Al Lock Photography wrote:

I think you are the one that needs to open your eyes. Your moral base? Sucks.

Your moral base is archaic, obsolete. It no longer serves its original purpose properly.

A R M wrote:

Your moral base is archaic, obsolete. It no longer serves its original purpose properly.

That's what slave-traders and pirates said in the 17th and 18th centuries.

291 wrote:
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.

is this theoretical or has someone actually posted your images on pintrest?

Voluptatum Studio NY wrote:

is this theoretical or has someone actually posted your images on pintrest?

Did you bother to read the thread?

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Actually, no it's not. That's one of the issues and potential legal problems Pinterest has. IT DOES NOT link, it downloads the image onto its servers and posts from there. It is NOT like Google (which does link and only hosts thumbs).

You are wrong.  If a file is uploaded to the site, then there is no link back.

When you pin a picture from another webpage, it links back to the source webpage.  You can even see the link in the status bar of your browser when you hover over the large size picture.

Quentin Gaudilliere wrote:

Exactly. Pinterest isn't like posting an image : it's posting a link to an image. Very different. It always link back to the source. Very different from someone posting your pics on facebook or twitter, etc. Of course, it's a graphic link, but would you sue Google for showing your images in their image search engine ? I didn't think so...

It doesn't always link back to the source.  I'm finding at least 25% of infringements on my work linking back to a Google Image search page, or directly uploaded from user's computer (so no link or attribution).  Some of my work has been attributed to other artists... dead ones!

You can't sue Google because Google shows THUMBNAILS and these are legitimately FAIR USE.  Pinterest shows full-size images, which is not fair use.

Every case will differ, but I have not received ONE visitor from Pinterest.  This is from a sample of at least 300 infringements.

Another piece of evidence that people look at your work on Pinterest and never visit your website: there are about 25 of my images that are repeated (repinned) over and over again from pinboard to pinboard.  They don't seek out the original website to find more, they're plenty happy pinning what other people have pinned already.

Orcatek Photography wrote:
I just went over and found 3 of my photos by just searching "orcatek".

Have you tracked down the the original pinboard, and the tentacular re-pin pattern?  Have a blast... there may be more than 3, and you have to file a DMCA for every pin.

And you're lucky the keyword orcatek landed something... if people labelled your image, say, "BATHING SUIT PINBOARD" then you might never ever find your work.

David Parsons wrote:

You are wrong.  If a file is uploaded to the site, then there is no link back.

When you pin a picture from another webpage, it links back to the source webpage.  You can even see the link in the status bar of your browser when you hover over the large size picture.

No, I'm not wrong. Check the properties of every photo on Pinterest. If you pin a photo from your site, it will not be hosted on your site. You are mistaking a link added for linking instead of hosting.

Btw, I contacted ASMP and they are still dealing with Pinterest in regards to the upload issue and the stripping the metadata issue (which they note is a violation of DMCA), but Pinterest doesn't seem interested in making adjustments.

I've encouraged ASMP to bring suit against Pinterest on behalf of the membership.

20C wrote:
Photography is a unique field, unlike others. Technically, its not that hard to grasp and understand to be fairly proficient. It doesnt take weeks/months to create an image. It doesn't take an advanced degree to understand how to create a good image. (and if you want to critique me technically, go ahead. I dont care, I shoot what I shoot because I want to).

The other point is, every person walking the street has a camera in their pocket in one form or another. Taking pictures is every much a past time as it is an industry. Always has been. I see people on google+, flikr, etc... taking pictures with their phones that blow half the supposed pros around here away. They do it becuase they enjoy it and like to share their enjoyment.

One hundred -- hell, twenty years ago it DID take weeks/months to learn how to create an image.  And after you learned, a few hours or more to create it.  It took a lot of knowledge and patience to make captivating imagery.  People wanted to make sure that hard work not only paid off, but was properly protected.

Nowadays, pull out your phone, snap a pic and add some faux-vintage asshattery to it and you've got yourself a decent image.  Then, you can upload it to the web using SAID PHONE.

