Author Topic: Game Over : Pinterest pirates gets 100 million $ ! (Read 57756 times)

antistock · « **Reply #175 on:** June 03, 2012, 21:21 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:18

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.

i dont think so, usually they hand-pick these big sites manually and mark them as "trusted".
pinterest is already an alexa top-50 site, at this point they don't really need any dodgy trick to rank high, they've got more than enough critical mass already.

grafix04 · « **Reply #176 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke 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!

Huh, thanks!

Who am I kidding, I would run them in the ground just for making me waste time sending lots of DMCAs and having to whine endlessly about them on this forum.

grafix04 · « **Reply #177 on:** June 04, 2012, 10:49 »

Quote from: antistock on June 03, 2012, 21:21

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:18
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.

i dont think so, usually they hand-pick these big sites manually and mark them as "trusted".
pinterest is already an alexa top-50 site, at this point they don't really need any dodgy trick to rank high, they've got more than enough critical mass already.

Yea, you're probably right, however I've seen articles written about them this year (as late as March in an article called 'Not Pinterested' from memory) where people have noted that they use 'dofollow' in their code. This means the sneaky sh!ts would have added the 'nofollow' recently. I wonder when they started using the other dirty link tricks and if Google's onto them?

neotakezo · « **Reply #178 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:30 »

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

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,

And that is different to being able to right click save and then reuse "willy nilly" how? People already surf blogs, save pictures and then post to facebook, image sharing sites, forums, their own blogs, myspaces etc etc..there is no new door that's being opened here...

But my point is that there is theft and there is theft. There are legitimate concerns out there like the companies that remove watermarks, or purchase under a regular license when they should have bought an EL, or more criminal are (some (mainly one) of) the stock sites themselves. Don't we have real concerns? Don't we have real enemies? Are a bunch of casual web browsers that were never going to be image buyers anyway collecting some of our shots that they like to show off their good taste to others really that big of a concern?

I think anyone who is getting upset about pinterest while tolerating Istock has their crap really, REALLY out of whack...

cathyslife · « **Reply #179 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:41 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 11:30

I think anyone who is getting upset about pinterest while tolerating Istock has their crap really, REALLY out of whack...

Well I don't agree with most of what you are saying. There is cause to be concerned about where this is all headed.

But I do agree with your above statement.

neotakezo · « **Reply #180 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:45 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 02, 2012, 05:52

RE: You clearly don't understand Google, SEO or Pinterest.

Really? funny, I'm about to say the same thing...

RE '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.

Absolute rubbish - ever hear of a blogroll link? millions of blogs around the world link to millions of other sites with blogroll links - these are sitewide links that link out from every page on a site...sites don't get banned from them. Sites get banned mainly due to unnatural backlink anchor profiles, ie all the inbound links to a page are anchored with whatever keyword the spammer is trying to rank for. Repins are perfectly safe to get in bulk though because they are anchored as images - there is no anchor text and so n chance of an anchor text penalty there and the anchor text that is used on them is the domain name from the site they were pinned on. Once again google doesn't "ban" sites for lots of links using their domain name, in fact they expect it. Whenever I've had a shot go viral on dA or 500px a whole bunch of bloggers will make posts sharing my shots and linking back to my site for my root domain name - it's never hurt me in the serps at all.

RE: Only one backlink will be counted by Google and that's the first one.

Once again you are wrong. Repeated backlinks from the same domain give diminished backlink power it's true, but they still give it. I have a page on 500px that is a PR 3, it has NO links to it from outside sources, only links from inside it's own domain. If only the first link to my page from the 500px domain was counted I'd have a n/a page...not a pr 3 page. It's a PR3 page though because I've had shots go viral and get on the front page of 500px and get hundreds of votes and faves, each one is a link back to that shot from the posters account and each shot links to my profile page, also every follwer of mine (about 1600 now) link back to my page from their friends page and to every new shot that I post from their friends photos pages....in the ends it's these thousands upon thousands of links from the ONE domain that make my page there a PR3...

As well as make article and blog comment spam, spammers also create online databases (rental property listings agregated off another site for instance) for the very purpose of creating sites with thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages they control, why? To create backlinks for their portfolio of money making sites...this wouldn't be a viable tactic if only one link from these data base sites counted...it doesn't, they all count and that's why they use them. The first one just counts more beacause as well as being a link it's also increasing the overall TLD (top level domain) profile linking into the page, which is one of the other high ranking factors.

RE: What planet are you on?

