Wallpaper website Banned by Google after Penguin update

[ganapathi]

I have been running a wallpaper website for the past 6 months and getting good organic traffic. I regularly post wallpapers with proper titles,tags and alts. The only lagging thing was the design. It was looking very bad.

3 weeks back site lost 100% organic traffic and I was shocked to see that. I checked webmaster and got a message saying "Site quality issues".

Now I am working on the design. I have completely changed the theme and removed broken links.

What else I need to do before requesting for "Reconsideration"?
What is the possibility of getting it 'unbanned'?
Will I get the organic traffic if it is 'unbanned'?

I am new to SEO and have spent more money to improve this site. Do not want to end up losing.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance

[cbpayne]

Do they do that? I am beyond sick of people taking my articles.

Thats all I do; file DMCA with the host; I don't waste time with contacting the site.

[lucy24]

Do they do that?

They may or may not do it on a first offense. But if a host gets a reputation as thief-friendly, that puts them into a particular niche. It's kind of analogous to being robot-friendly. Some servers are particularly notorious for hosting bad bots. Once you've got a reputation for tolerating some type of behavior, it affects the future shape of your business.

[drinstech]

Remove all copyrighted images/wallpapers from your site. Try to post some unique and helpful (Must be related to your site) content. Remove all low quality backlinks (If you create)

[Savanadry]

I'm not so sure this is about the images. These aren't copyrighted pictures, they are product photos. Don't be so quick to judge, not every niche frowns on copying of product images. Some see it as a valid form of marketing.

If the OP is creating content like 'best jungle wallpapers' or 'best chinese wallpapers' or whatever then the wallpaper manufacturers would most likely be glad of the exposure.

Don't let this place turn into the official google forums where anyone asking for help is immediately jumped on and made to feel like they are doing something wrong. Yes a photographer took the pictures but he did it on behalf of his client who wants to market them and get them in front of as many people as possible. He isn't copying the actual wallpapers, the buyers will still have to go to the copyright owner to buy them. If your website becomes very successful they would probably even pay you to include their range. If in doubt why not ask them - more than likely you will be sent high quality originals of the marketing photos to use on your site.

I'd be focusing on the text around the photos, is that unique? is it interesting? are you collating them in way that can't be found elsewhere online?

[netmeg]

These aren't copyrighted pictures, they are product photos

As someone who spends a significant amount of time hunting down unauthorized use of product photos on behalf of ecommerce clients, I can assure you that product photos are subject to copyright as well.

The bottom line is, unless you have taken the photographs yourself or have in hand a written release to use them, they are stolen.

[Leosghost]

@Savanadry..a "wallpaper site" is not one which shows pictures of wallpaper..it is one that shows images of landscapes, artwork, models, vehicles, etc etc ..99.99999% of the time entirely the copyright work of someone other than the site owner who just "finds the images" ..like the OP in this thread admits to..and then uses them to decorate their site which runs advertising..( the original image makers and photographers get nothing from the site, "exposure" is like if someone steals your car and says well at last others can see me driving it, or fakes your product and says well at least more customers can see your design..it is totally dishonest )..wallpaper sites also used to be ( maybe still are ) a very good way to get infected with "drive by malware" ..especially wallpaper / screen saver sites, and those that have "downloadable icons" etc..

Using other peoples copyright material ( without their written permission ) ought to mean a life ban from all ad networks ( adsense included ) and if it were possible ( shame it isn't ) a life ban from all hosting, anywhere..

Some of us make images and design products etc as our business..using what we make without our permission is taking our work and denying us the fruits of our labour..

Like if you worked all week and someone else picked up your paycheck because come pay day they showed up wearing a mask with your face on it..

You want to make money from showing images on a site..make the images yourself, or pay for them..

Ps ..Same applies even if there are no ads on the site, even if it is a small site or a big site like pinterest ( yet )..the site is still taking traffic away from the original image creators site..

Giving a link back or a credit is not "having permission" and does not drive traffic to the sites that the images were stolen from..

[Savanadry]

@leosghost @netmeg oops, seems I completely missed the point on this. I thought it was literally a wallpaper site, and having sold it many, many years ago before the internet I knew wallpaper manufacturers want their designs anywhere and everywhere.

Quite funny really, I must be getting old :)

[Shepherd]

I thought it was literally a wallpaper site

Can't leave you out on your own on this one, My first thought was that they were talking about a wallpaper (for the walls) site...

[martinibuster]

I'm surprised Pinterest has only been mentioned once.

[Dymero]

martinibuster, that's their bread and butter, but really you could list dozens of sites, including many of the big boys of social media. Also, if I'm understanding correctly what I've read in the past, maybe one or two of the photo big boys.

Everyone here only mentions written permission, but I'd also add if it's Creative Commons licensed or in the public domain. And even for those two, you need to make sure the creator has actually licensed the IP that way, and if CC, you're following the license correctly (since even with CC it's still copyrighted and you probably won't be able to sell it).

[chrisv1963]

I'm surprised Pinterest has only been mentioned once.

I'm patiently waiting for the moment that Pinterest gets in trouble too. They are violating copyrights as well. A link back to the original is no excuse. Stolen = stolen.

[cbpayne]

The safe-harbor provisions of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (USA) probbaly and UNFORTUNATELY protects them

[Leosghost]

The safe-harbor provisions of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (USA) probbaly and UNFORTUNATELY protects them

That is what ( whilst inaccurate ) they would like people to think..