You're right, technology has come leaps and bounds.  But that doesn't equate an inverse proportion of the value of imagery, or any kind of IP.  The person uploading those Instagrams, etc makes the choice to upload and share.  As you say, they do it because they love sharing it -- and that's okay, that's their decision.  Conversely, a photo I put on my website to show to potential clients or general fans isn't necessarily there to be ripped and disseminated in places I don't even know about.


Some people are making the argument about free publicity.  But let's not forget that a property owner makes the call how that property is exposed, not any third party.  Even if it results in less exposure, or even money.  Particularly if it's in danger of being publicized in a context that the copyright owner disapproves of.  And, as mentioned, there's no guarantee that the creator will be credited anyway.

Other people are making the argument "if you don't want it stolen, don't post it."
Now that's just absurd.  The Mona Lisa has been both stolen and vandalized, yet it still hangs in the Louvre to this day for the public to see.  Yes there are safeguards to better protect images, but a HUGE safeguard would be to raise awareness that a wildly popular website raises the ire of creative professionals everywhere.



I love the internet, and I'm a huge technophile.  I'm also a progressivist and welcome evolution of social norms and laws and ethics.  However, we should be careful to ensure we e-volve rather than DE-volve.  I'd like to see a community of fellow photographers take more stock in the value of their craft and the industry as a whole.

J u s t i n G i l l wrote:
I've read a good chunk of this topic that I'm stepping into fashionably late, and this popped out at me:


One hundred -- hell, twenty years ago it DID take weeks/months to learn how to create an image.  And after you learned, a few hours or more to create it.  It took a lot of knowledge and patience to make captivating imagery.  People wanted to make sure that hard work not only paid off, but was properly protected.

Nowadays, pull out your phone, snap a pic and add some faux-vintage asshattery to it and you've got yourself a decent image.  Then, you can upload it to the web using SAID PHONE.

You're right, technology has come leaps and bounds.  But that doesn't equate an inverse proportion of the value of imagery, or any kind of IP.  The person uploading those Instagrams, etc makes the choice to upload and share.  As you say, they do it because they love sharing it -- and that's okay, that's their decision.  Conversely, a photo I put on my website to show to potential clients or general fans isn't necessarily there to be ripped and disseminated in places I don't even know about.


Some people are making the argument about free publicity.  But let's not forget that a property owner makes the call how that property is exposed, not any third party.  Even if it results in less exposure, or even money.  Particularly if it's in danger of being publicized in a context that the copyright owner disapproves of.  And, as mentioned, there's no guarantee that the creator will be credited anyway.

Other people are making the argument "if you don't want it stolen, don't post it."
Now that's just absurd.  The Mona Lisa has been both stolen and vandalized, yet it still hangs in the Louvre to this day for the public to see.  Yes there are safeguards to better protect images, but a HUGE safeguard would be to raise awareness that a wildly popular website raises the ire of creative professionals everywhere.



I love the internet, and I'm a huge technophile.  I'm also a progressivist and welcome evolution of social norms and laws and ethics.  However, we should be careful to ensure we e-volve rather than DE-volve.  I'd like to see a community of fellow photographers take more stock in the value of their craft and the industry as a whole.

Agreed..

Al Lock Photography wrote:

No, I'm not wrong. Check the properties of every photo on Pinterest. If you pin a photo from your site, it will not be hosted on your site. You are mistaking a link added for linking instead of hosting.

Btw, I contacted ASMP and they are still dealing with Pinterest in regards to the upload issue and the stripping the metadata issue (which they note is a violation of DMCA), but Pinterest doesn't seem interested in making adjustments.

I've encouraged ASMP to bring suit against Pinterest on behalf of the membership.

+1

J u s t i n G i l l wrote:
I've read a good chunk of this topic that I'm stepping into fashionably late, and this popped out at me:


One hundred -- hell, twenty years ago it DID take weeks/months to learn how to create an image.  And after you learned, a few hours or more to create it.  It took a lot of knowledge and patience to make captivating imagery.  People wanted to make sure that hard work not only paid off, but was properly protected.

Nowadays, pull out your phone, snap a pic and add some faux-vintage asshattery to it and you've got yourself a decent image.  Then, you can upload it to the web using SAID PHONE.

