Author Topic: Game Over : Pinterest pirates gets 100 million $ ! (Read 57759 times)

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #150 on:** June 01, 2012, 20:07 »

Drugal i am wondering do you have any sites you submit to? And if so how about the links to them i am sure that some here would like to see your work that is if you have any!

So could you post us some links so we can see what you have?

neotakezo · « **Reply #151 on:** June 01, 2012, 21:12 »

Well I didn't have time to read the whole thread, just the first page and it seems (at least at that stage) to be Helix vs everyone else. Well you can throw another vote in Helix's corner.

I just completely remade my website and heavily incorporated pinterest buttons on it, why?

Well for starters social media drives more traffic than google these days, and Pinterest has surged to be the 3rd biggest social media site now, some websites report that pinterest drives them more traffic than facebook. But aside from the direct promotional benefits you also get some pretty kick ass seo value out of it. First off goggle is placing more and more emphasis on social media signals to influence search rankings and secondly every pinterest pin (and here's the important part - also REPIN) is a link back to the original image.

The main critea goggle uses to sort search results is backlinks. Every backlink your page, site, youtube video or STOCK IMAGE gets is counted by google as a vote for that page. It's a lot more complicated than that and there are many other factors but there is a reason we have so much blog comment spam and articles in online article databases that make no sense is because its the way spammers build backlinks to trick google into thinking their page is more important and more interesting/engaging than it is.

So next time someone pins one of your shutterstock photos and you want to get all in a huff about it - you should take into consideration that it wasn't some evil mastermind lurking in a basement somewhere trying to steal something off you - it's a real person that likes one of your shots and want's to share/promote it, I'm sure 99% of the time in the pinner's mind they are doing something nice for you. And then on top of that you are seeing real world seo and traffic driving benefits out of it. If it becomes popular and gets tens (or hundreds) of repins then that is tens or hundreds of votes for your image/page in google's eyes. It also makes any pages that page links to get a "stronger" vote from that page, and what pages do your images normally link to? Well your folio page for one, sometimes other pics of yours. So those backlinks that come in and make your image more important to google, also make it's votes more important which helps make your other shots more important. So in reality every pin (and repin) you get helps out your whole folio in a tiny/tiny/tiny way. But like like 25cent sales these tiny factors add up...

On an aside,

I used to know a girl who's job it was for her boss to download watermarked pictures his company might want to use and remove the watermarks from them. This was a despicable act and an intention to do the wrong thing. But it also shows that if you put your images online - watermarked or not they WILL be stolen.

If you can't handle this fact then get . out of this career and go do something else. Or you can be smart, play the numbers, realise that some images WILL get stolen but you'll still make enough money to do well out of it..or you wont and you'll go do something else.

But either way getting all pissed off about someone pinning one of your photos?....man...come on, get a life people...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #152 on:** June 01, 2012, 21:28 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

But either way getting all pissed off about someone pinning one of your photos?....man...come on, get a life people...

Phew, thank goodness you showed up with that advice.

"it's a real person that likes one of your shots and want's to share/promote it, I'm sure 99% of the time in the pinner's mind they are doing something nice for you" - 99% of the people don't give a crap about you. They want to take what they want, when they want to take it, and use it as they see fit. When you read their comments on the Pinterest blog, you are the last thing from their mind. They like something, they want to grab it and get credit for showing it off, and that is their god given right.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #153 on:** June 01, 2012, 21:58 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

If you can't handle this fact then get . out of this career and go do something else. Or you can be smart, play the numbers, realise that some images WILL get stolen but you'll still make enough money to do well out of it..or you wont and you'll go do something else.

This made me laugh a little. Your images will get stolen and everything will be fine or it won't.

Tabimura · « **Reply #154 on:** June 01, 2012, 23:46 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

I'm sure 99% of the time in the pinner's mind they are doing something nice for you.

