In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important

from the and-they-want-to-cut-this-off dept

We already wrote about the pointless copyright freakout that some are having about Pinterest -- and since then, not a day has gone by without someone pointing us to yet another hysterical article by someone about how Pinterest is some copyright horror show. Lately there have been a bunch of... silly... stories about the specifics of Pinterest's terms of service. However, in all of this debate, one rather important point seems to have been left out of most of the discussions: Pinterest drives a ton of traffic back to original sources.

For all the concerns about how Pinterest is infringing on various sites and copyright holders, the reality appears to be that it drives so much traffic that it's difficult to understand why people are complaining:
Beginning this summer, Pinterest became the top social referrer for marthastewartweddings.com and marthastewart.com, sending more traffic to both properties than Facebook and Twitter combined. Pinterest is on track to become the second highest traffic driver (after Google) to Cooking Light‘s website, up 6,000% from just six months ago. The social bookmarking site already drives three times the amount of traffic to Cooking Light compared to Facebook.

Elsewhere, Pinterest is the fourth largest source of traffic for Country Living, up 150% from August to the end of January, and accounts for 3% of all referrals. It was the ninth largest traffic source for both Elle Decor and House Beautiful last month, both of which have seen triple-digit percentage increases in referrals over the last six months, and was among the top 10 referral sites for Self magazine.
In other words, as we've seen time and time again, it appears that, for those who are willing to embrace the new technology and service (rather than freak out) there are tons of opportunities. Unfortunately history tells us that more will continue to freak out before they realize this.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:17pm

    Shut the front door!

    I saw a blog post by a photographer who was working on putting in some HTML tags to tell Pinterest not to use his photos. Guess he will be missing out on a lot of traffic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      cjstg (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:21pm

      Re: Shut the front door!

      "mine! mine! mine!" he screamed, clutching his images closely to his chest. the rest of the crowd laughed nervously and drifted away leaving him alone with his images.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Glen, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:18pm

    At this point I have decided all those companies that are freaking out shouldn't really be in business to begin with. Seriously, you are getting traffic. Someone may even be *gasp* a new customer.

    If you freak out about that, you are a dinosaur and deserve to go extinct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Dino, Mar 3rd, 2012 @ 6:51pm

      Re:

      By your standard, your saying it's ok to steal.. as long as you give a shoutout (traffic). Go steal someone's music, and link to their site.. let's see if they like it. Go steal something from walmart, and just tell everyone it came from walmart.

      Your joking right? Call me when you've actually made something, so I can go and steal your work. Don't be so ducking fumb! Nitwit

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Torg (profile), Mar 3rd, 2012 @ 7:33pm

        Re: Re:

        I like the username. That's a nice touch.

        Pinterest is more in line of showcasing, in that it generates interest for the original artist at no loss to them. Traffic isn't just a shoutout, it is people walking into the store. Unless your business model is based around charging people for the right to find out what you're selling there's not much of an issue here.
        And yes, mathematically speaking, if Walmart could increase sales by letting the occasional shoplifter through they'd be idiots to not let the occasional shoplifter through. Since having images posted doesn't reduce your inventory the choice should be even easier for you.

        I haven't made anything artsy; I'm just not that kind of creative. I have, however, seen a TV show's producer mention that anyone interested in it can find it on YouTube. Does that count?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          ProPhotographer, Mar 5th, 2012 @ 7:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "At no loss to the original artist" You ae absolutely wrong. As I posted earlier: If I take my image down from the web, but someone has pinned it prior to my removal, Pinterest keeps a copy of my image on their servers.

          The person who pins my image does so to one of their boards, but at the same time they are explicitly giving Pinterest the right to SELL that image per the TOS of Pinterest.

          This IS a loss to me. How do you see that it's not?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Torg (profile), Mar 5th, 2012 @ 8:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What would you gain from being able to make your photo unavailable on the web, beyond the ability to make your photo unavailable on the web? Or am I completely misreading your first point?