You're right, technology has come leaps and bounds.  But that doesn't equate an inverse proportion of the value of imagery, or any kind of IP.  The person uploading those Instagrams, etc makes the choice to upload and share.  As you say, they do it because they love sharing it -- and that's okay, that's their decision.  Conversely, a photo I put on my website to show to potential clients or general fans isn't necessarily there to be ripped and disseminated in places I don't even know about.


Some people are making the argument about free publicity.  But let's not forget that a property owner makes the call how that property is exposed, not any third party.  Even if it results in less exposure, or even money.  Particularly if it's in danger of being publicized in a context that the copyright owner disapproves of.  And, as mentioned, there's no guarantee that the creator will be credited anyway.

Other people are making the argument "if you don't want it stolen, don't post it."
Now that's just absurd.  The Mona Lisa has been both stolen and vandalized, yet it still hangs in the Louvre to this day for the public to see.  Yes there are safeguards to better protect images, but a HUGE safeguard would be to raise awareness that a wildly popular website raises the ire of creative professionals everywhere.



I love the internet, and I'm a huge technophile.  I'm also a progressivist and welcome evolution of social norms and laws and ethics.  However, we should be careful to ensure we e-volve rather than DE-volve.  I'd like to see a community of fellow photographers take more stock in the value of their craft and the industry as a whole.

Well said.

I find it utterly amazing that anyone on a site that relies on photography would not understand that it is the copyright owner that should make the choice on how their property is seen.

B L O P H O T O wrote:

Al Lock Photography wrote:
No, I'm not wrong. Check the properties of every photo on Pinterest. If you pin a photo from your site, it will not be hosted on your site. You are mistaking a link added for linking instead of hosting.

Btw, I contacted ASMP and they are still dealing with Pinterest in regards to the upload issue and the stripping the metadata issue (which they note is a violation of DMCA), but Pinterest doesn't seem interested in making adjustments.

I've encouraged ASMP to bring suit against Pinterest on behalf of the membership.

B L O P H O T O wrote:
+1

Nice

Al Lock Photography wrote:

No, I'm not wrong. Check the properties of every photo on Pinterest. If you pin a photo from your site, it will not be hosted on your site. You are mistaking a link added for linking instead of hosting.

I understand that they save a copy onto their servers.  What I am saying is that, even with the local copy on their servers, they link back to the source page.  Try it and see for yourself.

David Parsons wrote:
I understand that they save a copy onto their servers.  What I am saying is that, even with the local copy on their servers, they link back to the source page.  Try it and see for yourself.

The photos aren't linked. A link is added. And not always.

You think that the photo is linked? Take down a photo from your website that has been pinned. See what effect it has on the pinned photo.

And stop defending the thieves.

One, by loading the image to their servers, that means when you take down the image, it stays up there. Regardless of whether you want it to or not.

Suppose you receive a "cease and desist" court order regarding a photo of yours that has been pinned. You remove it from your website, but you are still in contempt of the court order because of Pinterest. Far fetched? No, legally, that is the circumstance Pinterest puts you into.

I have taken a lot of images for clients in which the usage agreements allow me to use the images on my website and in my portfolio, but nowhere else (restricted exclusivity). Someone pinning one of those images is making me legally liable.

Second, since they DO NOT actually link the photo, their stripping the metadata is a violation of DMCA and also means that finding your images that have been "pinned" by others becomes close to impossible.

Pinterest encourages copyright infringement, and that is NOT to our benefit as photographers - nor is it to the benefit of models, MUAs, retouchers or anyone else involved in the industry. Some of us are professionals. If you ever intend to move from being an amateur photographer to a professional photographer, you need to learn that the business part of being a professional photographer (including protecting your rights) is more important than your skill as a photographer in terms of success as a professional.

Pinterest is the photography equivalent of what Napster was with music. Remember what happened to Napster? Well, expect the same to happen to Pinterest.

helleborine wrote:
@orcatek

Because I'm such an angel...

http://pinterest.com/source/orcatek.com/ has 13 of your images that are actually attributed.  Many probably aren't attributed and good luck ever finding them.

There are at least 27 repins.

We have 40 infringements.  BUT THERE IS MORE!