Seriously, are you that naive? They don't even care whether its a snapshot or a professional well produced photo, as long as they like it. They're just interested in using it.
And how does your precious seo "benefits" translate into sales? Does it put food on your table?

neotakezo · « **Reply #155 on:** June 02, 2012, 00:41 »

Quote from: Tabimura on June 01, 2012, 23:46

And how does your precious seo "benefits" translate into sales? Does it put food on your table?

Actually...yes.

But before I go on I have a question: So is it that you DON'T think people search for photos using search engines? Or you don't understand in even it's simpliest form what SEO is and does?

I've only been an image buyer a few times, but more than once I've had a hard time finding the image I wanted at the first couple stock sties I looked at, so where did I turn? Google....with google images I managed to find quicker and easier a good image on a stock site (I think one ended up being dreamstime, maybe both, not quite sure on this point).

If I've done it as a newbie image buyer I'm sure others have and I'm a microstock photographer, if I need an image of course the first place I think is a microstock agency. But most potential image buyers out there and those who buy images now and then but don't have "microstock in the consciousness" the way I do would be even more likely to use google.

Aside from that I have my personal website ranking for some reasonable "photo" related terms that bring in advertising clicks, one is a rather main term that I've gotten on the first page of google. Which is all done by seo (mostly social sites - facebook, 500px, devient art, twitter, pinterest etc) and yes, strangely enough advertising clicks DO put food on the table.....as did whatever SEO that existed for the photos that I bought from searching google - the artist of that work can thank whatever SEO his agency did because it got him my sales....

To think SEO on a site/page with a PURCHASABLE PRODUCT that is well keyworded to be useless in this day and age is.....rather strange...

But for all of you that are exploding your heads with worry over this terrible unfair treatment of having others do some work promoting for you....how many of you have your folios at Istock? How many of you are doing business with a company that is ACTIVELY shafting photographers up the poo tube? You sit back and support an agency who thinks it's ok to pay 16% commissions and then get on your high horse about social sharing of photos by people who never would have been customers?

When someone pins your image there is no malicious intent, nor even a greedy/thoughtless one. It's more a "oh, this is beautiful, I want to share this with my friends and/or keep it somewhere where I can come back and see it again", it's a personal recommendation, it's product exposure, it's non-commercial use, it's free, and....it's a bargain!

You all can get scared about people pinning your work....me, I want as many pins (and likes and shares and +1s and diggs etc) as I can get...

Tabimura · « **Reply #156 on:** June 02, 2012, 00:59 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 02, 2012, 00:41

Quote from: Tabimura on June 01, 2012, 23:46

And how does your precious seo "benefits" translate into sales? Does it put food on your table?

Actually...yes.

But before I go on I have a question: So is it that you DON'T think people search for photos using search engines? Or you don't understand in even it's simpliest form what SEO is and does?

I've only been an image buyer a few times, but more than once I've had a hard time finding the image I wanted at the first couple stock sties I looked at, so where did I turn? Google....with google images I managed to find quicker and easier a good image on a stock site (I think one ended up being dreamstime, maybe both, not quite sure on this point).

If I've done it as a newbie image buyer I'm sure others have and I'm a microstock photographer, if I need an image of course the first place I think is a microstock agency. But most potential image buyers out there and those who buy images now and then but don't have "microstock in the consciousness" the way I do would be even more likely to use google.

Aside from that I have my personal website ranking for some reasonable "photo" related terms that bring in advertising clicks, one is a rather main term that I've gotten on the first page of google. Which is all done by seo (mostly social sites - facebook, 500px, devient art, twitter, pinterest etc) and yes, strangely enough advertising clicks DO put food on the table.....as did whatever SEO that existed for the photos that I bought from searching google - the artist of that work can thank whatever SEO his agency did because it got him my sales....

To think SEO on a site/page with a PURCHASABLE PRODUCT that is well keyworded to be useless in this day and age is.....rather strange...