            The person who pins your work can't give Pinterest the right to sell your work any more than I can sell your house. That it's in the TOS doesn't change that. If Pinterest ever tries to push that they will lose, and rightly so.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              ProPhotographer, Mar 6th, 2012 @ 11:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              My first point: it doesn’t matter if I gain or lose from taking down an image If I want to take it down I have that right; however, if someone has pinned it, Pinterest has a permanent copy. I am NOT okay with that. (A recent reason if you need to have one: a photographer friend of mine took an image down for the safety of the subject of the photo)

              Pinterest’s terms state that “you” the user must have the rights to publish / upload content to their site and that you transfer rights to Pinterest. They didn’t include the section regarding the use / sale of an image in their TOS just for the sake of adding it. One could safely assume that there ARE intentions by Pinterest to take advantage of that clause.

              You assume that Pinterest wouldn’t ever take advantage of that clause because of the legal ramifications; however, it also states that if any legal action is taken because of content you pin, you are not only financially and legally responsible for yourself, but also for Pinterest. So no, they would not be held liable for selling / using / etc. an image only the user would be.

              All that aside, you still assume that “Pinterest is the greatest marketing and I should be oh so grateful that my work is being pinned on the site.” No, that’s BS. I have painstakingly spent hours upon hours to design MY website displaying my work in a very specific way. People who are serious about hiring me will find me based on how and where I decide to market. There are crapload of boards that people make of “images to copy.” No no, don’t credit me, don’t hire me, here just take my image, copy it, and do it yourself!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              ProPhotographer, Mar 6th, 2012 @ 11:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              My first point: it doesn’t matter if I gain or lose from taking down an image If I want to take it down I have that right; however, if someone has pinned it, Pinterest has a permanent copy. I am NOT okay with that. (A recent reason if you need to have one: a photographer friend of mine took an image down for the safety of the subject of the photo)

              Pinterest’s terms state that “you” the user must have the rights to publish / upload content to their site and that you transfer rights to Pinterest. They didn’t include the section regarding the use / sale of an image in their TOS just for the sake of adding it. One could safely assume that there ARE intentions by Pinterest to take advantage of that clause.

              You assume that Pinterest wouldn’t ever take advantage of that clause because of the legal ramifications; however, it also states that if any legal action is taken because of content you pin, you are not only financially and legally responsible for yourself, but also for Pinterest. So no, they would not be held liable for selling / using / etc. an image only the user would be.

              All that aside, you still assume that “Pinterest is the greatest marketing and I should be oh so grateful that my work is being pinned on the site.” No, that’s BS. I have painstakingly spent hours upon hours to design MY website displaying my work in a very specific way. People who are serious about hiring me will find me based on how and where I decide to market. There are crapload of boards that people make of “images to copy.” No no, don’t credit me, don’t hire me, here just take my image, copy it, and do it yourself!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Torg (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:19pm

    Isn't it the right of an artist to cripple his business if he chooses? What of the successful artists that long only to know what it's like to be a starving artist, but are prevented from living their dream because the thoughtless and inconsiderate masses put their work on Pinterest? Doesn't anyone care about them?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:44pm

    Sorry, linking to my site should totally be like, illegal, I don't want people to find it because that detracts from the brand significance!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    fogbugzd (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 2:50pm

    A lot of the companies whining about Pinterest probably pay small fortunes to SEO's trying to get more traffic driven to them.

    Perhaps Pinterest set up its business model all wrong. They should have advertised themselves as traffic drivers and said something like "Pay me $100,000 a year and I will drive traffic to your site." If you charge the gatekeepers enough, they will be your best friend and defend what you are doing to the death.

    The problem with Pinterest is that they are doing it for free, and too many people believe that when something is free it has no value.

    Pinterest is also contending with small-minded people who assume everything is a zero-sum game. They believe that if Pinterest is making money then they must be loosing money somehow. A lot of small-minded business people just cannot grasp the concept of a game where everybody wins. Frankly, the only way to lose in the Pinterest game is to not play.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BeeAitch (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 3:26pm

      Re:

      The problem with Pinterest is that they are doing it for free, and too many people believe that when something is free it has no value.


      The problem with Pinterest is that they are doing it for free, and too many people believe that when something is free it is 'stealing' something from someone else.

      FTFY ;)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 4:43pm

      Re:

      Sadly, this observation is likely to be 100% accurate. I remember taking a business class discussing price points and how they relate to marketing & public perception.

