... and that's not even for the image, but the "meta data". 

�As part of our agreement, we�ll pay Getty Images a fee for the data they share and will help make sure that their images get proper attribution,� Pinterest notes today. �We�re just getting started with Getty Images but we�re excited about the possibilities of what their data can help us deliver.�

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/pinterest-inks-deal-with-getty-images-will-pay-a-fee-for-the-photo-agencys-metadata/

eta: Just checked - I have 19 $.01 sales, plus a bonus of 2 $.01 sales from Connect.  Lol.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 21, 2014, 14:39

Quote from: tickstock on April 21, 2014, 14:36

I guess the idea is something is better than nothing.

I think the idea is more "we better pay something before we get sued for not protecting our contributor's interests".

Maybe so but they've already said they weren't going to be going after any 'non-commercial' uses and wouldn't almost everything on pinterest fall into that category?

No, many boards are run by businesses, which I detailed a while back on my blog.  For example, a travel agency providing beautiful images from destinations to promote their agency and entice customers: http://www.pinterest.com/thetravelagent/ (first one on google for travel agent pinterest)

How could it not be commercial? 

Besides, you don't just have carte blanche to use an image in a "non-commercial" way.  There's one way.  With the "embedded viewer" which, obviously, Pinterest doesn't use.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on April 21, 2014, 14:49

How could it not be commercial? 

Besides, you don't just have carte blanche to use an image in a "non-commercial" way.  There's one way.  With the "embedded viewer" which, obviously, Pinterest doesn't use.

I thought the definition of commercial was basically in an ad according to what they've said recently not on a blog (even if the blog was for commercial purposes).  BTW I went looking through that site and the first stock image I found was one from Shutterstock  http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-65748307/stock-photo-a-row-of-camels-transport-tourists-in-front-of-all-of-the-giza-pyramids-in-cairo-egypt.html
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/46584177370391713/
I don't know how much they are paying that photographer, do you?

A: You seem to think there is some free reign to use any image "non-commercially", which of course, there isn't.
B: The only permission they give for "non-commerical" use is in the viewer.
C: I was not claiming that specific business used Getty images, or whether they paid anyone for use, but as an illustration of how "pins" are used to promote a business.

What's the difference between a printed brochure of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top, and a pinterest board of beautiful images with the agent's name at the top?

Getty photographers are getting some surprising insights into the use of their images on Pinterest as they review their Getty sales reports this month. For many photographers over half the reported sales are for �Pinterest/Portal� usage. The gross fee paid to Getty for such usages is $0.03 and the photographer�s royalty share is $0.01.

(http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-photographer-get-surprising-insights-in)

Articles from that site which I have read previously have seemed IMO to be based on very sketchy research and / or rather meaningless extrapolation of what-ifs and maybes. The headlines often seem to be all about trying to get mostly microstockers to pay.

But there is no need to pay to read the article. Pinterest is a form of marketing. It is remarkable that non commercial Pinterest uses are accounted for at all. I doubt that many other agencies are paying their photographers anything for being pinned or, more importantly, providing any sort of accounting. I wonder how many other agencies are even capable of capturing this information.

These are not sales in any sort of conventional sense. It might be pedantically accurate to say that over half the reported sales (of some particular photographer) were  for �Pinterest/Portal� usage. But there is nothing else to usefully extrapolate from this information - there is no implication.

.

.

Right, it is different but they are putting work out there to promote Stocksy but not paying the photographer for it.  So it's similar to what Getty, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and all the other sites do but for Getty the photographer gets paid a tiny bit too.

No, Getty is "paying" the photographer for work that other people have "pinned" from the internet.  That's not at all the same as Getty putting their own contributor's work forward in a marketing way - if they do, I doubt the contributor gets anything, since the meta would be intact and the ImageScout backend isn't needed.

.