But for all of you that are exploding your heads with worry over this terrible unfair treatment of having others do some work promoting for you....how many of you have your folios at Istock? How many of you are doing business with a company that is ACTIVELY shafting photographers up the poo tube? You sit back and support an agency who thinks it's ok to pay 16% commissions and then get on your high horse about social sharing of photos by people who never would have been customers?

When someone pins your image there is no malicious intent, nor even a greedy/thoughtless one. It's more a "oh, this is beautiful, I want to share this with my friends and/or keep it somewhere where I can come back and see it again", it's a personal recommendation, it's product exposure, it's non-commercial use, it's free, and....it's a bargain!

You all can get scared about people pinning your work....me, I want as many pins (and likes and shares and +1s and diggs etc) as I can get...

I think you're wrong.
Your income from microstock agencies come from their relationship with their clients, obtained through other means than social networks. Probably you can get to a point where someone says "look, I can buy neotakezo's photo from...x agency. But wait, I've seen it so many times pinned and facebooked and whatever - I can get it from there". Not everybody is thinking of stealing, but you're offering your stuff free of charge by repins and so on, instead of educating them that a professional image costs MONEY.
And regarding SEO, I'm quite confident that at least 90% of the people who search for images are aware of the likes of flickr, deviantart and others, if they want free images.

neotakezo · « **Reply #157 on:** June 02, 2012, 01:03 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on June 01, 2012, 21:58

This made me laugh a little. Your images will get stolen and everything will be fine or it won't.

I can see how you'd get a laugh out of it. But seriously, it's also the truth. Your images WILL get stolen (if they are any good) to pretend otherwise is to be naive. Do you have enough time or will to scour the net looking for your images? and then the means to find out if they were purchased from an agency when you are on perhaps 7 or 8 different agencies selling your images under a (more or less) "use as much as you want" llicense?

I know I don't. I'd rather be sitting back on my balcony admiring the sunset or perhaps if I'm in a more motivated mindset make new images - fretting about something I can never control is something I try to make a habit not to do...

enjoy your stress!

Lagereek · « **Reply #158 on:** June 02, 2012, 01:57 »

All I can say is, if people are so naive,etc, good luck to them and their 100 mil, wish I had done it!

sharpshot · « **Reply #159 on:** June 02, 2012, 02:21 »

For non commercial use, the music industry has failed to stop music being stolen. It was going on well before the internet. So the reality is that we can't stop images being stolen. I do think that the music industry has done a good job of publicising the fact that artists need to make some money from their music. And most people know they should pay for MP3's and where they can buy them. So there is still a huge amount of money being paid to artists, even if it's much less than it should be.

There still a lot of ignorance about using images and their copyright laws. The stock images sites are well known by us but ask people in the street and I doubt many know about them. I presume most of our earnings come from commercial use and most of the image theft is for non-commercial use. The question is, can we make more money by educating the non-commercial sector and giving them the option of somewhere to buy at a price they're interested in?

People are used to buying music for non-commercial use but that's not the case for images. Perhaps a very cheap non-commercial use license for small blog size photos with some way of linking to the site where more extensive licenses can be purchased would be a good idea? I can't see people who have never paid for an image license paying much but like microstock, starting low and finding out if they will pay would be a good start. The other option is for sites like Pinterest to pay a lump sum each year for all the copyright violations and give us a way to claim our share of that money. Some of these sites will end up being worth millions or billions of dollars and it's appalling that they aren't paying anything for the copyright infringements on their sites.

Perhaps the bigger problem we have is when people don't buy a license for commercial use and they think they can get away with purchasing a license if they're caught and nothing more. I'd like to see those people pay a hefty fine that puts others off doing it.

drugal · « **Reply #160 on:** June 02, 2012, 02:33 »

Quote from: djpadavona on May 24, 2012, 17:15

Quote from: cclapper on May 24, 2012, 14:55
Quote from: digitalexpression on May 24, 2012, 11:37
The owner of a stock photo agency doesn't follow the argument of why an agency shouldn't benefit from exploiting it's contributors. Colour me surprised.