Take the pregnant belly.  10 repins - BUT, repins have repins!!!

http://pinterest.com/abrinegar/maternity/ >>> your REPIN here, has 2 more REPINS!  So a second layer of repinning is here: http://pinterest.com/pin/230176230924962116/ But you'll have 9 more REPINS to dig through for more REPINS.

And so on and so on, like infinite tentacles.

So from 13 screengrabs... to 27 repins... and who knows, maybe 50 repins-of-repins and say another 20 repins-of-repins-of-repins... You must have a good 100 infringements buried in there.

And those are the ones that are attributed, and therefore easy to find!  Those are the ones that appear on the "source" page... most of them don't appear... there may be a lot more than the 13 screengrabs and their 100 pin-repins-repins-repins!

Sleep tight sweet child.

Actually once I found the source command I found tons more from my other sites and blogs. 

Not sleeping tight.

They do support a no-pin metatag for your sites.   

Still working out how to deal with it.

Billy G Photography wrote:
You should copyright register all your work

That would fundamentally ONLY apply in the US. Most other countries do not require registration and many do not even have a system [an official system] for doing so.

Billy G Photography wrote:
and never post on the internet without your name on the image it's self...

Been saying that for years. It pretty much falls on deaf ears around here.

On this board the emphasis is always on reasons NOT to do it.
* looks tacky;
* Dean Johnson wouldn't like it;
* doesn't protect your images;
* models don't owe you advertising;
* agencies don't like it;
* takes away from the image;
* too distracting;
* marking images is the devil's work;
* too easy to remove anyway, so why bother
......... and any other excuse you can think of NOT to do it.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

That would fundamentally ONLY apply in the US. Most other countries do not require registration and many do not even have a system [an official system] for doing so.


Been saying that for years. It pretty much falls on deaf ears around here.

On this board the emphasis is always on reasons NOT to do it.
* looks tacky;
* Dean Johnson wouldn't like it;
* doesn't protect your images;
* models don't owe you advertising;
* agencies don't like it;
* takes away from the image;
* too distracting;
* marking images is the devil's work;
* too easy to remove anyway, so why bother
......... and any other excuse you can think of NOT to do it.

Studio36

Not completely deaf ears... but then again, most professionals probably are doing it and have been doing it since long before digital (when it became just plain simple to do). There are very few images of mine anywhere that don't include my copyright notice on them.

studio36uk wrote:

That would fundamentally ONLY apply in the US. Most other countries do not require registration and many do not even have a system [an official system] for doing so.


Been saying that for years. It pretty much falls on deaf ears around here.

On this board the emphasis is always on reasons NOT to do it.
* looks tacky;
* Dean Johnson wouldn't like it;
* doesn't protect your images;
* models don't owe you advertising;
* agencies don't like it;
* takes away from the image;
* too distracting;
* marking images is the devil's work;
* too easy to remove anyway, so why bother
......... and any other excuse you can think of NOT to do it.

Studio36

yes, I know... Everyone has a camera today (smart phones) now apps to tweak the images (very well I might add) With no expectation of copyrights and think it's cool if everyone shares or uses their pics. which is ok if that's what your into..BUT if I'm not hands off!!!! 

I know people who work for schools who just grab images off the internet at will.

In court every criminal has a twisted way to defend what they did..their thinking is not the same..

Billy G Photography wrote:
I know people who work for schools who just grab images off the internet at will.

In court every criminal has a twisted way to defend what they did..their thinking is not the same..

I encounter them literally every day. Rights protection and enforcement is the very business I am in.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

I encounter them literally every day. Rights protection and enforcement is the very business I am in.

Studio36

Orcatek Photography wrote:
Actually once I found the source command I found tons more from my other sites and blogs. 

Not sleeping tight.

They do support a no-pin metatag for your sites.   

Still working out how to deal with it.

No-pin metatag:

(1)  THEY control the message that the pinners receive when denied access.  They encourage pinners to contact YOU with any "questions."  I  find this to be vile, and nervy, because they hope that you'll think twice before facing the prospect of getting messages from angry pinners.

(2) The meta-tag has to go on every page.  Not useful if you have static pages.  Not useful when you have to put different no-pin metatags for the upcoming Pinterest clones.

helleborine wrote:

No-pin metatag:

(1)  THEY control the message that the pinners receive when denied access.  They encourage pinners to contact YOU with any "questions."  I  find this to be vile, and nervy, because they hope that you'll think twice before facing the prospect of getting messages from angry pinners.

