|Pinterest Copyright Violation Issues|
How is it allowed to stay in business?
System: The following 6 messages were cut out of thread at: http://www.webmasterworld.com/pinterest/4506588.htm [webmasterworld.com] by incredibill - 9:58 am on Nov 5, 2012 (PST -8)
This is why the leader of image crowdscrapers, Pinterest, must be legally stopped.
The rape of images on the internet is not OK. For publishers to put a lid on this, is to stop publishing online and go back to print media - which is ridiculous.
Someone must legislate on this ASAP, declare it illegal, and slap heavy fines and penalties.
People will think twice before copying the Pinterest "business model."
|Pinterest must be having an impact. People seem to be copying it with sites like Wanelo and loveit. |
I actually believe that the driving force of the progress is smart copying. I don't mean to say, those who copy Pinterest are better. Just saying that copying might result in the birth of something cool! Pinterest wasn't the first image sharing site as well.
|The rape of images on the internet is not OK |
I am personally against banning content sharing online. The Internet is all about sharing. You can try to fight that or you can learn to adapt and use that to your advantage. I vote for freedom
|I am personally against banning content sharing online. The Internet is all about sharing. You can try to fight that or you can learn to adapt and use that to your advantage. I vote for freedom |
Does that mean you support using other peoples copyrighted material without their permission....
and without paying them for the use of their property?
If not, what does it mean?
|Does that mean you support using other peoples copyrighted material without their permission.... |
I say, NOT everything should be sold or bought online. You can achieve much more by giving away content for free instead of wasting time going after those who *want* it for free.
I am not a lawyer but I firmly believe that if you publish something online, you should NOT expect *all* people to ask for the permission to use that (e.g. for fun). One should either accept that or abandon the Internet...
|I am not a lawyer but I firmly believe that if one publishes something online, he/she should NOT expect *all* people to ask for the permission ... |
So you think it's OK to ignore copyright laws?
|I am not a lawyer but I firmly believe that if you publish something online, you should NOT expect *all* people to ask for the permission to use that (e.g. for fun). One should either accept that or abandon the Internet... |
You can tell that you don't create things as well.. unless you call compulsive posting on subjects that affect other peoples livelihoods "creation"..I call it neither creation ..not content..but then my passport says artist ( one who makes things )..not professional blogger..( one who talks about what they think)..next ? professional pinner ?
I do hope that your opinions are not indicative of those of your Boss, the new owner of WebmasterWorld..
[edited by: Leosghost at 12:33 am (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
That's exactly what I've been doing for a decade. However, I need to "give away content for free" from my website in order to make the enterprise economically viable.
If the content is given away for free on other people's websites, like Ben Silbermann's website (Pinterest), then Ben will make money off my work, not me.
I do have empirical evidence that is satisfactory to me enough to act upon, that having my content all over Pinterest hurts my traffic, it doesn't help it. I got a handful of visitors from Pinterest, but lost thousands. YMMV.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 6:07 pm (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
[edit reason] Thread clean up [/edit]
|if you publish something online, you should NOT expect *all* people to ask for the permission to use that |
Using that logic you should also expect your car to be occasionally stolen when parked in a public parking lot. At a minimum, expect the stereo to be stolen from the car.
Sorry, I do expect normal sane rational moral people to ask permission. However, I don't expect immoral scumbags to ask permission any more than I expect them to ask if it's OK to steal my car, graffiti my garage door, or pet my cat against the grain of his hair as he really hates that.
The problem is that companies like Pinterest, by simply supplying the "Pin It" buttons that go in the browser, mislead normal sane rational moral people to think what they're doing is OK and has been blessed and approved by the webmaster of whatever site they're pinning otherwise they wouldn't be able to "Pin It", right?
Then again, millions used Napster knowing full well it was wrong.
|I do have empirical evidence that is satisfactory to me enough to act upon, that having my content all over Pinterest hurts my traffic, it doesn't help it. I got a handful of visitors from Pinterest, but lost thousands |
I'd say this is the same as pure content sharing sites. I've seen that WW threads covering news are ranking above original news sources even that's just a link and a citations. I saw Sphinn stealing my traffic and comments because people are registered there and it's easier for them to comment and read there...