I can see further arguments are pointless and yet... even if it were true that sales to an agency like DT would increase from their sharing of my property with pinterest thieves, that increase in sales, let's say an even 10% for the ease of demonstration, would be spread across all 130,000+ contributors. In other words, there would be no direct benefit to me as 10% spread between 130,000+ would be negligible. The benefit to DT would be a full 10% increase in revenue since they take a cut from every single sale regardless of who's image it is but to me? I doubt I'd even notice. However I do notice that they are using my work, without my consent, to generate that increase. that's exploitation and unfair.

As I stated before though, I don't think there is an increase as pinterest is not a place where buyers frequent.

Very well stated.

Seriously?

If sales rise by 10% for the entire agency, then the average contributor will see a 10% rise on their own sales. Why on earth would you think it would be otherwise? There's no reason to divide the 10% by 130,000, or whatever you decided to use in the example. A 10% aggregate rise is a 10% aggregate rise.

yep. many here seem to have problems with basic math. and logic.

ShadySue · « **Reply #161 on:** June 02, 2012, 03:12 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

Well I didn't have time to read the whole thread ...

The main critea goggle uses to sort search results is backlinks ...

But either way getting all pissed off about someone pinning one of your photos?....man...come on, get a life people...

At least you admitted your lack of diligence in actually reading our concerns.
As people who licence images for a living, we are concerned when a photo of ours, legitimately bought or even stolen and put on a website, can then be pinned and repinned with NO backlink to our agent, but with inducements to copy it off pinterest willy nilly. There is no possible benefit to us in this scenario - someone who saw our image would not easily be able to find it to license it even if they wanted to (other than via Google Image Search, and then only if our image had been catalogued by GIS).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #162 on:** June 02, 2012, 05:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 02, 2012, 03:12

At least you admitted your lack of diligence in actually reading our concerns.
As people who licence images for a living, we are concerned when a photo of ours, legitimately bought or even stolen and put on a website, can then be pinned and repinned with NO backlink to our agent, but with inducements to copy it off pinterest willy nilly. There is no possible benefit to us in this scenario - someone who saw our image would not easily be able to find it to license it even if they wanted to (other than via Google Image Search, and then only if our image had been catalogued by GIS).

Exactly. These people think we are all worried about housewives "pinning" images for their friends to be amazed at their ability to spot a nice image. It goes much farther than that.

grafix04 · « **Reply #163 on:** June 02, 2012, 05:52 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

Well I didn't have time to read the whole thread, just the first page

Well that's where you first went wrong.

Quote

I just completely remade my website and heavily incorporated pinterest buttons on it, why?

Well for starters social media drives more traffic than google these days, and Pinterest has surged to be the 3rd biggest social media site now, some websites report that pinterest drives them more traffic than facebook. But aside from the direct promotional benefits you also get some pretty kick ass seo value out of it. First off goggle is placing more and more emphasis on social media signals to influence search rankings and secondly every pinterest pin (and here's the important part - also REPIN) is a link back to the original image.

The main critea goggle uses to sort search results is backlinks. Every backlink your page, site, youtube video or STOCK IMAGE gets is counted by google as a vote for that page. It's a lot more complicated than that and there are many other factors but there is a reason we have so much blog comment spam and articles in online article databases that make no sense is because its the way spammers build backlinks to trick google into thinking their page is more important and more interesting/engaging than it is.

You clearly don't understand Google, SEO or Pinterest. 'Re-pinning' has no effect on SEO (not yours anyway) and if it does it will go against you because if you get enough backlinks on the same domain linking to the same page, Google treats it as spam and drops you off the search.