One where I do my research before I talk about a topic, you should join me....

grafix04 · « **Reply #181 on:** June 05, 2012, 11:58 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 11:45

Quote from: grafix04 on June 02, 2012, 05:52

RE: You clearly don't understand Google, SEO or Pinterest.

Really? funny, I'm about to say the same thing...

RE '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.

Absolute rubbish - ever hear of a blogroll link? millions of blogs around the world link to millions of other sites with blogroll links - these are sitewide links that link out from every page on a site...sites don't get banned from them. Sites get banned mainly due to unnatural backlink anchor profiles, ie all the inbound links to a page are anchored with whatever keyword the spammer is trying to rank for. Repins are perfectly safe to get in bulk though because they are anchored as images - there is no anchor text and so n chance of an anchor text penalty there and the anchor text that is used on them is the domain name from the site they were pinned on. Once again google doesn't "ban" sites for lots of links using their domain name, in fact they expect it. Whenever I've had a shot go viral on dA or 500px a whole bunch of bloggers will make posts sharing my shots and linking back to my site for my root domain name - it's never hurt me in the serps at all.

RE: Only one backlink will be counted by Google and that's the first one.

Once again you are wrong. Repeated backlinks from the same domain give diminished backlink power it's true, but they still give it. I have a page on 500px that is a PR 3, it has NO links to it from outside sources, only links from inside it's own domain. If only the first link to my page from the 500px domain was counted I'd have a n/a page...not a pr 3 page. It's a PR3 page though because I've had shots go viral and get on the front page of 500px and get hundreds of votes and faves, each one is a link back to that shot from the posters account and each shot links to my profile page, also every follwer of mine (about 1600 now) link back to my page from their friends page and to every new shot that I post from their friends photos pages....in the ends it's these thousands upon thousands of links from the ONE domain that make my page there a PR3...

As well as make article and blog comment spam, spammers also create online databases (rental property listings agregated off another site for instance) for the very purpose of creating sites with thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages they control, why? To create backlinks for their portfolio of money making sites...this wouldn't be a viable tactic if only one link from these data base sites counted...it doesn't, they all count and that's why they use them. The first one just counts more beacause as well as being a link it's also increasing the overall TLD (top level domain) profile linking into the page, which is one of the other high ranking factors.

RE: What planet are you on?

One where I do my research before I talk about a topic, you should join me....

Sorry, you're wrong

neotakezo · « **Reply #182 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:18

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.

Exactly what "dodgey link practices" are you reffering to?

neotakezo · « **Reply #183 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:03 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:18

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.

Also Penguin and Panda were more about duplicate content and inbound anchor link over-optimisation, nothing to do with keyword stuffing....that was taken care of years ago...

michaeldb · « **Reply #184 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:03 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 11:45

RE: What planet are you on?
One where I do my research before I talk about a topic, you should join me....

Research this:
"Pinterest might be the most illegal network to hit the Internet yet. More illegal than Napster. More illegal than Megaupload."
"...Media law attorney Itai Maytal, who's an associate at Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP, 'In its terms of use, Pinterest actually specifies that users shouldn't pin photos they don't own the rights to, a request that is being ignored to an absurd degree. Even if you link and attribute, that does NOT absolve you of the fact that you took someone else's work and re-appropriated it.'"
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-17/tech/31070312_1_copyright-holder-napster-youtube
Helping Pinterest destroy copyright because you get a little SEO bump, whether it's real or not, is like helping an invader destroy your country because sometimes they give you free candy.

grafix04 · « **Reply #185 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:07 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 12:00

Quote from: grafix04 on June 03, 2012, 03:18
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.

Exactly what "dodgey link practices" are you reffering to?

It all boils down to who's lazier. You, who can't be bothered reading the entire thread or other recent threads about Pinterest? Or me and others who can't be bothered repeating ourselves and wasting time and space. We win in this case. Read the thread and catch up and then get involved.

neotakezo · « **Reply #186 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:09 »

And well it MIGHT BE...as your article post says.

I'm not arguing whether they are breeching copyright, they well MIGHT be...I'm saying I don't care. Firstly because, well I DON'T care, and secondly because it isn't worth caring. Web 2.0 and social media, online sharing etc...that's way bigger than any one company, any small band of photographers that don't even get taken seriously by some of their own agencies. It's the way the internet is surging...like it or not it ain't about to stop. If we all banded together then MAYBE we could get better conditions at some of our agencies, but wasting time and energy fighting the next facebook....isn't there more productive things to do with your time? Something that might actualy yield a result? (other than frustration)

cathyslife · « **Reply #187 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:16 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 12:09

And well it MIGHT BE...as your article post says.

