pursuing a copyright infringement case in Europe. The expected payout could be well over 50,000 Euros. That's assuming they settle and don't actually let it go to the courts, where it will cost them a minimum of 6 times that plus jail time.
And what would I sue you for? Everything you have. Willful infringement. And I wouldn't sue you in the US. I'd sue you where Mexico has an extradition treaty and willful infringement is a criminal charge. Mexico signed the Berne Conventions in 1967. So not only would you face losing a lot of money? You'd face jail time.
So, tell me? How smart do you think those people think it was to steal from me?
Photographer
4 R D
Posts: 1141
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Are you aware that value is not the only basis for award in copyright infringement?
I've won a few copyright infringement lawsuits. The first one was against a little magazine that could have paid me $200 for the usage. Instead, they used the image (an image much like the one you chose from my port) without permission as their center spread.
That cost them $5000.
A year later (roughly), the same magazine did it again. This time it cost them $80,000. The magazine publisher had to sell his house to pay the judgement.
In conjunction with some other photographers, I am currently pursuing a copyright infringement case in Europe. The expected payout could be well over 50,000 Euros. That's assuming they settle and don't actually let it go to the courts, where it will cost them a minimum of 6 times that plus jail time.
And what would I sue you for? Everything you have. Willful infringement. And I wouldn't sue you in the US. I'd sue you where Mexico has an extradition treaty and willful infringement is a criminal charge. Mexico signed the Berne Conventions in 1967. So not only would you face losing a lot of money? You'd face jail time.
So, tell me? How smart do you think those people think it was to steal from me? Then I do not know why you are against pinterest. Clearly, winning lawsuits generates more income for you than you would get otherwise. Let them steal and have your lawyer collect the checks. 
In fact, since you are not the only one having their pictures "stolen", I wonder why there are not more photographers swimming in money. With so many media outlets to sue, this should be like a golden era for photography business.
Photographer
michaelGIORDANO
Posts: 594
Wilmington, North Carolina, US
That would be the case IF people registered their copyrights. Unfortunately many don't and they are too lazy to pursue it or it's too much to deal with or too costly that the thought of it is very discouraging.
So they essentially abandon those thoughts and go on about their daily lives and business as usual because it's easier that way.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
michaelGIORDANO wrote:
That would be the case IF people registered their copyrights. Unfortunately many don't and they are too lazy to pursue it or it's too much to deal with or too costly that the thought of it is very discouraging.
So they essentially abandon those thoughts and go on about their daily lives and business as usual because it's easier that way. Registration of copyright is only an issue in the US and a very few other countries.
And ARM seems to be unaware that there are people making pretty good living pursuing copyright infringement cases. Harlan Ellison is a very visible example.
Fact is that most photographers don't know their rights and have no idea about protecting their rights.
Btw, ARM - I generate a lot more money doing photography for commercial clients than pursuing copyright infringement cases. And part of the reason for that is that I protect my IP and their IP.
Photographer
4 R D
Posts: 1141
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Al Lock Photography wrote:
Registration of copyright is only an issue in the US and a very few other countries.
And ARM seems to be unaware that there are people making pretty good living pursuing copyright infringement cases. Harlan Ellison is a very visible example.
Fact is that most photographers don't know their rights and have no idea about protecting their rights.
Btw, ARM - I generate a lot more money doing photography for commercial clients than pursuing copyright infringement cases. And part of the reason for that is that I protect my IP and their IP. Oh no, I am well aware there are people who make a very good living out of winning copyright cases.
My point is, why should photographers want to shut down a website that clearly benefits them? Every pin is a check to collect!
Photographer
4 R D
Posts: 1141
Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Lars R Peterson wrote:
But, isn't that like saying that doctors should stop fighting against cancer, because cancer is a huge source of income for so many doctors?
Cancer is bad. Theft is bad. They should both be fought and dealt with... but in the meantime, yes - some people make money during the fight. What's wrong with that? So now you tell me the motivations behind this thread are ethical and moral, not financial? Please.
I have no problem with people suing to their heart's content and making money of it. My impression is that suing a pinterest user will not return much of a profit but if I am wrong and it is profitable then it makes zero sense to "fight" against it.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
A R M wrote:
Oh no, I am well aware there are people who make a very good living out of winning copyright cases.
My point is, why should photographers want to shut down a website that clearly benefits them? Every pin is a check to collect! Why did people want to shut down the Japanese Empire? After all, think how many more Korean, Malay, Chinese, etc. slaves could have collected if it had been allowed to continue?
Really, your sense of right and wrong is so fucked-up that you should seriously spend some time with a psychologist. Damn.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
Lars R Peterson wrote:
But, isn't that like saying that doctors should stop fighting against cancer, because cancer is a huge source of income for so many doctors?
Cancer is bad. Theft is bad. They should both be fought and dealt with... but in the meantime, yes - some people make money during the fight. What's wrong with that? 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.
Photographer
Gulag
Posts: 1253
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Give and you shall receive.
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 17024
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
mshi wrote:
Give and you shall receive. LOL - Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's....
|