Only one backlink will be counted by Google and that's the first one. Your image that you 'pin' can 're-pinned' 5,000 times with the same link and still, only the first link will give you any juice, provided Google doesn't drop you for spamming. Furthermore, spamming is fast becoming popular on Pinterest and why wouldn't it? Spammers ('repinners') are taking full advantage of the site and are changing the link when 're-pinning' directing traffic to their own site. If 5,000 people 're-pin' your image and link it to their site, your image on your site will have to compete for a spot on Google against 5,000 others and these spammers obviously know a hell of a lot more about SEO than you do.

[ETA: Oh and I forgot to mention that people will also embed the image from those 5,000 're-pins' and say you may end up with another 5,000 people using your image. Google will include in their rankings those hotlinked images too, but they will be directed to their sites. So now your poor little single image on your site is suddenly competing with 10,000 others, all linking to different domains. Do you like Pinterest now?]

Quote

I'm sure 99% of the time in the pinner's mind they are doing something nice for you.

What planet are you on?

michaeldb · « **Reply #164 on:** June 02, 2012, 12:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 02, 2012, 02:21

Some of these sites will end up being worth millions or billions of dollars and it's appalling that they aren't paying anything for the copyright infringements on their sites.

This is the real problem. Not SEO or getting a quick cheap bump in Google Image search. It's about us losing our right to get paid for what we do.

"Pinterest might be the most illegal network to hit the Internet yet. More illegal than Napster. More illegal than Megaupload."
Business Insider
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-17/tech/31070312_1_copyright-holder-napster-youtube

Pinterest is pirates - they are part of a large and growing effort to get rid of copyright entirely. And the more money they get, the more they effectively will attack copyright itself. And so far they are winning. We can't afford to help them.

lisafx · « **Reply #165 on:** June 02, 2012, 14:06 »

Quote from: michaeldb on June 02, 2012, 12:14

Pinterest is pirates - they are part of a large and growing effort to get rid of copyright entirely. And the more money they get, the more they effectively will attack copyright itself. And so far they are winning. We can't afford to help them.

I agree completely. But how can we stop them???

Hummingbird · « **Reply #166 on:** June 02, 2012, 16:52 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 01, 2012, 21:12

The main critea goggle uses to sort search results is backlinks. Every backlink your page, site, youtube video or STOCK IMAGE gets is counted by google as a vote for that page. It's a lot more complicated than that and there are many other factors but there is a reason we have so much blog comment spam and articles in online article databases that make no sense is because its the way spammers build backlinks to trick google into thinking their page is more important and more interesting/engaging than it is.

[...] And then on top of that you are seeing real world seo and traffic driving benefits out of it. If it becomes popular and gets tens (or hundreds) of repins then that is tens or hundreds of votes for your image/page in google's eyes. It also makes any pages that page links to get a "stronger" vote from that page, and what pages do your images normally link to? Well your folio page for one, sometimes other pics of yours. So those backlinks that come in and make your image more important to google, also make it's votes more important which helps make your other shots more important. So in reality every pin (and repin) you get helps out your whole folio in a tiny/tiny/tiny way.

You haven't read this.

http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/nasty-linking-practices.html

Seriously. You have to read that article before you consider that Pinterest backlinks are good for you, and worse, telling people that Pinterest links are good for them.

grafix04 · « **Reply #167 on:** June 02, 2012, 20:43 »

Quote from: Hummingbird on June 02, 2012, 16:52

You haven't read this.

http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/nasty-linking-practices.html

Seriously. You have to read that article before you consider that Pinterest backlinks are good for you, and worse, telling people that Pinterest links are good for them.

Serban's BS speech about using the 'pin-it' button for SEO benefits made me believe that Pinterest don't use the nofollow attribute in their code. I'm surprised that they do. Those sneaky ratbags! Well that makes my example above useless because there are no SEO/PR gains from 'pinning'. Only for Pinterest.

So DT added the 'Pin-it' button without even doing any homework. They're encouraging people to infringe on our copyright, without any real benefit to us or to DT. 'Pinning' won't even bring in an valuable direct traffic as buyers don't hang around there. Anyone else there doesn't care about buying the image and they don't even need to click through to DT because they can grab the full size image directly from Pinterest.

