Friday, August 31, 2012

Can You Unpin On Pinterest?

Yes, you can unpin an image from Pinterest!

  1. Hover your cursor over the thumbnail or the full-size image that you want to UNPIN.
  2. Click on the EDIT button that appears on the top left.
  3. Remind yourself that you are doing the right thing to help content creators to survive.
  4. Click on the DELETE PIN button on the top right.
  5. You're done, and thank you on behalf of all publishers.

Unfortunately, if the image has been repinned, you can't delete that from other people's boards, and presumably, you're not off the hook for copyright infringement, as the repinning leaves a trace of your actions.

unpin delete pinterest

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Pinterest Clears Its Throat

Ahem!

There is a change on Pinterest on how pins taken from search engine results are identified. Whereas only the result page URL was recorded before, now, the image links still leads to the result page, but Pinterest has added a link to the original source.

As usual, Pinterest is the master of half-arsed measures. Why is Pinterest accepting pins from search engines images at all? And if they are accepting such pins, and recording the original source, why are they not respecting their own proprietary nopin metatag?

That's right; the bozos handling the programming aren't respecting the nopin metatag when users pin from search engine image results.

Cough, cough.

Adding insult to injury, the new link to the source is given a "nofollow" attribute, rendering it useless to the content creator.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Please Please Oh Pretty Please

Will Pinterest Suffer From the Same Over-Hype as Groupon?
...for now, it just looks like another Internet fad of the moment -- the start-up that has caught the eyes of the investors who no longer like the looks of their previous investments.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Tentacular Exploitation Of Your Content

Google's web browser Chrome now offers an "extension" to enhance your copyright infringement experience: Pinterest Pro.

Notably, this extension lets the users "hover over pins on Pinterest and instantly get a zoomed in version without having to click through" further diminishing the low rate at which pinners click through to the original site.

There is also a new app allowing people to pin images from their iPhone or iPad, god forbid the copyright infringement should slow down when pinners are on the go: Pinterest App.

Monday, August 27, 2012

ABC News Spews Uncritical Pinterest Hype

Good Morning America Hypes Pinterest

Not a word said on how all these wonderful things on Pinterest actually come from some place else - like your website.

Pinterest Is Blocking Imgur?

Some "redditors" report that Pinterest is blocking social media image hosting site Imgur.com: Pinterest blocking Imgur now. Not happy about that.

If Pinterest is blocking Imgur because of stolen pictures and missing descriptions, by the same logic, Pinterest should block itself and vanish in a cloud of smoke - like Captain Kirk getting evil computers to implode when confronted with illogical statements.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

The Disclaimer Making The Repin Rounds

The disclaimer below has been making the rounds; it's being repinned on a great number of boards. It is misguided and wrong on so many levels; it embodies the ignorance of copyright laws among Pinterest users.
NOTICE

This notice is to inform any and all Pinterest users I lay no claim as originator of any content included herein. The images here are not my creative product, nor do I intend to sell or profit from the creative and intellectual property of another. My sole goal is to appreciate, advance and promote awareness of content pinned herein.
>>> Original Pin

copyright disclaimer pinterest>
<div style='clear: both;'></div>
</div>
<div class='post-footer'>
<div class='post-footer-line post-footer-line-1'><span class='post-author vcard'>
Posted by
<span class='fn'>
<a href='https://www.blogger.com/profile/04547449968402945578' itemprop='author' rel='author' title='author profile'>
A Glass Artist
</a>
</span>
</span>
<span class='post-timestamp'>
at
<a class='timestamp-link' href='http://pinterest-out.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-disclaimer-making-repin-rounds.html' itemprop='url' rel='bookmark' title='permanent link'><abbr class='published' itemprop='datePublished' title='2012-08-26T20:15:00-04:00'>8:15 PM</abbr></a>
</span>
<span class='post-comment-link'>
<a class='comment-link' href='https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4995107919527402869&postID=3844177022733718552' onclick=''>0
comments</a>
</span>
<span class='post-icons'>
<span class='item-control blog-admin pid-411363520'>
<a href='https://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=4995107919527402869&postID=3844177022733718552&from=pencil' title='Edit Post'>
<img alt='' class='icon-action' height='18' src='https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif' width='18'/>
</a>
</span>
</span>
<div class='post-share-buttons goog-inline-block'>
<a class='goog-inline-block share-button sb-email' href='https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=4995107919527402869&postID=3844177022733718552&target=email' target='_blank' title='Email This'><span class='share-button-link-text'>Email This</span></a><a class='goog-inline-block share-button sb-blog' href='https://www.blogger.com/share-post.g?blogID=4995107919527402869&postID=3844177022733718552&target=blog' onclick='window.open(this.href,