I'm not arguing whether they are breeching copyright, they well MIGHT be...I'm saying I don't care. Firstly because, well I DON'T care, and secondly because it isn't worth caring. Web 2.0 and social media, online sharing etc...that's way bigger than any one company, any small band of photographers that don't even get taken seriously by some of their own agencies. It's the way the internet is surging...like it or not it ain't about to stop. If we all banded together then MAYBE we could get better conditions at some of our agencies, but wasting time and energy fighting the next facebook....isn't there more productive things to do with your time? Something that might actualy yield a result? (other than frustration)

Well, it's OK if you don't want to care. There are plenty of us who DO care, and if it weren't for this forum, and the people talking about it, most of us might not even know about it. So I don't consider this whole discussion a waste of time or energy AT ALL. For me, it is productive to be here. I wonder why, if you DON'T care, are you wasting your time and energy here? I see that you are a new user here. Are you a partner in, or associated with, pintere$t at all? Because it kind of sounds like you are, from your posts.

neotakezo · « **Reply #188 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:29 »

I'm a '"new" user that's been here a couple years. Yes....I'm a sneaky pinterst emplyee that forsaw this debate and registered an account here in advance back in 2008...try looking up the date I joined rather than just my post count.

As for why I'm commenting here? Well pretty much because I see what seems to be a lot of misplaced anger and there's certainly some serious misinformation (especially about the SEO elements and benifits to pinning and repinning) that would be better off corrected, or atleast I saw a discussion that was overwhelmingly one sided and to which I might be able to bring a fresh perspective and something new to think about. But I see my perspective isn't particularly welcome...

And so an equally valid answer to that question (seeing as only the people who share the majority opinion seem to get treated with respect) is: Bloody good question...

neotakezo · « **Reply #189 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:31 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:07

It all boils down to who's lazier. You, who can't be bothered reading the entire thread or other recent threads about Pinterest? Or me and others who can't be bothered repeating ourselves and wasting time and space. We win in this case. Read the thread and catch up and then get involved.

He get's shown how much rubbish he's speaking (rudely too I might add) and he get's snarky....fair enough...

Seeing as it's SEO school here for people that think they already know all about it: Sites are "banned" (actually this almost never happens) generally only for linking out to really nasty pages or hosting malware etc. What is more common is a penalty, which is normally applied to just the keyword term in question. So if a page is very highly optimised for "stock phtography" and has an inbound link profile where 50% of the links coming in are text and anchored as "stock photography" then that page might get a -50 pr -100 (whatever) penalty in google for the keyterm "stock photography" or closely related terms. However search for "*site name* royalty free images" or a unique block of copy from that page and it would still show up.

However this penalty is still about inbound links. I've skimmed over much of this thread now and a couple others...I haven't seen anything mentioned about pinterst manipulating search results with "dodgey" inbound links and they as are the only ones that would cause a penalty and as I also haven't seen anything about pinterest hosting malware I was genuinely asking what link practices you are talking about...I apologise if I missed the post(s) you were talking about but I guess a bit of courtesy is too much to ask for (though that's been obvious from your first reply to me).

cathyslife · « **Reply #190 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 12:29

I'm a '"new" user that's been here a couple years. Yes....I'm a sneaky pinterst emplyee that forsaw this debate and registered an account here in advance back in 2008...try looking up the date I joined rather than just my post count.

As for why I'm commenting here? Well pretty much because I see what seems to be a lot of misplaced anger and there's certainly some serious misinformation (especially about the SEO elements and benifits to pinning and repinning) that would be better off corrected, or atleast I saw a discussion that was overwhelmingly one sided and to which I might be able to bring a fresh perspective and something new to think about. But I see my perspective isn't particularly welcome...

And so an equally valid answer to that question (seeing as only the people who share the majority opinion seem to get treated with respect) is: Bloody good question...

When your posts showed before, there were no gauges beneath it and it said new member. No, didn't go investigate further. Don't care that much, was only going by what was showing. But sorry for the mistake. And I don't think I have said anything disrespectful to you, so I will assume that your post above is talking to other people. And no, not everyone is going to agree with you. But I do like to hear both sides of the story.

edit: and since most people here are anonymous, people like me don't have a clue to ANY of the posters' credentials...how would I know which one of you knows what you are talking about? for that matter, you both could be full of $hit and I wouldn't know.

grafix04 · « **Reply #191 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:43 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 12:31

Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:07
It all boils down to who's lazier. You, who can't be bothered reading the entire thread or other recent threads about Pinterest? Or me and others who can't be bothered repeating ourselves and wasting time and space. We win in this case. Read the thread and catch up and then get involved.