      It was observed that if you are selling something that is bad enough that you'd expect it to be returned at too high of a rate, one way to deal with it is dramatically overcharge for the product. It will reduce the return rate.

      The idea is that people tend to think that the price of something is an indicator of its quality. Also, if someone pays enough for something that it hurts, they will think positively of it and even extoll its virtues even if it sucks. Once they can't escape how much it sucks, they're likely not to return it, but to just stick it in a closet or something and pretend the whole thing never happened. Nobody likes to admit to others that they've been ripped off.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Prisoner 201, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 12:00am

      Re:

      Bonus points for the Wargames reference :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 3:04pm

    But but but...copyright infringement!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    GMacGuffin (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 3:27pm

    Linkbacks?

    I haven't seen anyone mention how links back to your site help your search engine rankings and make you more visible to all the world. Or is that just too obvious to mention?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jahn Smythe, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 3:54pm

    You could point out to them that there is a simple way to stop pinterest from using images, from the help files..
    QUOTE
    What if I don't want images from my site to be pinned?

    We have a small piece of code you can add to the head of any page on your site:



    When a user tries to pin from your site, they will see this message:

    "This site doesn't allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!"
    /QUOTE

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Digitari, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 4:21pm

      Re:

      but that takes work to like, ya know, read,then understand, and besides, copying is WRONG (Ie copy and paste code I have not written, what do you think I am a freetard or something??)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 5:01pm

    Deja Vu

    Let's see, I seem to recall reading a while back about some newspaper(s) throwing a fit when google was providing links to their sites, they took them to court and google removed the links... Someone remind me again how that one ended up working out for the newspapers?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 6:19pm

    "The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important"

    No, that isn't important, that is called "justification after the fact".

    Nice try, but fail. Business model will expire in 3 2 1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 7:22pm

      Re:

      I could've told you long before the fact that having a popular site dedicated to showcasing other people's artwork and photos would increase exposure of the artists and photographers. That you've only learned of this principle after the fact is your failing, not Pinterest's.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 7:51pm

      Re:

      How is capturing an audience's attention and directing it a failure?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 1:51am

      Re:

      Big Search would like a word with you: you can't have it both ways, you know.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 12:13pm

        Re: Re:

        It depends how it is done - if it is done by using other people's content to fill your pages, it's not going to fly very long.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 3:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Explain again how search results are anything other than a page filled with 'other people's content.'

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 11:28am

      Re:

      All fair use is 'justification after the fact,' you huge idiot.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:59pm

      Re:

      You are absolutely right.
      For sites that like Pinterest as a traffic driver, give them an opt-in meta, rather than the current invalid, after the fact, opt-out.

      Assuming that sites by default want their content lifted is both wrong and illegal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Mar 1st, 2012 @ 6:49pm

    You'd think...

    You'd think that these pinheads would realize that when some other site is pushing people to your own site, that this is a GOOD thing? Arrrrgh! If I were managing the sites that are complaining about this, I would drop all that cruft and send a nice "thank-you basket" (filled with tonnes of $$) to those who were sending me so many paying customers!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 8:46pm

    This works when the original "artist" is actually credited as a source. No credit seems to me that there would be no track-back to the originator.

    I happened to see one of my online photos on the site that was converted to line art and was being sold as framed, poster sized prints for a hefty sum. Of course, no credit. Thing is, photography is a hobby, and I have uploaded photos to free sites specifically so then can be used without any restrictions whatsoever, including credit.

    As I saw it I had two choices. Leave photos on my closet shelf to gather dust, or simply put them online where others might take an interest and put them to good use. I am glad I chose to follow the latter course because of the satisfaction I get when I go into a large, national retail store and see my photos being used.

    I look at it this way. There is nothing to keep me from getting off my duff and trying to make some $$$ myself. The fact I choose not to do so is my problem, and not that of their users.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2012 @ 11:20pm

      Re:

      Personally I feel that people failing to link back to their "source" or "inspiration" or "the original work from which this was derived" or whatever you want to call it is rude, and if I find that someone has failed to do so then I find myself reluctant to give them my business.