Copyright Infringement Is A Contagious Disease

There is now a blog (pinterestrends.blogspot.com) that is apparently devoted to scraping content from Pinterest, the popular crowdsourced content scraper, with the infuriating disclaimer below:
All the items posted on this blog were found on Pinterest, and the copyright of each remains with its originator. If you are the owner of an image and you want remove it, please contact bicyclenthusiast [at] gmail.com
Further investigations reveal that the blog uploads the images from Pinterest to the blogspot servers, and doesn't link to either the Pinterest page or the original source. Further, the text is unashamedly infringing on other websites; this "blog" is part scaper, and scraper of scraper.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Blog Roundup

Stop Using Pinterest For Affiliate Marketing Now

Google pledges to deprecate sites with a lot of copyright infringement complaints from its result pages:
Search Engine to Penalize Sites Accused of Copyright Infringement

Some easy-to-follow instructions to de-list your infringing links from Google Web Search. Note that your material must be discovered through Google Web Search for this to work:
How to DMCA : Google Web Search, De-Listing Infringing Links

Pinterest: Nice Pictures of Real Traffic Generation?

3 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Advertise on Pinterest

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

You've Been Crowdsourced

There is a new word in the dictionnary!

Crowdsourcing.

To make a sentence, Pinterest is crowdsourcing the scraping of third party content and the responsibility for the resulting copyright infringement to its obsessed, compulsive users.

pinterest

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Good Pinning Etiquette Is Pinning Your Own Stuff Only

Read up on the PhotoAttorney.com website!
  • I didn’t make any money from the infringement.
  • I didn’t know it was copyrighted.
  • If it’s on the web, then it’s public domain unless clearly marked otherwise.
  • I gave credit to the photographer.
  • I took it down when asked.
None of the above will help a pinner in court.

Especially if the pin board is decorated with the "disclaimer" no-copyright-infringement-intended-none-of-the-pictures-are-mine.

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Pinranker: Your Spamming Gateway


Automated copyright infringement for profit


Pinranker is a software that allows you to spam the pinning daylights out of Pinterest. Simply highlight a radio button to grab random images from Google, Yahoo, Flickr and even Youtube videos based on the search query of your choice, and Pinranker will automate pins, repins, and embed your Amazon affiliate code (not sure why, since Pinterest is stripping them off).

Copyright infringement is now automated via spambots, thanks to Pinterest. Oh, what a beautiful thing you've "created," Ben Silbermann.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Catch Me If You Can

It's not only Zoe Parks; many pinners choose to boldly acknowledge their copyright infringing ways, entreating content creators to contact them if they want their images removed.

This catch-me-if-you-can attitude to copyright is quite burdensome for content creators. The infringers post images with uncontrolled hubris, surrendering broad rights to the corporate entity that is Pinterest, and their creators are supposed to monitor these millions of pins for infringement, and of course ask nicely that the images be removed.

The disclaimers are ineffective, other than you help potential litigious artists to spot willful infringement. Someone that admits to infringement cannot claim, in a court, that they didn't know. Yet, like voodoo, these magical words are assumed to protect one against the legal evil eye.

Nan Johnson


Ana Martins


Therese Galilei Rousch
This pinner uses the magic catch-me-if-you-can disclaimer at least 3 times, she must believe in its effectiveness.
...and a one!

...and a two!

In artsy-fartsy side of me... one wonders who's side it is, Mrs. Rousch's, or that of other people?

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Pinirony

"Sinful Colors and the sinful copyright infringement, stealing blogger’s pictures"
Yes, this comment is on a pin. Is copyright only wrong when other people do it?

Friday, August 10, 2012

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

More Hot Water For Pinterest

According to Minneapolis lawfirm Barnes & Thornburg LLP, writing for the National Law Forum, commercially sponsored pins could land Pinterest in hot water, for issues having nothing to so with copyright, but with the disclaimers that are required with health claims.
Recently NAD [National Advertising Division] issued a decision regarding the newly popular website Pinterest.[...] NAD began following Nutrisystem, Inc.’s weight-loss success stories pinned to such boards. These stories had express claims regarding consumer’s weight loss success, including the consumer’s name, total weight loss, and a link to the Nutrisystem website.

[...] NAD found that it was undisputed that these pins represented consumer testimonials, and, as such, these pins should be accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure noting the typical results consumers can expect to achieve using the Nutrisystem weight loss program.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Let The Fancy Crush Pinterest

According to Slahsgear, Apple is courting The Fancy towards an acquisition. This is great news for artists and content providers, as The Fancy, another image hoarding platform, is unashamedly geared towards selling merchandise, and allows private boards.

Let's face it, the transparent commercialism of The Fancy makes it less likely to run afoul of copyright laws than Pinterest, who rejects "self-promotion" and encourages its users to upload other people's photographs and artwork to its servers.

It would be surprising if the Pinterest crowd were to migrate to The Fancy, as they are reputed to look abundantly, and buy scarcely. They can't afford the thing... but they can own the picture.

