KCLynne wrote:

I never said at this moment that I was financially strapped for starters. But seriously???  If I was THAT financially strapped to where I couldn't afford electricity do you really think I'd be writing a short story???  No, I'd trying to figure out a way to get out of my situation.  But to answer your question....I would be thrilled.  I write because I love to.  Because it means something to me.  Just because I model because I enjoy, and I sing because it makes me happy.  I'd do it for free.  I don't do this to be rich and to make a ton of money, I do this because I really want to, and because I love what I do.  The problem here with so many is $$$$$$.   When you stop doing stuff because you love it, and start worrying about the $$ you can get from it, then why are you still doing it.  I'm a firm believer in doing things that you love and make you happy.  If you happen to get paid in the process that's great.  If not, at least I'm happy. 

Oh wait, I forgot, that doesn't set well with the mindset of today where everything is about how much money you have and all the material things.  Because apparently you can't be making lots of money, or suing people for lots of money, or doing whatever it takes to make LOTS OF MONEY to be happy. 

So yes...I WOULD BE THRILLED!!

kc - obviously i have no idea of your current situation. the intellectual challenge was IF your kids were living in cheap hotels rooms that you couldn't even afford to pay for, and there was no end in site, would you still be thrilled if your writing was used (or your face ended up on a box of clarol shampoo, or whatever) without compensation?

in other words, if being paid for your work as an artist allowed you to feed your family, and not being paid meant your children suffered, would you still be so casual about it?

howard r wrote:

kc - obviously i have no idea of your current situation. the intellectual challenge was IF your kids were living in cheap hotels rooms that you couldn't even afford to pay for, and there was no end in site, would you still be thrilled if your writing was used (or your face ended up on a box of clarol shampoo, or whatever) without compensation?

in other words, if being paid for your work as an artist allowed you to feed your family, and not being paid meant your children suffered, would you still be so casual about it?

Howard... get back to the game. No one cares about particulars or the ideas that other people have. Please read my last post before we start calling you a poopy-pants.

KCLynne wrote:
Do you think so highly of yourself and think your so "big named" that a little free publicity will actually harm you?

Pinterest doesn't provide ANY publicity.

So it is simply theft.

KCLynne wrote:
So yes...I WOULD BE THRILLED!!

You should read what Harlan Ellison has to say on the subject. Unlike you, his work has actually been used for TV shows, he has made a living on his writing, and he understands the value of copyright. He is also long past the point where he thinks ego puts bread on the table (a point you seem enamored with).

Mi Do wrote:
You didn't read my original post or the last post I made, did you?

I read them both. Maybe you should go back and reread them and think about what you've said.

I've already presented the answer. The one that you seem to be unwilling to address and which covers all the points.

LET THE COPYRIGHT OWNER CONTROL HOW THEIR PROPERTY IS USED.

It's really that simple.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

I read them both. Maybe you should go back and reread them and think about what you've said.

I've already presented the answer. The one that you seem to be unwilling to address and which covers all the points.

LET THE COPYRIGHT OWNER CONTROL HOW THEIR PROPERTY IS USED.

It's really that simple.

Nope. you didn't solve the problem correctly. You're bright, right? Then you should realize that you didn't satisfy the consumers POV. Say it all you want but you failed to satisfy the cheapest consumer. Until you've done that: you have failed and you will run in to problems. Do not come back to the thread until you can satisfy that cheap consumer.

(again.. I GET IT... but the cheapest consumers don't give a fuck about copyright. That's all that matters. Artists will have this problem until the day they die unless they can satisfy that cheap customer. An Artist is a complete idiot if they don't get that)

Really: Do NOT come back to this thread until you've satisfied that need otherwise you're just preaching the choir. The choir hears you. The sinners outside don't give a fuck and THEY are the ones who matter in this equation.

Mi Do wrote:
The other side is saying
"Live and let live.
As long as no one is profiting, there is no harm!"

unless you can show a couple of examples where no one is profiting from this sharing, for reference purposes, your whole post is stupid bullshit.

there is always somebody profiting.

BeautybyGod wrote:
there is always somebody profiting.

To which you might add....

or they, the facilitators, wouldn't be doing it.