It just gets worse.

antistock · « **Reply #168 on:** June 02, 2012, 23:13 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 02, 2012, 20:43

'Pinning' won't even bring in an valuable direct traffic as buyers don't hang around there. Anyone else there doesn't care about buying the image and they don't even need to click through to DT because they can grab the full size image directly from Pinterest.

It just gets worse.

their japanese VC, Rakuten, thinks it can be certainly junk traffic but it can be monetized somehow, said that i'm afraid the LAST thing their users will buy are images and RM/RF licences !

instead they could buy merchandising and prints, yes, like RedBubble, Zazzle, CafePress, good idea eh ? but who gave them any permission to do that ? what about copyright

unbelievable, and dont worry it's gonna end up like this soon, i wonder why they dont make a pinterest for pirated warez, with leechers pinning the last Photoshop CS6 and crack-ed versions of Windows 8 and OSX .. just click the button and download .. easy ... and forget about copyright, adapt or die as they say eh ?

i mean years are passing, piratebay has been condemned, megaupload has been condemned, and yet none of these guys are in prison or paid a single dollar ! piratebay guys fled overseas and moved their servers in ukraine, kim dotcom has been freed, the napster guy is millionaire and is also a small early investor of facebook, youtube is still there and so are flickr, google images, yahoo images, bing images, and the tons of warez sites like Heroturko.

what to do, really ..what to do ?
the whole internet is now just a place for po-rn, pirated videos, movies, music, photos, and software, no wonder is a success with young people, they just couldn't live without it and they will never go back to pay-per-view or pay-per-use, it's over .. it's game over.

antistock · « **Reply #169 on:** June 02, 2012, 23:25 »

Quote from: Hummingbird on June 02, 2012, 16:52

You haven't read this.

http://pinterest-out.blogspot.com/2012/05/nasty-linking-practices.html

Seriously. You have to read that article before you consider that Pinterest backlinks are good for you, and worse, telling people that Pinterest links are good for them.

after google's Panda and Penguin disruptive update is not clear what actually is still benefiting CEO and ranking authority.
links alone are no more the end and be all like in the past, and links on social network are now weighted in a way to rank a "social trend" so they don't count as much as real on authority web sites like being reviewed and linked on WSJ or NYT or CNN for instance.

antistock · « **Reply #170 on:** June 02, 2012, 23:25 »

Quote from: michaeldb on June 02, 2012, 12:14

Pinterest is pirates - they are part of a large and growing effort to get rid of copyright entirely. And the more money they get, the more they effectively will attack copyright itself. And so far they are winning. We can't afford to help them.

i agree.
and no matter how we look at this scenario artists are once again at the bottom of the food chain.

sharpshot · « **Reply #171 on:** June 03, 2012, 01:01 »

Quote from: antistock on June 02, 2012, 23:13

...what to do, really ..what to do ?
the whole internet is now just a place for po-rn, pirated videos, movies, music, photos, and software, no wonder is a success with young people, they just couldn't live without it and they will never go back to pay-per-view or pay-per-use, it's over .. it's game over.

So nobody ever buys music from places like iTunes or eBooks form Amazon?

There's a huge problem but I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be. There's also a big difference between people that were never likely to pay for an image and the commercial buyers that want to make sure they have a license.

grafix04 · « **Reply #172 on:** June 03, 2012, 03:14 »

Quote from: antistock on June 02, 2012, 23:13

their japanese VC, Rakuten, thinks it can be certainly junk traffic but it can be monetized somehow, said that i'm afraid the LAST thing their users will buy are images and RM/RF licences !

