helleborine - 12:01 am on Apr 9, 2013 (gmt 0)
The links back are worthless because people rip my entire website on pinterest, my instructions are enclosed in the image so there is no incentive to visit my websites.
For 5000 individual pins and repins I would receive fewer than 35 pinterest referrals... MONTHLY. These referral statistics are abysmal.
I'm not basing my income on Google, I have about 20 websites, I'm diversified, and traffic isn't a problem as long as my content remains on my websites. I have actually de-indexed my images from Google images after their January revamp, and have not noticed any change in traffic despite once dominating the image search in my niche (I no longer dominate it after the de-index, but it goes to show you, that's not what I depend on).
"Damages" are non-quantifiable. How can I prove that an amount of traffic loss is attributable to Pinterest? Anecdotally, I appear to have recovered about 15% of my traffic after spending my summer filing DMCA notices instead of creating content, but that is not a controlled experiment and would not hold up in a court.
That's why there is copyright registration and my work is registered. Never mind quantifiable damages, I have the ability to sue pinners for statutory damages, which can be quite punitive.
We webmasters are all competing for a LIMITED resource: the time people spend on the internet. When potential visitors and repeat visitors can access the entirety of my content on Pinterest, they will stay there and not come to my site.
I'm not one to boast normally, but in my niche, my websites are the very best and no one comes close to my ankle. At least, I have the advantage of superior content over Pinterest and other crowdscrapers. It is the maintenance of this superiority of content that is responsible for my continued success. If I allow Pinterest folders that contain all my images, the copyright infringing platform will literally force me to compete against my own content. If find this unacceptable.