[not2easy]

The Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA require hosts to remove content within 24 hours of receiving a valid DMCA complaint. Valid means you have filled out the form with all the information needed to determine whether a violation exists. The host is to notify their client (the person whose site shows your content) for a response to the DMCA. Until a convincing response is received it stays offline. It does not protect anyone doing wrong, but it does set penalties for filing fraudulent DMCA cases. Using a snippet of text - a paragraph or so is considered fair use with attribution. Images, music and videos are handled differently. If you want to know more about the law or find forms for filing visit the Chilling Effects site: [chillingeffects.org...]

[Leosghost]

The difference between pinterest and say hotfile or megaupload ?..
( The similarities are all three sites are amongst others that were built around the idea being hosters of of crowd sourced uploading of copyright material not owned by the uploaders.. )

Differences ? Hotfile and megaupload were not backed by VP investors with connections to the "right people"..and whereas hotfile and megaupload illegally hosted ( crowd sourced / uploaded ) primarily copyright material belonging to the powerful corps and those connected to the "right people" without their permission..

So they were taken down by the FBI..

Pinterest ( and many of the other similar sites backed by "the right people") are illegally hosting ( crowd sourced / uploaded ) copyright material primarily belonging to the "little people", and the little people have no connections to the 'right people"..and cannot afford to pay people ( lawyers ) to watch for the abuse of their IP, nor spend 24 hours a day every day sending DMCAs nor pay lawyers for long drawn out court cases against those illegally hosting ( crowd sourced / uploaded ) their copyright material..

The FBI will not be shutting down Pinterest ( and similar sites ) the little people's voices and rights
are always going to be subservient to the voices of "the right people"..

"The right people" can be substituted by "the rich people" if it helps anyone's understanding of reality..

I am not, nor was I, pro hotfile or megaupload, I am pro the laws being applied equally on behalf of all copyright holders be they rich or not so rich, be they connected to "the right people" or not..whether they are pinterest, hotfile, megaupload..or the OP in this thread..copyright infringement should have the same penalties,( such as the sites being shut down by the legal authorities ) for each and every infringer, great or small no matter who backs their website or business.

[lucy24]

I thought it was literally a wallpaper site

And now you can put me down on the other side of the "oops" line, because I in turn thought yours was an apologetics post :) (The kind where people tell victims of a crime or violation that they should feel flattered that they've got something worth stealing or attacking. Depressingly common in many contexts.)

[tangor]

Context is always the kicker.

It is a sad statement of humans that there are creators, users, and thieves looking to cheat the other two... and this is nothing new to the species. (sigh)

The DMCA is a step in the right direction, but fails in part that it only applies to single instances. Too bad one can't file it ONCE and be forever FUTURE protected (ie. there's no central database of copyrighted materials for the WEB)

[Lame_Wolf]

I have completely changed the Site design and got a New domain name. Now, i am about to dispose the old domain name and move the content to the new domain name in a different hosting server.

I know its wrong. I am aware that i will get caught. Just give me your suggestions to proceed with the new domain. I would like to play this once.

So you want law abiding people to help you break the law?

My sugestion is for you to stop what you are doing. Take your own photographs, create your own artwork (and that doesn't meant taking something from one copyrighted image and adding it to another.)

You have a brain, and with that comes imagination. Use it.

If I find any of my work, or that of my clients, I won't be raising a DMCA, I will be filing lawsuits against you.

[ganapathi]

I took everything only from Google Images.

I am ready to face you if there is a situation. There is no. Let the owner worry about it. I am ready accept if he does so.

I am satisfied with your response. I found what to do. Lets close this topic.

[RedBar]

I took everything only from Google Images.

And I can assure you that amongst many image creators they consider Google is the biggest thief on the www

It may interest you to know that after Google's image grab of January 2013 that I lost 80% of my traffic along with many, many others.

[cbpayne]

I took everything only from Google Images.

Do you still have no comprehension of just how illegal what you have done is?

[lucy24]

There exist situations where question-and-answer threads end up with "Just show him how to aim the ### gun". (Apache questions involving the words "splash screen" come to mind.)

This is not one of those situations.

[Planet13]

QUESTION:

Would what the original poster is doing be illegal / immoral if he allowed users to post content, à la pintrest / tumblr or other "pinning" style sites?

I mean, pintrest has a bazillion of my images on their pages. Can I sue them?

[JD_Toims]

Can I sue them?

Sure, but you'll lose since Pinterest doesn't actually steal the images. It just facilitates the theft and let's other people steal them -- You would have to sue each individual who misused your images to win, but until the law changes, you won't win against the facilitator of the theft -- Also note: the law will likely not change soon since Google owns YouTube and YouTube is notorious for copyright infringement, because it has deep pockets, so as long as "someone else did it" and a site like Pinterest or YouTube simply facilitates it, things are not likely to change.

I'm not sure why people keep thinking the people who started Google, Pinterest, etc. have morals or "high standards" when Google basically stole the Adwords program and settled for something like $Billion, but for some reason they do -- Makes no sense at all to me.

[chrisv1963]

Would what the original poster is doing be illegal / immoral if he allowed users to post content, à la pintrest / tumblr or other "pinning" style sites?

I mean, pintrest has a bazillion of my images on their pages. Can I sue them?

You should. Pining style sites are the biggest content thiefs ever. I am now seeing several Pinterest clones using my photos, together with random text (so called "comments") and Adsense ads. Everyone seems to think that taking other people's content and putting it online together with ads to make money is completely legal because Pinterest is doing it. This is sickening ...

[Planet13]

Well, Ganapati, there is your answer. Just use user submitted wallpapers instead of posting your own and Google will love you. Pinterest and YouTube always rank really high when I do a search.

[Lame_Wolf]

Well, Ganapati, there is your answer. Just use user submitted wallpapers instead of posting your own and Google will love you. Pinterest and YouTube always rank really high when I do a search.

Others have tried that, and I have gotten them closed down.