I am still against policing the web. I've been content provider for ages and I prefer my content to have wings...
|Using that logic you should also expect your car to be occasionally stolen when parked in a public parking lot. At a minimum, expect the stereo to be stolen from the car. |
Here, in America, you may not expect people to but in Ukraine, if you leave your car in a parking lot, you may well find it without wheels in a couple of hours. :)
Seriously though, I am for artists to publish their full clips on Youtube. I respect those who allow other people to base creative work on their original creations. A credit should be enough. And Pinterest does give credit...
|I've been content provider for ages and I prefer my content to have wings... |
And when Google attributes the content to the wrong site expect your traffic to have wings as well.
I don't mind some of my content being used freely, and when I do that I post that it can be used freely. It's when something I don't want used freely and tagged with a copyright and it's used anyway, that's when I get bent.
A credit "is not enough" it is for the artists to decide what is enough , not those who use their work without permission..
|I've been content provider for ages |
content and artistic creation are two different things..
Takes me, or you, less than two seconds to write "sunset over sea at 10pm"
Takes a lot of money for someone to buy the camera to take the picture "sunset over sea at 10pm", and to get to the location..plus their time.
Takes even longer to paint a picture of "sunset over the sea at 10pm" and the materials , paints , canvas etc..
Takes two seconds for a pinner to take each of those things without permission once they are "online"..
Any one can write "sunset over sea at 10pm"..takes no talent , nor any hardship, nor more than two seconds..
To take a good photo or paint a good painting ( so good that a pinner wants to pin it , or a scraper wants to take it ) takes talent , money and time..
You cant pay for cameras or paints with "a credit"..nor can a photographer or an artist whose work gets pinned or taken and used without permission, use "a credit" to pay for groceries..
|I do hope that your opinions are not indicative of those of your Boss, the new owner of WebmasterWorld |
I am speaking only for myself.
However, I noticed that your title was "manager of communities"..I ( and I think very many other long time members here ) would hate to think that this community was being managed, in any way, by someone who was pro IP theft and IP abuse..
That would be a most unwelcome change in WebmasterWorld..and seriously damage it's credibility with webmasters..
|pro IP theft and IP abuse |
I am no lawyer and we were actually discussing Pinterest and social media sharing rather than overall IP theft.
Also, don't expect anyone to change anything here. You own this place
|I am no lawyer and we were actually discussing Pinterest and social media sharing rather than overall IP theft. |
What you call sharing..and what pinterest does..and the sites that use it's model ..artists and photogrpahers and image makers and many countries legal systems actually call IP theft and IP abuse..
It is not because they have yet to be taken to court in the USA that they are not breaking USA law..they are indeed in breach of USA copyright and IP law..and the laws of many other countries..as was mentioned in another thread in the pinterest area of WebmasterWorld..they are relying on the "too big to police and apply the law to" method of abuse..
And the "our VCs have connections" and "copyright lawyers don't work for free, pinterest has them on retainer and creators don't", so pinterest would try to drag out the cases that eventually get to court for years , in order to bankrupt- those who try to defend their IP against the crowd sourced theft and abuse that is the pinterest model
|Also, don't expect anyone to change anything here. |
Good..many are watching to see if the new owners promises would be honored over time..we hope so..
it would be terrible to have the best, one of the oldest ( if not the oldest ) and most respected webmaster resource and forum on the internet with new management staff promoting and or condoning IP theft and IP abuse..
|condoning IP theft and IP abuse |
Ok, I see you like repeating those words, but let's face it, it's not what I said. And I just can't let it go... I know I should.
I didn't say, it's the right thing someone steals your content. I said, you should be prepared it may be stolen if you upload it to the web.
It's like, if you upload photos to FB, even if you only display them for friends, you know that someone might save one of your photos and upload it to another (public) place. Again, this is not the right thing to do, but we live in a not-perfect world.
Again, assuming I may be misunderstood, I am not comparing my FB photos with someone's artworks. I don't mean to say they are anywhere close to creatives.
I say, these things happen all the time. And maybe, you either keep your works away from the Internet or just get prepared they will be used without your permission once they are there.
As I understand it: Online content usage is so hectic that you cannot possibly go after everyone who hasn't asked your permission, so you probably should let it go (even though, again, those who don't ask permission, are bad, bad people) and use that time and energy elsewhere.
If anyone sees it another way, I can absolutely accept that because that's up to the content provider or the artist.
I am not sure if I need a disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts that I am here to speak my opinion only. I guess it will look weird...
|I say, these things happen all the time. And maybe, you either keep your works away from the Internet or just get prepared they will be used without your permission once they are there. |
It is not because illegal things happen all the time that we should accept them..on or off line..nor should we condone them because they happen all the time ..we shouldn't have to keep our kids in all the time because some people are attracted to them and might take them..but that happens all the time..people don't obey speed limits around schools and kids get killed in accidents ..all the time ..doesn't make it OK.doesn't mean that we should keep them at home..