You can't please some people.

(2) The meta-tag has to go on every page.  Not useful if you have static pages.  Not useful when you have to put different no-pin metatags for the upcoming Pinterest clones.

Don't use static pages.

They give you a tool to use to prevent pins from your sites, and you complain about the wording of the message and complain about the method needed to implement it.

David Parsons wrote:

helleborine wrote:
No-pin metatag:

(1)  THEY control the message that the pinners receive when denied access.  They encourage pinners to contact YOU with any "questions."  I  find this to be vile, and nervy, because they hope that you'll think twice before facing the prospect of getting messages from angry pinners.

You can't please some people.


Don't use static pages.

They give you a tool to use to prevent pins from your sites, and you complain about the wording of the message and complain about the method needed to implement it.

Yes, that's right. 

Only ONE of TWO things will make me happy (1) they only show thumbnails with a maximum dimension of 150 pixels or (2) also accept that the default is NO-PIN and pinners could only pin from pages with a new-fangled "do-pin" metatag.  I'm very difficult to please in the manner of my copyright being infringed -  Pinterest is acting like I should thank them for the opportunity.

studio36uk wrote:
A lot of people are saying that it does, that pinterest strips off the metadata, but it would be really interesting to conduct a specific controlled trial with one or more images from more than one source.

Studio36

Does my Cannon rebel have meta-data to my pictures?  I could do this.

studio36uk wrote:
I am extremely interested to know this. If someone does have an active pinterest account do me a favour...

Specifically select an image of yours from your webiste or your desktop, ideally one from each sporce, that has attached metadata. Pin those images to pinterest. does the metadata disappear when you pin it.

A lot of people are saying that it does, that pinterest strips off the metadata, but it would be really interesting to conduct a specific controlled trial with one or more images from more than one source.

I have quite important a reason for asking.

Studio36

Exhibit 1:

Source:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/alohadave/2704285623
Pin:  http://pinterest.com/pin/277815870733582578/

The local copy that is stored on Pinterest's server contains no exif or IPTC info.

Exhibit 2:

Source:  My hard drive
Pin:  http://pinterest.com/pin/277815870733606096/ 

The local copy that is stored on Pinterest's server contains no exif or IPTC info.
I am unable to get the full sized file that the pin links to.  Feel free to try and download the file to check for exif and IPTC (it has both).

Al Lock Photography wrote:
David's experiment seems to indicate that Pinterest does strip the metadata in violation of DMCA.

How can someone find out if any of their images are on pinterest?

Al Lock Photography wrote:
David's experiment seems to indicate that Pinterest does strip the metadata in violation of DMCA.

That was exactly the reason for the test. Thank you guys.

The DMCA safe harbour defence would apply only if, among other things, [there are several criteria that must be met] the service provider [pinterest] DOES NOT MODIFY THE DATA a user places on their site in any way.

It appears that they may or may not have hard coded an instruction to strip the metadata. Pre-litigation discovery would establish that point. Either way, it may not matter, they may be quite legally responsible for it and completely unable to, or certainly would find it difficult to, advance a DMCA safe harbour defence.

I am trying to reach a point in my thinking, and belief, that they can not simply claim "'Not us Guv!' it's all our user's fault if they [users] post infringing images", as seems to be the cut n' thrust of their terms of service.

There is more than a little hint of secondary infringement [by facilitation] here. Where the pinterest user may indeed be directly infringing, but also where pinterest, by stripping the metadata, is intentionally, and knowingly, working to conceal and make the infringement difficult, or impossible, to discover.

Bad dog!!!!

Studio36

Billy G Photography wrote:

How can someone find out if any of their images are on pinterest?

That's one of the problems... it is not easy to find out if any of your images are on pinterest, and if you do find some, that doesn't mean you have found all.

In my opinion, Pinterest needs to be shut down.

For those who think it's a great idea? Great. Start a variation that actually maintains metadata, that only hosts thumbs, that uses an opt-in system and that allows for ease of use and search by copyright holders.