One can always hope.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Another Step On A Copyright Landmine

Diane James, author of "The Buzz," a home craft blog with a botanical twist, recently ran afoul of Getty Images.
Needless to say, while we were able to negotiate the fine down to $700 from $875, we’re still floored. [...] we’ve been very careful to attribute and link every image we use to its original source. Please know that this is not enough to protect you from copyright infringement[...]. What if this image were taken from Pinterest? Hmm…
The irony, of course, is that this page where Pinterest aggregates photographs from Getty Images is allowed to exist, unmolested by the famous stock photography licensing company.



Still, I love how Pinterest tries to point search engines into thinking that the gettyimages.com website is located on Pinterest's aggregation page http://pinterest.com/source/gettyimages.com, in a header3 tag, no less.

Pinterest and Getty Images do deserve each other, but sadly, this is at the expense of hard working photographers.

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Will The Real Troll Please Stand Up?

The expression "copyright troll" is applied to content creators that enforce their copyright by sending infringers cease-and-desist letters that include a demand for financial compensation for damages along with threat of further legal conflict.

One's eyes never need to stray far from the words "copyright troll" to find the inevitable "innocent infringer."

There is, of course, a chasm between the gravity of rape and the gravity of copyright infringement, but the engrained blame-the-victim culture bears comparison.

A case in point is the ExtortionLetter.info forum which now has a whole section entirely dedicated to the vilification of writer Linda Ellis who makes liberal use of copyright law to maintain exclusivity in the distribution of her poem about tombstones called "The Dash." The section was created after charity auctioneer April Brown, having received a cease-and-desist letter from Ellis, flinched violently when poked, and made considerable noise on the internet. Derision of Ellis is typically accompanied with sentimental protestations of the innocence of infringers, and glorification of those that complaint loudly when caught.

An offshoot website adds little to the discussion other than a garrulous collection of graphic depictions of Ellis stuck in a toilet or with green skin, creating confusion about who the trolls are in the dispute: Ellis, or her detractors?


In the copyright infringer's utopia,
author Linda Ellis is a green witch.


What are content creators supposed to do in cases of infringement, according to the copyright-troll police? According to a poster on the ExtortionLetter forum,
If it appears that they did not re-sell the image or make profit off the use of the poem, then I suggest a small monetary payment - $200 is my suggestion[...]. If they don't take it down, then she is justified in asking for $7500 as it becomes a willful infringement. If they take it down but ignore the request for $200, a follow up letter seeking more damages -perhaps $500 now can be sent [...]. These amounts still make an enforcement program profitable but not extortionate.
This idealized course of action is utterly absurd.

Suppose a content creator were to send, as suggested, a cease-and-desist letter in his own name asking for $200. How many people would respond to such a request, coming from an individual rather than a law firm? None.

How many people would insist on keeping the image, and therefore considered willful infringers? One would suspect, very, very few.

That would make copyright laws entirely useless. If this was common practice, no one would ever worry about infringing copyright since there would be virtually no penalty incurred when caught. Once people become aware of the potential costs of falling into a random copyright speed trap, they police themselves with their own fear. Take that fear away, and we're left with unbridled copyright infringement and content creators everywhere spending considerable amounts of time chasing their content and sending polite letters.

In the copyright infringer's utopia, they are all innocent, and their actions are devoid of consequence. Content creators are expected to give their content for free, or spend half their time shaking their index fingers in disapproval. Not only this, but everyone can infringe with total impunity upon anyone's intellectual property if it's not for profit!


It's not clear who is trolling who.


This begs the question of why content creators don't ask for "reasonable" sums say, under a thousand dollars. Truth is, once they reach the exasperation point of sending cease-and-desist letters, they have already paid their attorney a sum that varies between $1000-1500. If they only want to strike fear in the hearts of infringers, and just break even, they need to ask for at least that amount. Typically, law firms will charge $150 per hour to negotiate with the infringing party. The content creator doesn't know ahead of time how much time will be spent in negotiations, therefore, the amount requested from the infringer will reflect this, and cover the risk, of at least a very conservative 5 hours of lawyer's time, propelling the demand in the $1750-2250 range. Now we need some negotiation headroom, doubling the amount to $3500-4500. Add the risk of further litigation, and the costs involved. Even if a court rules in the favor of the artist, some infringers simply don't have the ability to pay.

This is for an artist merely wanting to break even in the conflict; he'd be wise to ask for a little more, if only to avoid a deficit. Given all the risks, the economics of cease-and-desist letters require that the amounts asked be at least in the vicinity of $10,000 - most of which will go towards leather seats in the attorney's new BMW, and very little in the artist's pocket, if anything.

Next post: choosing appropriate recipients for cease-and-desist letters to send the strongest possible message to pinners that YES, they can be sued, and it's not cheap.