      On the other hand, I don't see any need for legislation to compel the kind of behaviour I think is polite. Because... y'know, that'd be really dickish.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    A Artist, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 4:25am

    http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/03/01/pinterest%E2%80%99s-legal-woes/

    The issue is it's TOS in which it says that it has the right to SELL the works of artists that 3rd parties have linked to.

    http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/news/campaign-news/pinterest-%11-our-view-of-this-project/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Cody, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 6:02pm

      Re:

      Agree. That TOS is invalid at best.

      The users that "sign" the TOS im most cases have no ownership rights at all. Fortunately, this also by law prevents them from transferring anything. Pinterest will still be in violation.

      Just like I cannot sign a piece of paper that transfers rights to your house to someone else. Only the current owner can do that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Simon, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 6:28am

    Not a problem for Pintrest..

    Pintrest users would pay Pintrest's legal bills anyway...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/pinterest-copyright-issues-lawyer-2012-2

    "Basically, if a photographer sues you for pinning an image illegally on Pinterest, the user must not only pay for his or her lawyer, they must also pay for Pinterest's lawyer. In addition, the defendant must pay all charges against him or herself, along with all of Pinterest's charges."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 9:16am

    People having been trotting out the "but it drives traffic/interest/sales" argument for "sharing" since before the web was even invented; it was a popular rational during the heyday of usenet, and it probably even predates that.

    Unfortunately, the courts have always held that no 3rd party has the legal right to substitute their opinion on how a work is to be promoted (or not) for that of a copyright holder.

    If the site has a "pin it" button or an appropriate Creative Commons license that allows sharing, or a disclaimer releasing it to the public domain, or it's already in the public domain, then it's safe to pin. Otherwise, it's a potential copyright infringement, no different from posting your favorite MP3 or DVD rip. The only real difference is that most of the copyright holders being infringed upon have neither the money nor the will to sue (and yes a lot of them are going to be happy at the increased exposure). However, it's a lottery and I expect it won't be long now unti we start having losers in the pinterest lottery; I know I won't be one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 9:19am

      Re:

      To be clearer, linking is OK, the courts have pretty much agreed that if a copyright holder has put something on the web in a likable way, they've invited linking, and linking isn't copying. But Pinterest copies, and that's the crux of the problem.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 11:33am

        Re: Re:

        Copying and infringing are not synonyms.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Cody, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually, except for "fair-use" for commenting, news, and parody, "copying" and "infringement" are pretty much synonymous. Especially in the case of Pinterest, whose whole business model is based on it.

          Have you looked at the investor list for Pinterest? No way they went into it without expecting profits to show up soon. Plus, the Pinterest blog also describe how they will start driving revenue. Straight off the content the other sites paid good money or time to create.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Cody, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:51pm

        Re: Re:

        Yupp. Plus the fact that Pinterest more than inviting people to "upload" actually IS the tool that does it on their behalf. That in the end will take them down. They do not qualify for the Safe Harbor clause in DMCA, because they are not innocent bystanders to user-created content.

        In addition to doing the heavy lifting of taking images for their users, they have also based their whole business model, their TOS, and coming advertising on the fact that their users will lift images from other sites.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ProPhotographer, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 1:51pm

    Here's the thing, if I am the original artist, shouldn't I get to be the one to determine if my images are shared on pinterest or not? Why should it be up to someone else to decide that for me?

    Many images pinned are pinned from 3rd party sources and DO NOT link back to the original. Just take a look and see how many are linked to google or tumblr.

    So now someone else gets to decide for me if my work is going to get shared and I won't get the proper credit. Yep, that's fair.

    Further - if I take my image down, but someone has pinned it prior to my removal, Pinterest keeps a copy of my image on their servers.

    Here's this biggest issue I have though: the person who pins my image does so to one of their boards, but at the same time they are explicitly giving Pinterest the right to SELL that image per the TOS of Pinterest. How is this not an issue that I should be concerned with?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:36pm

    User of Pintrest

    I have in my house some one who uses pintrest regularly. This person get upset when "Pins" do not have a proper link back to the artist. How can they explore more with out a correct link?

    Also most of the people who complain about pintrest is because they are not "Popular Pins". Screw the fact that pintrest is a data gold mine for what women(or rather 89% of active users) are interested in and want. Not only is it free advertising, it is showing you what these people want. If you are not smart enough to understand that, then you business is doomed anyway as you are out of touch with users.