Getty put their images on the net ..all the time .funnily enough you never find them on pinterest..do you think that Getty should put their images on the net because people take images without permission "all the time"..
|Ok, I see you like repeating those words, but let's face it, it's not what I said. And I just can't let it go... I know I should. |
I use that phrase all the time because it is not "sharing" it is IP theft and IP abuse ..I like to call things by what they are..not hide behind euphemisms..
Encouraging and condoning "sharing " without permission because "it happens all the time" is encouraging IP theft..
The same way I don't normally speak of "those who are attracted to children"..I call them pedophiles..and because it happens all the time ..is not a reason to encourage or condone an illegal action..those sites are widespread on the net ..and are illegal ..and you wouldn't condone them ( I hope )..why do you condone other illegal sites such as Pinterest ..are you OK with warez sites and ripped movie sites ?..or should software producers and movie producers "keep their work off line" too because what you call "sharing",( and us creatives, and the law call IP theft and IP abuse ).. "happens all the time" ?
Or is it only still images ( other than those owned by large companies with lawyers ready to go like Getty ) that you think it is OK to rip off ..
edited for typo on last "lawyers"
[edited by: Leosghost at 2:33 pm (utc) on Nov 5, 2012]
I think we we need to keep in mind, here, when talking about "sharing" other people's pictures, is that the problem is truly one of SCALE.
Many webmasters here including Leosghost and myself have invested considerable time (years) to create websites with original content and images of artistic/educational value that have earned us valuable traffic. Some of us have images in the several thousands.
Pinterest didn't invent image copyright infringement. We're used to seeing smatterings of our images on blogs, on FB, emailed, etc. Of course we expect that, and none of this small-scale "sharing" really impedes on our business model at all. It doesn't compete against our website.
There was always the occasional pirate grabbing a chunk of my content and trying to make his own website with it; that's when the DMCA came in handy.
Aside from individual "sharing" to which many of us gladly turn a blind eye and sleep well at night for it, and a few pirates here and there, it was pretty smooth sailing.
The mega-problem with Pinterest isn't a few people sharing here and there. Ben Silbermann created a dedicated copyright-infringement platform (though they changed the wording in theit TOS, that's still how it's understood by its users), that now has 12 millions users that every single day are scraping boatloads of content from the mom & pop websites, and handing this content to Ben Silbermann to exploit and raise venture capital with.
All websites are competitors. We are competing for the attention of visitors. The amount of time people spent on the internet is a limited resource.
As image-minded visitors (Leosghost's audience and mine) can now view our content, and everyone else's best content, on Pinterest, they have little incentive to visit the original websites.
Pinterest is stealing our audience. Which is fair under normal circumstances: but it's stealing our audience with our own content!
That is NOT COOL. That is NOT FAIR GAME.
You want to compete against me? Fine. Not with my stuff, you can't.
Let's stop confusing "sharing" with mega-scale crowdscraping.
sharing =/= crowdscraping
I'm not a big company with lawyers on retainer to fight copyright violators, I'm just one guy with a couple cameras. As I said earlier in another thread:
|... I looked the other day. There are still a pile of my photos on Pinterest, put there by copyright violators. |
That equals thousands of dollars a year in income for me, even if you use the average CTR rates on my site over time.
I also looked at my stats, I get almost no traffic from Pinterest.
When visitors see my pics on my site, some small % of them click the adjacent ads, ON MY SITE and I get paid a few pennys. Those pennys, nickles, dimes etc add up to thousands of $$$$$ per year, I want that money!
See MY COPYRIGHTED PHOTOS on Pinterest ... I get nothing, no chance for even that small % to click an ad I'd get paid for.
I didn't conjure these photos up from thin air either. I've spent tons of time and money traveling the USA to take these photos.
To suggest I and others like me
is insulting, at best.
|.... accept that or abandon the Internet... |
To suggest I and others like me
.... accept that or abandon the Internet...
is insulting, at best.
I apologize for saying that
I won't apologize for something I never said. I didn't say it was ok to rip off anyone...
Again, I am bad at law but my understanding is, since Pinterest is illegal, it should not legally exist?
Pinterest is faciliating illegal activity.
This will be challenged in court.
I do not condone promoting and or condoning IP theft and IP abuse.
On that note I think we've reached a natural conclusion to this thread as it's about the topic and not the people posting and it keeps drifting so I'm closing it.