He get's shown how much rubbish he's speaking (rudely too I might add) and he get's snarky....fair enough...

Seeing as it's SEO school here for people that think they already know all about it: Sites are "banned" (actually this almost never happens) generally only for linking out to really nasty pages or hosting malware etc. What is more common is a penalty, which is normally applied to just the keyword term in question. So if a page is very highly optimised for "stock phtography" and has an inbound link profile where 50% of the links coming in are text and anchored as "stock photography" then that page might get a -50 pr -100 (whatever) penalty in google for the keyterm "stock photography" or closely related terms. However search for "*site name* royalty free images" or a unique block of copy from that page and it would still show up.

However this penalty is still about inbound links. I've skimmed over much of this thread now and a couple others...I haven't seen anything mentioned about pinterst manipulating search results with "dodgey" inbound links and they as are the only ones that would cause a penalty and as I also haven't seen anything about pinterest hosting malware I was genuinely asking what link practices you are talking about...I apologise if I missed the post(s) you were talking about but I guess a bit of courtesy is too much to ask for (though that's been obvious from your first reply to me).

The link was given to you by hummingbird, which you conveniently skipped, just like you skipped over most of what I wrote to you. I'm not here to be courteous to people who are rude and obnoxious. You said you don't care about this issue. Odd that you care that we care. It's our property and our copyright. What makes you think we care that you don't care? It's like you coming in here and saying you don't care that my house burns down. You don't have to care, I care though, it's my property. And I don't know what your portfolio is like. Perhaps it's full of worthless junk since you don't care too much about it. But I and others care about our property. You not caring about your property is completely irrelevant to how we feel about ours. So move on. If you don't care, stop being a child and move on and let us discuss an issue that involves OUR property.

pancaketom · « **Reply #192 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:44 »

My main complaint with Pinterest is that they lend a veneer of legality to essentially giving our work away for free. If someone else tags my work that is in violation of copyright law, but once that happens as far as pinterest is concerned they now have permission to give that work away for free. Unless I find and send a DMCA notice they feel free to give my work away.

I am much less concerned with watermarked images because at least they are obviously from somewhere else.

Right now it is probably mostly people pinning images they like, but at some point in the future it could easily become the go to site for bloggers and web designers looking for free images. Pinterest would be fine with that, we would lose.

The difference with someone right clicking or using a screen shot to get the image to use is that they are actively stealing the image. Pinterest encourages people to pin the beautiful things they see on the web (glossing over the fact that they aren't really allowed to pin anything they don't own copyright to) and then encourages others to use those images they have pinned. Once they have been pinned and re-pinned a few times they can get lost from their original source and essentially become the property of pinterest. If there is a legal problem pinterest will hide behind their TOS and try to blame the original pinners.

As far as the SEO stuff goes, I am not sure that giving away our images to Pinterest is worth the boost in SEO, certainly not without a big fat watermark.

With a few tweaks pinterest could make itself much more friendly to content creators and remove most of my objections, but they don't want to do that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #193 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:51 »

Quote from: pancaketom on June 05, 2012, 12:44

My main complaint with Pinterest is that they lend a veneer of legality to essentially giving our work away for free. If someone else tags my work that is in violation of copyright law, but once that happens as far as pinterest is concerned they now have permission to give that work away for free. Unless I find and send a DMCA notice they feel free to give my work away.

One of the main issues, exactly.

Quote

Right now it is probably mostly people pinning images they like, but at some point in the future it could easily become the go to site for bloggers and web designers looking for free images. Pinterest would be fine with that, we would lose.

At some point in the future?

Quote

The difference with someone right clicking or using a screen shot to get the image to use is that they are actively stealing the image. Pinterest encourages people to pin the beautiful things they see on the web (glossing over the fact that they aren't really allowed to pin anything they don't own copyright to) and then encourages others to use those images they have pinned. Once they have been pinned and re-pinned a few times they can get lost from their original source and essentially become the property of pinterest. If there is a legal problem pinterest will hide behind their TOS and try to blame the original pinners.

Right. Here is a mega-corporation actively inciting constant infringement, teaching millions that is ok to do whatever you like until you get caught. Much different than Sally down the street grabbing one image here or there for themselves.

neotakezo · « **Reply #194 on:** June 05, 2012, 14:59 »

Quote from: cclapper on June 05, 2012, 12:40

And I don't think I have said anything disrespectful to you, so I will assume that your post above is talking to other people.