---

I chase pirates. That's what I do now as a business. One I looked at for a client not too long ago was just giving content away for free, just like pinterest does, pandering to the "not going to pay anyway consumers". Behind that, however, - and this was a micro sized bunch with only six very small websites - they were churning up roughly a $1/4 MILLION a year in revenue on per-click advertising on the back of other people's intellectual property. Their only cost was hosting bandwidth, about 1K / month or 12K / year. The rest was bankable income. And, of course, the IP owners get zip!

So the answer is: protect your IP and "fuck the consumers freetards!"

Studio36

BeautybyGod wrote:
there is always somebody profiting.

studio36uk wrote:
To which you might add....

or they, the facilitators, wouldn't be doing it.

indeed!!

studio36uk wrote:
I chase pirates....

So the answer is: protect your IP and "fuck the consumers freetards!"

Studio36

so did you chase the OP off this site? or was it me?

freetards. i'm gonna steal that. is that ok?

BeautybyGod wrote:
freetards. i'm gonna steal that. is that ok?

Have at it. I adopted the phrase from a IP attorney. [not kidding, he actually refers to them as such]

Studio36

Mi Do wrote:
Nope. you didn't solve the problem correctly. You're bright, right? Then you should realize that you didn't satisfy the consumers POV. Say it all you want but you failed to satisfy the cheapest consumer. Until you've done that: you have failed and you will run in to problems. Do not come back to the thread until you can satisfy that cheap consumer.

(again.. I GET IT... but the cheapest consumers don't give a fuck about copyright. That's all that matters. Artists will have this problem until the day they die unless they can satisfy that cheap customer. An Artist is a complete idiot if they don't get that)

Really: Do NOT come back to this thread until you've satisfied that need otherwise you're just preaching the choir. The choir hears you. The sinners outside don't give a fuck and THEY are the ones who matter in this equation.

Of course I did.

The consumer gets that product that artists and business people are willing to give away or which they are willing to pay for.

You seem to think the consumer position is about theft. And maybe that is the problem. Too many consumers don't see anything wrong with theft. That you think that the consumer position is only satisfied with free products demonstrates that you think that is reality. Of course, the market indicates that isn't true.

The East German Trabant didn't sell... even though it was dirt cheap. IPhones are bought by even the cheapest consumers, but they aren't cheap phones. There are literally thousands of examples.

All of which demonstrates that your opinion about consumers is flawed. Consumers will pay for what they want.

Mi Do wrote:
Semantics... whatever.
But you're failing at this game since you didn't come up with a solution that makes everyone happy.

Thing is... you will NEVER make everyone happy. The best solution is to have two parts of the site, where only copyright holders can upload their pictures.

1- the free section. This section is for uploaders who are willing to share their work for free (there are), and "clients" looking for free stuff.

2- the paying section. This section is reserved for uploaders who want to be paid to let people use their work, and "clients" who are willing to pay for this work.

Again, in the second section, there is also a way for uploaders to be contacted if they want, so potential "clients" can let them know what specific reason they would like to download for free, and if the both reach an agreement, then it happens.

The extremists from both sides will still complain about this... but I believe a big majority would agree with this way of working.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Seems that pointing out legal liability doesn't sit well with some. From my messages:

[big snip]

That's the issue."

I take it that no one reads the licenses that are on DVDs, Blu-Rays and CDs either.

And you thought it would be a reasonable comment and acted on or responded to reasonably?



No, on the whole, most simply do NOT read terms of service or licenses, or, even if they do, they simply disregard them wholesale.

The responses you got were all too typical "freetard" responses. You can't convince them; you can't shame them; ... all that's left is to sue them!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
And you thought it would be a reasonable comment and acted on or responded to reasonably?



No, on the whole, most simply do NOT read terms of service or licenses, or. even if they do, they simply disregard them wholesale.

The responses you got were all too typical "freetard" responses. You can't convince them; you can't shame them; ... all that's left is to sue them!

Studio36

It seems you are correct.

A logical person would think that a site that lawyers shy away from because of the potential legal liability would indicate that the risk is legitimate and serious enough to avoid. But the freetards just don't get it. They'll go on their merry way (just like Napster users) until one day they find themselves in court and losing their savings or their car or their house because they wanted other people's property for free.