    Have a new product? Pin it to your own board, and hope other people like it. If they do they will repin it. For example a certain U.K. company sells a popular sweater. It has 9k repins. This is a single color. A different color has 10k repins. This sweater now goes easily for around 70 us dollars on ebay. Why the company does not continue to make the sweater I have no idea. It is very inefficient to have 16k people WANT a sweater and not make it any more. When was the last time you saw any group want 19k of any piece of clothing? Especially a prime group who are most likely to buy?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:44pm

      Re: User of Pintrest

      Also what people really fail to realize it that is just a search engine where what people like rises to the top. Which gives you person to person recommendations (pins, repins) that most companies pay huge amounts of cash to try and do.

      So you are Business Unsavy if you thing that block pintrest is going to help you at all.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Cody, Mar 2nd, 2012 @ 5:45pm

    Forgotten?

    One thing forgotten here is that if Pinterest have traffic driving value to a site, then an opt-in would be perfect. Allow your site and images to get pinned, thats great. Your choice.

    It is the fact that Pinterest automatically assumes that everyone wants them to offload their content thats a problem. Having a site opt-out through a meta-tag is the exact reverse of actual law, which by default gives the image producers the rights to make decisions on their own work.

    So, if Pinterest is of such great value, then give sites an opt-in functionality, rather than an opt-out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Julie, Mar 3rd, 2012 @ 12:00am

    surprised?

    social discovery sites like pinterest aren't really all that new so im not sure why people are suddenly surprised, there's been weheartit which has been around for years and http://juxtapost.com. juxtapost alone offers far more search features. pinterest is just the one that hit the lotto and is making waves now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dino, Mar 3rd, 2012 @ 6:56pm

    Stupid People Shouldn't Breed!

    I am willing to bet, all you people saying they should just embrace the technology have never made a thing in your life.

    You people make me fucking sick. I await the day when pinterest steal's something from me, and I will sue their ass off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Common Sense, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 5:54am

    Google, Pinterest and others are like Mafia "protectors" whose arguement is "If you allow us to digitally skim off whatever we want from your property so we'll have content on our site - you'll get traffic, if not we'll break your legs." Google is a privacy invading thug. Love them or hate them they'll use you up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Common Sense, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 6:01am

    Torg, You wrote:

    "And yes, mathematically speaking, if Walmart could increase sales by letting the occasional shoplifter through they'd be idiots to not let the occasional shoplifter through."

    Could you please post your home address and bank account passwords? "Mathematically speaking" I'm going to "increase" you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Mar 4th, 2012 @ 6:28am

      Re:

      I'm not sure what your point is. If one shoplifter brings in nine new customers, then that's a win for Walmart. Putting "mathematically speaking" in quotes doesn't change basic subtraction. The problem with your proposed experiment is that giving away bank data to random people on the Internet is already known not to work like that.
      And, again, unless what you're selling is the ability to view your images on a computer screen, this is less shoplifting and more taking pictures of their products and posting those pictures around town.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    orljustin, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 7:36am

    Again

    Sigh. For the nth time, a majority of the content on Pinterest does not link back to the original content. Which doesn't even matter - links are irrelevant. A link does not free you from charges of copyright infringement. Which Pinterest engages in, or at least allows a user to engage in, using their hardware. Actively encouraging people to copy any image to their servers.

    Funny, how plugging in "movies" or "music" for "photos" would make most people realize how what they are doing is illegal.

    And the "free traffic" argument is also irrelevant. You assume that "free traffic" is the goal of everyone on the planet. It might be for "Martha Stewart" who likely owns the copyright to all the content they are pinning up there, so that is the choice they have made. It might not be, for the rest of the world of individual artists who are not concerned about being Pinterest fodder for housewives, or having their work embedded (free of charge!) from the Pinterest servers on any blog anyone wishes to put it on, using the code generator right there on the Pinterest page.

    And, pssssstttt, "free traffic", again, does not absolve you from the charges of infringment. 1% increase or 400%. It should be up to the artist if they want to do this. It should be "opt in".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Mar 4th, 2012 @ 8:16am

      Re: Again

      What Pinterest offers is images-on-computers. Movie makers sell movies-on-computers, musicians sell music-on-computers, but selling images-on-computers is ridiculous. Sell prints, paintings, posters or postcards, but I doubt many people will pay for a png.