You assumed correctly, I certainly wasn't talking about you.

neotakezo · « **Reply #195 on:** June 05, 2012, 15:25 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:43

Odd that you care that we care. It's our property and our copyright.

Mine too, I still make a large chunk of my income through stock photography.

RE What makes you think we care that you don't care?

What makes you think that anyone cares about anything you write? This is a forum mate, people express their opinons and sometimes *shock horror* those opinions are at odds.

ShadySue · « **Reply #196 on:** June 05, 2012, 15:31 »

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 15:25

Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:43
Odd that you care that we care. It's our property and our copyright.

Mine too, I still make a large chunk of my income through stock photography.

So run past me again ...
How does it benefit you or me, as stock sellers, if pinterest pins our photo from a site other than our agency's whereby the only way of a potential buyer finding us would be for them to use GIS?

neotakezo · « **Reply #197 on:** June 05, 2012, 15:54 »

Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:43

The link was given to you by hummingbird, which you conveniently skipped,

The link provided by hummingbird has nothing whatsoever to do with inbound links...did you read it yourself? Seriously man, you gotta stop smoking whatever it is your are smoking....

It's about the fact that their OUTBOUND links are no-follow and their INTERNAL links are do-follow...and the argument (or at least so it seems to me) is totally irrelevant as there's nothing "illegal" about making outbound links nofollow. Wordpress blog comments are nofollow by default, TWITTER links are nofollow...gee, wordpress and twitter must be breaking the law too...*rolls eyes*

Although I must admit that the nofollow bit was something I didn't know. I actually read somewhere not long ago that pinterest links were DOfollow...guess they changed things up at some point. And this admittedly does give the site less power seo wise, but still not zero as that article is claiming - it's been proven that no follow links do still help out a page, just not anywhere near so much as do follow links. Google still records them and it knows how many do follow links a page has and how many no follow (this too is where you need diversity - if all your links are do-follow that isn't natural, so nofollow links are important to keep your back link profile out of the nasty crosshairs of google's algorithm). Twitter links are no-follow and they can help sites enormously in the serps (which is why there are so many spammers on twitter) Still I must admit to disappointment at reading the no follow thing. However I'm no lawyer, but no follow out bound links are laughably far from illegal and also the "poor anchor" text link that that article talks about hurting a site is also total rubbish. Even more so these days in the era of Penguin we need more and more naked url non-anchored links, because that is what the search engines see as natural.

And more links from social media is what the google counts as being interesting and engaging to viewers....for a reason, the internet is turning more and more toward social networks, and so each google algorithm upgrade tends to mirror and use that data by becoming more and more influenced by social signals. Which is part of why twitter (and I hope now pinterest too) can considerably help SEO wise even with no follow links.

neotakezo · « **Reply #198 on:** June 05, 2012, 16:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 05, 2012, 15:31

Quote from: neotakezo on June 05, 2012, 15:25
Quote from: grafix04 on June 05, 2012, 12:43
Odd that you care that we care. It's our property and our copyright.

Mine too, I still make a large chunk of my income through stock photography.

So run past me again ...
How does it benefit you or me, as stock sellers, if pinterest pins our photo from a site other than our agency's whereby the only way of a potential buyer finding us would be for them to use GIS?

It doesn't.

But it does (potentially) help you every time someone pins your image (or repins it subsequently) from your stock folio, or your website etc. And I still reckon that if someone is going to steal an image for their blog sure they might go to pinterest, or they might go to google images, or devient art, or 500px...they are all collections of pretty photos, or a million other places online...someone that's going to share/steal a photo is going to share/steal it they aren't going to go and buy one for 50cents or even 5cents. So what have you lost if/when they do?

Worth the trade off in my mind as I really don't see how anyone pinning your image can hurt you, even if it comes from a blog somewhere with no link back to you. Doesn't help doesn't hurt...but pins from your stock sites or own site have the potential to help. Pretty easy maths equation in my mind.

neotakezo · « **Reply #199 on:** June 05, 2012, 16:18 »

edit: duplicate post

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Game Over : Pinterest pirates gets 100 million $ ! (Read 57756 times)

antistock

grafix04

grafix04

neotakezo

cathyslife

neotakezo

grafix04

neotakezo

neotakezo

michaeldb

grafix04

neotakezo

cathyslife

neotakezo

neotakezo

cathyslife

grafix04

pancaketom

Sean Locke Photography

neotakezo

neotakezo

ShadySue

neotakezo

neotakezo

neotakezo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors