comScore: Pinterest Breaks Into Top Fifty U.S. Web Properties for September 2012

[engine]

“Students and teachers were back in the classroom in September, resulting in a surge in traffic to Education sites that earned it the #1 spot on the top-gaining categories chart,” said Jeff Hackett, executive vice president of comScore. “September also marked the first time that popular social media site Pinterest cracked comScore’s Top 50 Properties ranking as it surpassed 25 million visitors for the month.”

comScore: Pinterest Hits Top Fifty U.S. Web Properties for September 2012 [comscore.com]

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Good for Pinterest. I applaud how they handled the "copyright issue" several other big companies started trying to create for them too, as if their own sites weren't full of user content.

You know you're doing something right when other big net companies start to mimic you. Have you seen the "new ebay" this week? The new ebay features a new layout and style that is a 100% Pinterest clone in appearance!

[engine]

I also thought it was interesting that the traffic was up as the schools went back. What does that tell you! ;)

[brotherhood of LAN]

Well done to them. The controversy around intellectual property seems to be a haunt of many of the popular websites.

It's great to see that even with the idea that mom/pop sites are getting squeezed out by brands, it's still extremely possible to create a site that generates this kind of buzz.

[Leosghost]

The fact that being popular is more important than being honest explains why so many people in the USA thought Nixon should have stayed on..and a lot of other things..

There is no "controversy"..Pinterest is massive IP theft/ abuse by cynical use of crowd sourced proxies..

It's great to see that even with the idea that mom/pop sites are getting squeezed out by brands, it's still extremely possible to create a site that generates this kind of buzz.

So it is great to see a thief prosper..? especially a hyped "brand" thief with VC backing ..or do you really think that Pinterest is not a "brand" with VC backing, and paid for media buzz behind it's rise.. and is actually some Mom and Pop outfit that has just taken off..

The rise of the biggest image scraper of the last 5 years being lauded by a senior member and a mod in a non warez webmaster forum really is an eye opener as to how much ethics and honesty has been pushed out of some peoples minds by admiration for money..

And if they made their money by getting their members to post ripped off software instead of images..,

Don't see anyone here praising warez sites ( plenty of them in the Top 50 in the USA..in the real Top 50 sites ..not the sanitised version with the Pron and the warez sites taken out of the figures )..that is someones IP too..

Ah ..I forgot ..Image IP abuse doesn't count ..if one isn't an image maker..

When a crowd sourced text content scraper starts up ( no not ehow's spark, they already did, another one that allows public access to what it's "members" scrape..will the same cheer leaders be out here praising it's rise ) ..or does it depend on how many big name VCs are behind it ? ..even if it is a scraper..

[brotherhood of LAN]

Leo, it's quite clear you like to push the whole copyright & fair use agenda, but does it have to be on every thread involving a major website? :o)

So it is great to see a thief prosper..?

It would be unfair to call them thieves if they haven't been convicted for such an act. Innocent until proven guilty IMO.

The rise of the biggest image scraper of the last 5 years being lauded by a senior member and a mod in a non warez webmaster forum really is an eye opener as to how much ethics and honesty has been pushed out of some peoples minds by admiration for money..

To be fair, I think my post count is irrespective of my opinion, and my own opinions are just that, not representative of the forum or its owners. It certainly doesn't give me any moral high ground.

Don't see anyone here praising warez sites

Perhaps not but there seems to be huge demand for them. Let's be frank, 'syndication' or by any other description, is widespread. From content, concepts or multimedia, there are sites that take, repackage, and deliver. From the pragmatic standpoint I don't see them all getting closed down tomorrow.

Pinterest is just doing what everyone else is doing. I'm not saying it's OK, but I would not villainize them for it either.

It's not up to individual sites (or ISPs) to be the internet police, that's what government is for, to make laws to decide what's OK and what's not.

p.s. there's a notice at the foot of this site that indicates the comments are owned by the poster, so perhaps you could sticky for permission before quoting a post of mine ;o)

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

The rise of the biggest image scraper of the last 5 years

I suppose I'm the senior member you referred to so I just wanted to add that I would 100% share that feeling however Pinterest does work hard to ensure that proper accreditation with link is included in every image and if that's not there they will act on a complaint, if you make one. The attribution and link actually drive traffic as well so there is a benefit.

More importantly Pinterest displays attribution links to your site that lead directly to your site(or your profile which does on repins), unlike Google which uses a popup on their site, so technically Pinterest would be the second biggest scraper behind Google, if we're being fair. My images appear more often on Google, I know this because they load my site in a frame behind the image that often never gets a click, however Pinterest sends me a lot more image traffic(that converts). I'll take it.

Now if only my favorite source of unique images would give me a bulk deal...

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 5:16 am (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]

[chrisv1963]

It's not up to individual sites (or ISPs) to be the internet police, that's what government is for, to make laws to decide what's OK and what's not.

Copyright laws maybe ... ?

[blend27]

More importantly Pinterest displays attribution links to your site that lead directly to your site

Give it time, that will go away, I am sure...

I sent a request to remove 72 images 3 weeks ago, still there. They've been there for almost 6 month.

[Bewenched]

Yea, they lead to your site with a nofollow link. :(

[Leosghost]

It's not up to individual sites (or ISPs) to be the internet police, that's what government is for, to make laws to decide what's OK and what's not.

As chrisv1963 points out ..the copyright laws that they are breaking already exist..

It was already decided and put into laws, that IP abuse was not OK..

It is upto Pinterest to obey the laws of the country that they operate in..( and what they do is illegal in the USA )..saying "we'll stop knowingly hosting stolen images, if you ask us and if our lawyers say the fine might be bigger than the potential profits" is not obeying the laws that exist..


Or do you also think it is OK for Pinterest's owners to drive at 180 mph on the freeway or in town just because their VCs have Porsches, they have a team of lawyers on retainer or "in house", and enough VC money to drag out court cases, and some people like to watch cars go fast ..and to hell with the laws that exist..

[ken_b]

Relative to this:

More importantly Pinterest displays attribution links to your site that lead directly to your site

Here's part of my commenet from another Pinterest 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.

[Can you tell this issue is a hot button for me?]

[ChanandlerBong]

this is the same crap YT have been allowed to get away with, just because, ultimately, "well, they're too big now...you can't expect someone to sit down and watch EVERY video to see if it's infringing someone's IP, do you?" (these were the arguments used in the huge viacom/G lawsuit thread last year) If little old me without a server farm and 20,000 employees try the same thing? Bam!

blend, did you send full DMCA notices or just an e-mail? If you send a DMCA, I though the host/site had to respond pretty quickly to that?

My next site? A news site with full articles off the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, Fox News (I need an entertainment section too!). But don't worry, I'll have links at the bottom of each entire article that lead directly to their site, so they should actually be happy with me!

[brotherhood of LAN]

>Or do you also think it is OK

I think you already made the point to be fair, the law is worth more than my opinion. Copyright laws do exist so I guess that's the avenue to take with sites that are allegedly breaking the law.

[diberry]

Um, sometimes scrapers include a followable link to your site, which no one needs to follow since they've already read your content at the scraper. Is that cool or legal?

Look, I benefit from Pinterest. But I don't make money directly from my images. And I can see that for those who do, they're definitely losing money from how Pinterest does business, and that's not okay.

Additionally, they are EXTREMELY non-responsive when you write support with an issue - they just don't respond at all. Here's a tip: write their press email (it's on their contact page) and tell them you're about to write a story about their dismal customer support and whatever it is they're doing wrong. That gets a (slow) response.

The sad thing about the US is that many laws are not enforced by government, they are only enforced by people with lawyers. In these cases, the richer people always win because all they have to do is drag the case out until you run out of money - it's an acknowledged tactic among lawyers and it has nothing to do with the merits of a case or the law.

Most Americans assume that if a thing is happening, it must be legal. No, it just means they haven't been brought down by someone bigger yet.

[moTi]

the youtube comparison is spot on. too big to fail. and while we're at it, the fact that most of all big websites are from the states has for a significant part to do with the american way of consumer marketing and what is considered lawful over there - namely the lax handling of copyright issues (fair use), a loose opt-out system that prefers the marketers and barely existing or enforced privacy laws.

it seems to be gererally accepted that you as the user have to take action to prevent your commercial exploitation by the internet firms. so you have to ask youtube or pinterest to get your stuff removed, unthinkable in many other legal systems. these are the conditions that put american websites ahead and make them big in the first place.

imagine if they would have to ask you first. imagine if they would have to check every user submission for copyright issues beforehand. instead they push aside liability.

an opt-in principle where people have to give permission is common legal practice in any other branch. except for the internet, especially american internet..

[Rosalind]

Has anyone tried sending them an invoice for use of images? When you're losing money and you can quantify that to a reasonable degree it ought to be straightforward to take them to a small claims court if they fail to respond to takedown requests. It doesn't matter what they put on their terms for users, a contract you have no part in, Pinterest are liable for what goes on their site. What am I missing here?

[blend27]

blend, did you send full DMCA notices or just an e-mail?

Just an email, with no reply :(

Most of the images are pinned by a single person. 9 boards, 1618 pins/repins by the same user, I mean some people go long way to still..

I checked the server logs, 6 hits from that site since 11/2011.

Cost me $1600 for SLR, $800 for the lens, several hundred for image editing software, $900 to actually import the items on the images from Eastern Europe and time to produce the images.

Can I bill Pinterest for that?

[ChanandlerBong]

blend,

Pinterest now have a webform for DMCA, not just a snail mail process.