      Illegal doesn't mean wrong, and neither illegal nor wrong means that something isn't smart to allow. I'm not saying that this isn't copyright infringement, I'm saying that that doesn't make it harmful. I'm saying that it would be beneficial to the artist to allow their work to be showcased, whether by opting in or not opting out, assuming that their objective is either to have more people enjoy their work or to make money off of it. Wrong and illegal have nothing to do with it. Though if they keep the opt-out approach a claims system would be good, because not linking back to the original is both wrong and harmful.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        orljustin, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 9:02am

        Re: Re: Again

        "What Pinterest offers is images-on-computers. Movie makers sell movies-on-computers, musicians sell music-on-computers, but selling images-on-computers is ridiculous. Sell prints, paintings, posters or postcards, but I doubt many people will pay for a png."

        It's absolutely not ridiculous. The stock photo industry brings in billions of dollars a year, in part, because people need to view images on computers. News articles. Business blogs. Advertising "brochures". etc. Just because you think that just because you don't sit around watching an image slideshow, that the content has no value, doesn't mean that everyone's creations are a free for all for anyone who feels the need to steal.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Torg (profile), Mar 4th, 2012 @ 9:39am

          Re: Re: Re: Again

          Actually I do occasionally sit around watching an image slideshow. The good people of Deviantart can be surprisingly talented at times, and sometimes I'll pay for something from one of them. But not the image data itself, no picture is that good. Do you really expect everyone on the Internet to pay you just to embed one of your pictures on their site? Even casual bloggers, people who just want to say "look how pretty this picture is"? Obviously you should be paid for commercial uses, but not every use is commercial.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            orljustin, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 9:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Again

            Sorry, you've failed to explain to me why my image, which is obviously of value, since someone has felt the need to embed it on their blog, should not be procured in the legal way of licensing.

            Why does "casual" make it somehow ok? Is it ok for me to casually put "Star Wars" on my blog?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Torg (profile), Mar 4th, 2012 @ 10:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Again

              How much are you willing to pay to post comments on this blog? It's obviously of value, or you wouldn't be doing it, so clearly it can be monetized.
              Not everything people do is something they will or should have to pay to do. Saying that you think a picture is nice is one of those things you shouldn't have to pay for. Nothing you've said has convinced me that it is in any way reasonable for anyone to expect to be paid for that, and I get the feeling that neither of us thinks close enough to the other to convince them that we're right, since you keep using that word "legal" like it means something besides "helps avoid fines". The next bit is just an elaboration on my view, more for if you're curious than anything.

              The whole movie is several hours long. You can't just glance at a movie and say "huh, that is a pretty good movie". But clips of a lightsaber fight, the opening of the Imperial March, or a picture of Leia in her bronze bikini are fine. Yes, I define a casual use by the amount of time a user can be expected to be exposed to it. A couple hours can never be just casual, since it requires a certain amount of commitment to sit through. And, for things less immediately recognizable than Star Wars, it's also good to say what the thing's from. I know it doesn't affect the legality, but it does affect how reasonable the action is, a property entirely divorced from the law.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    orljustin, Mar 4th, 2012 @ 10:50am

    "How much are you willing to pay to post comments on this blog? It's obviously of value, or you wouldn't be doing it, so clearly it can be monetized."

    I'm not willing to pay anything for it. Which is why the host is providing the service while putting advertisements on the side to make some money. That's their choice. It's not an appropriate analogy. You taking my work for your benefit without my permission or compensation is not at all the same.

    "Saying that you think a picture is nice is one of those things you shouldn't have to pay for."

    Oh, you can say it all day long. You just can't copy it for free and use it on a blog that promotes your business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MitchLabuda (profile), Mar 6th, 2012 @ 3:40pm

    People are complaining because

    The other reality is, that content that is not owned by the members of Pinterest is being used improperly by the members. Members are pinning and sharing stock images, as example. The concept of driving traffic to brands is one matter, the use of content that is not owned by the members is another and the TOS puts the blame squarely on the members for the copyright violations.