David Parsons wrote:
Al, I'm surprised that you haven't jumped all over Tumbler.  Tons of people there you can argue with about infringing copyrights.

Tumblr effectively is non-existent from where I am. They have so many server issues when it comes to SE Asia that it is self-defeating.

OUDAME wrote:
I dont mind people repining my work. I dont mind Pinterest.

Just got an account though havnt used it much, but I believe you can pin/link a photo straight from a website rather than uploading. So why not use it to drive traffic to your website/blog?

Because it doesn't. Very much the opposite. Read the thread. And read the SEO data that has been generated about Pinterest. Pinterest reduces traffic to websites, it doesn't increase it.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Because it doesn't. Very much the opposite. Read the thread. And read the SEO data that has been generated about Pinterest. Pinterest reduces traffic to websites, it doesn't increase it.

Maybe it's not true for everyone, but it does drive traffic.  I click-through on recipes all the time, and I bookmark the source pages for reference later.  It's not going to drive traffic for everyone.

David Parsons wrote:

Maybe it's not true for everyone, but it does drive traffic.  I click-through on recipes all the time, and I bookmark the source pages for reference later.  It's not going to drive traffic for everyone.

SEO reseach indicates the opposite overall.

What you do is clearly NOT what most people do.

David Parsons wrote:
Maybe it's not true for everyone, but it does drive traffic.  I click-through on recipes all the time, and I bookmark the source pages for reference later.  It's not going to drive traffic for everyone.

You do realise that "recipes" are not copyrightable in any case? Images are a completely different kettle of fish, so to speak.

So if the text only of a recipe is copied and pinned there is going to be no infringement; B U T if a web page is copied [PrtScr > e.g. a jpg image] including that text there is a likely infringement of the underlying page design and layout that just happens to contain the non-protected recipe text.

Just exactly like the page you are now looking at:
©2006-2012 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

You do realise that "recipes" are not copyrightable in any case? Images are a completely different kettle of fish, so to speak.

So if the text only of a recipe is copied and pinned there is going to be no infringement; B U T if a web page is copied [PrtScr > e.g. a jpg image] including that text there is a likely infringement of the underlying page design and layout that just happens to contain the non-protected recipe text.

Just exactly like the page you are now looking at:
©2006-2012 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.

Studio36

Listen, we understand about the infringement.  It's well established.

People are not pinning screen shots of the text/web pages of recipes.  They are pinning pictures of enticing looking food.  When you click-through to the site, you can see the recipe on the source page.

I'm referring specifically to the argument that Pinterest does not lead to any traffic to the source pages.  I offer a specific example proving Al's assertion to be incorrect, and then he says that I'm an anomolous case.  Obviously people see value in the site or they wouldn't have widgets on their sites allowing easy pinning.  They have found that Pinterest does indeed drive traffic.  Is it going to lead to sales for most photographers, not likely.  That doesn't mean that they site doesn't drive traffic.

At this point, I believe Al to be a troll, who isn't interested in any kind of rational discussion, just the ceaseless one line argument about piracy.  I ask him about Tumblr and he brushed it off as something to ignore because he doesn't have easy access to it in Thailand.  There is a several page thread right here in this forum that he can decry the theft of IP in, yet as far as I can see, has never posted there.  There are far more people outright stealing content on Tumblr than on Pinterest, yet Pinterest is somehow the bigger threat threat.

David Parsons wrote:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2012/05/01/at … pinterest/

ROTFLMAO

All, AND ONLY, what that means is that Flickr got nervous as hell about the pinning from Flickr to pinterest and is building themselves some legal insulation.

They may not be as fireproof as they think.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

ROTFLMAO

All, AND ONLY, what that means is that Flickr got nervous as hell about the pinning from Flickr to pinterest and is building themselves some legal insulation.

They may not be a fireproof as they think.

Studio36

David has a strange sense of "logic".

Al Lock Photography wrote:

David has a strange sense of "logic".

Thought you might like this AL

http://news.yahoo.com/pinterest-raises- … ector.html