I think this should be more useful for you:

[pinterest.com...]

[Lame_Wolf]

Just an email, with no reply

I can see why they didn't reply to it. If you want to have your images removed from P. Then you *have* to raise a DMCA.

The good thing about Pinterest (over Photobucket) is that if someone takes your image and others repin it, you only need one of the images removed, then the rest follow. Whereas Photobucket, if someone posts an image, you have to hunt down the rest that have taken it.

[helleborine]

It's great to see that even with the idea that mom/pop sites are getting squeezed out by brands, it's still extremely possible to create a site that generates this kind of buzz.

PINTEREST is squeezing out my long-standing mom/pop site. How 'bout that.

How much of this "popularity" is pinbots, followbots, commentbots, and multiple account proxy spam?

Pinterest hasn't handled their legal problem. They don't even know that they have a legal problem, if you get my drift. Their legal problem is coming.

[helleborine]

Pinterest does work hard to ensure that proper accreditation with link is included in every image and if that's not there they will act on a complaint, if you make one.

I don't care for accreditation and Pinterest's fail nofollow links; I want and need visitors to make my website a worthwhile enterprise, as it should be under protection of current copyright laws.

The attribution and link actually drive traffic as well so there is a benefit.

That may only be true for Martha Stewart and recipe websites. For mine, Pinterest has represented a traffic loss of ~10%. This spring I had about 5000 instances of infringement. My traffic was down from the previous 3 yr average by 10%. From these 5000 instances of infringement, I would receive fewer than 50 referrals per month. That's right; per month.

I spend two months this summer, full-time, weekdays and weekends, sending Pinterest DMCA take downs.

Incredibly, my traffic, that usually falls in summer, was actually rising as I was removing the content.

Pinterest caused me to compete against my own content, as displayed on their pages - and in doing so, appears to have been stealing my traffic.

It's not a good thing when the prevailing culture is "everyone-infringes-huzzah" and "let-the-content-owners-chase-their-content" until they do nothing but chase their content in order to keep on publishing.

My traffic is much better since I have cleansed Pinterest of my content.

[diberry]

Helleborine, I'm really sorry to hear that. Have you implemented the opt-out code for Pinterest, which should supposedly at least save you having to do this again in the future?

Of course, that's the problem - that the onus is on webmasters to clean up the damage and opt out rather than on websites to ask us to opt in. It may even be Google that established this precedent - they only allowed you to opt out, but no one minded since hardly anyone wanted to opt out, or minded the little snippets and later use of images to send us traffic.

If Pinterest had sent out a few thousand emails asking webmasters to opt in, they would have found plenty who were happy to do so. Photographers would have known off-hand it wasn't a good move for them, and refused. That way, they could have their business without harming anybody.

I like capitalism, I really do, but when you bend over backwards to make things super easy for bigger businesses no matter what it does to smaller ones (especially sole proprietors), that's not a free market; that's a rigged game. This is something my country (US) seems to have lost touch about.

[helleborine]

I implemented the nopin code, which is largely a waste of time since people hit the BACK button on their browser and pin from search engine results instead.

They now have enough momentum that they could viably switch to an OPT IN system.

[moTi]

but that's the point: if you aren't big, people won't give you permission to crawl their stuff. and if people aren't giving you permission to crawl their stuff, you won't get big.

if google would have had to ask people permission beforehand to get their content, they had been a non-starter.

same applies to youtube and pinterest. that's why they started out illegitimate. youtube was founded on pirated material, since the founders initially had no content to show to users. even now, being acquired by google, most of their financially successful content is copyrighted by others one way or another.

concerning pinterest:

Photographers would have known off-hand it wasn't a good move for them, and refused. That way, they could have their business without harming anybody.

photographers are the ones that make the difference. exploiting professional content would make a website like pinterest worthwhile. so as they wouldn't be able to get them on board, they let users copy their works. dirty.

[IFCMarkets]

Original is that factor that it is really diverse from other social networks with its interface and regarding “stealing”, I think it is only a unique way to share others pages and create power backlink

[chrisv1963]

Original is that factor that it is really diverse from other social networks with its interface and regarding “stealing”, I think it is only a unique way to share others pages and create power backlink

1. There is a huge difference between sharing and stealing. Please give me the URLs of your websites if you own any. I will be happy to "share" all your content and of course link back to you. I am sure that, as a reward for the sharing, you won't mind that I'll try to find a way to make money out of your content.

Sharing = showing thumbnail size images and "force" users to visit the website with the original.
Stealing = showing the full size images on Pinterest => there's no need to visit the website with the original full size image.

2. The backlink "power" from Pinterest is worthless.

[backdraft7]

WAY to much weight on images these days. I see several similar sites outranking everything else with useless image board sites. I guess it's a sign of the times because nobody reads anymore.