    Traffic out weighs the copyright of others? Wait until someone with deep pockets steps up and files a trademark claim and wants damages.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ross Smith, Mar 7th, 2012 @ 12:51am

    I find Pinterest to be very interesting. It’s a latest buzz in the social media world. It helps your business to drive more traffic as compared to other contemporary sites

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Marjolein Katsma, Mar 7th, 2012 @ 3:47am

    You don't get it

    It may be true that Pinterest drives traffic to retailers and womens magazines - good for them! - but if you generalize that to 'original sources' you are obviously totally missing the point of people complaining about copyright infringement.

    There is a huge difference between a photo of a product and the product itself.

    While it is true that some photographers 'pin' their own work (possibly unaware that they grant the right to Pinterest to sell it without giving them a penny back), for most photographers selling their own work is the only way to earn an income and letting Pinterest sell their work without so much as a decent credit is a price too high to pay, even if it may drive traffic.

    There are two problems:

    With repinning, the original source is quickly lost (if it was there in the first place!), and only few people give appropriate credit in the first place. This automatically means that even for photographers who share (some of) their work with a Creative Commons license (as I do with some of my work!), this does not comply with the license conditions.

    It gets worse: Pinterest grabs the largest copy of the work they can find and stores it on their own servers after stripping out all meta data that would identify the rights holder. Pinterest may say they respect copyright, but this clearly shows they don't - if they then go on and sell this (as they claim the right to do) they have already made sure they cannot even credit the original artist. They've thrown away the information to be able to do so.

    This is why - even though I do share some of my work (eventually all) with a Creative Commons license I am totally opposed Pinterest grabbing my work: the way they operate, they cannot comply with the license conditions - let alone for work that isn't licensed so liberally yet.

    I don't want their traffic because I don't want them to violate my rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Torg (profile), Mar 7th, 2012 @ 6:53am

      Re: You don't get it

      Oh. That's pretty bad. I thought this was just some artists wanting to control every instance of their work online, but if Pinterest won't even respect Creative Commons then that's definitely a problem.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        MitchLabuda (profile), Mar 7th, 2012 @ 7:19am

        Re: Re: You don't get it

        The site, any site, depends on its member to follow the rules. Creative Commons does not stop people from linking and pinning any more than a big copyright C on an image from a stock photo site. Pinterest is encouraging people to go find things and pin them, but most don't understand the Terms of Service nor copyright and or trademark concerns.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Torg (profile), Mar 7th, 2012 @ 8:02am

          Re: Re: Re: You don't get it

          Yeah, that's why I wasn't concerned about the service before. When other posts said that a lot of the stuff on Pinterest didn't link back I figured that it was just users not getting it and it could be fixed by allowing artists to claim their work or an image matching service or something. But if, as Marjolein claims, Pinterest actually removes an image's meta data, that't not just ignorance anymore, it's the service actively working against proper attribution. If they won't even respect a license that's specifically designed to allow redistribution, they're being very unreasonable.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 7th, 2012 @ 8:24am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You don't get it

            Respecting copyright was/is throwing a bone to the pack.

            We, the content creators, the artists, the musicians, the writers, the photographers, own the copyright.

            Pinterest twisted the sentiments, to appease us, the DMCA is in place and the site has no way to vet each pin or uploaded work and does not check, because the user agreement puts the onus on the users and the content creator to issue a DMCA take down.

            The issue, seems to be, contributory copyright infringement.

            Some cite youtube as searching out copyrighted materials, which the site does, because the content creators have registered their works with a service that youtube uses.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    beats by dre outlet, Mar 20th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

    beats by dre outlet

    Perfect sentence, bouncing thinking, engineered typesetting, give a person very comfortable feeling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    photowriter700 (profile), Feb 13th, 2014 @ 4:48am

    copyright theft

    Pinterest has of course vast numbers of copyright infringements and people have MADE THIER OWN BUSINESS from stealing others images. Pinterest of course are not the only such site.
    However there is a means to stop all of this that works.
    Find the images that have been stolen and posted.
    Inform the infringer. Then pinterest.
    Inform pinterest AND THOSE WHO ADVERTISE they are after being informed of the infringement liable for fees, location and time fees and infringement fees. For having been informed they are then involved as part of that infringement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This