I get Rakuten’s interest in Pinterest and it makes sense for them to invest in them. Pinterest is a site for consumers and their collective pins are grouped in a meaningful way. With Pinterest, shopping sites don’t need to target consumers themselves. Instead, like-minded consumers target and attract each other and recommend products to each other sending them directly to the shopping sites. I get all that. For this scenario, it's a brilliant self-sufficient marketing tool. But, RF/RM don’t belong there. Consumers aren't interested in stock images. Even if they were, they wouldn't want to pay for them when they can find free images all over the net (even legitimately) that are 'good enough'. Even if commercial buyers used the site, it wouldn't be effective because image buyers don't say to one another , "hey buddy, check out this fanatastic image I licensed. My client loved it. You should license it too!" If anything, they prefer to license something that's new and hasn't been used a thousand times before.

If Pinterest cracks down on Pirates and puts procedures in place to deter them, it could be a fantastic site. It doesn’t make sense for them to continue risking litigation over copyright infringements when there is real potential to make money from the site legitimately – as affiliates from referrals. If I were heading the site, I wouldn't allow just any site to use the 'pin-it' button. I’d only allow sites to contract with Pinterest to use it. I certainly wouldn't allow any person to be able to 'pin' anything from the internet. I'd also put the onus and responsibility of the copyright to the website owners who used the button and have different types of 'pins' they can use. For instance, retailers who are happy for their images to be shared and distributed as a full sized image, could opt for a type of pin that does just that. Microstock sites or any site that hosts copyrighted images could opt to pin smaller thumbs only. They should lock the link so when a 'pin' is 're-pinned', no-one can change it. They should get rid of the embed code and they should re-word the site so that it doesn't contradict their terms and conditions.

Somewhere down the line, I'm hoping the law will crack down on them and they'll be forced to make these kind of changes. If they don’t, I agree with you, we're screwed. I have a feeling they'll change the way they operate when they begin to monetize the site. They're not a pirate site like megaupload. There is actually a real potential for them to make money legitimately, so why wouldn't they. In the meantime though, the site absolutely sucks for us.

grafix04 · « **Reply #173 on:** June 03, 2012, 03:18 »

Quote from: antistock on June 02, 2012, 23:25

after google's Panda and Penguin disruptive update is not clear what actually is still benefiting CEO and ranking authority.
links alone are no more the end and be all like in the past, and links on social network are now weighted in a way to rank a "social trend" so they don't count as much as real on authority web sites like being reviewed and linked on WSJ or NYT or CNN for instance.

Panda and Penguin came about to penalize spammers who use shifty SEO techniques like keyword stuffing. I wonder if they're likely to penalize Pinterest for their dodgy link practices? I hope so but in the eyes of Google, I'm not sure that it's dodgy enough.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #174 on:** June 03, 2012, 07:09 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:14

If Pinterest cracks down on Pirates and puts procedures in place to deter them, it could be a fantastic site. It doesn’t make sense for them to continue risking litigation over copyright infringements when there is real potential to make money from the site legitimately – as affiliates from referrals. If I were heading the site, I wouldn't allow just any site to use the 'pin-it' button. I’d only allow sites to contract with Pinterest to use it. I certainly wouldn't allow any person to be able to 'pin' anything from the internet. I'd also put the onus and responsibility of the copyright to the website owners who used the button and have different types of 'pins' they can use. For instance, retailers who are happy for their images to be shared and distributed as a full sized image, could opt for a type of pin that does just that. Microstock sites or any site that hosts copyrighted images could opt to pin smaller thumbs only. They should lock the link so when a 'pin' is 're-pinned', no-one can change it. They should get rid of the embed code and they should re-word the site so that it doesn't contradict their terms and conditions.

You're hired!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Game Over : Pinterest pirates gets 100 million $ ! (Read 57759 times)

ruxpriencdiam

neotakezo

Sean Locke Photography

traveler1116

Tabimura

neotakezo

Tabimura

neotakezo

Lagereek

sharpshot

drugal

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

grafix04

michaeldb

lisafx

Hummingbird

grafix04

antistock

antistock

antistock

sharpshot

grafix04

grafix04

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors