Funny thing about the Internet there is always some new site or technology or comes along that scares the pants off photographers. Enter Pinterest the latest site to get photographers up in arms about copyright infringement, image theft and wasted marketing efforts.
What is a Pinterest?
Pinterest is a social media site that you create a virtual pinboard to share and reshare items online that you like. You can share products, blog posts, images, artwork, etc. In a nutshell its a creatively packaged visual bookmarking site.
What are the concerns?
- Images that are shared on Pinterest are duplicates and hosted on Pinterest versus the site they were found on.
- Image thumbnails are pushing the boundaries of accepted norms and can be up to 600 pixels wide (horizontal image) or 900 pixels tall (vertical image).
- The demographic of Pinterest users is not for photographers and it’s wasted time and effort.
- The terms of service is a rights grab
Why the Concerns are Over Blown
- The Interent revolves around sharing images, so to worry about Pinterest repackaging search results or bookmarks into Pinboards is a serious waste of time. Before the first modern web browser, Mosaic, there was Lynx a text based web-browser that I had the unfortunate privilege of using back in the day. If you’re not familiar with Lynx that is because the Internet sucked when you could only browse content by text and likely the reason you were never on the web to begin with. Being able to browse and view images and other media types have made the Internet attractive to a broader audience after all we’re visual creatures. The nature of the Internet is to share duplicated files. This happens every second of the day via social media sites, RSS, blogs, etc. Digital copies are how the Internet works. As long as a company is using images to display content, respecting copyright of the artists, as they go about creating their community, then photographers should be a little more flexible and realize bookmarking via pinboards is in essence a referral system.
- Several years ago there was a legal challenge filed against Google by a porn site where copyright infringement was claimed because thumbnails of images were shown. To make a long story short the courts upheld the ability of Google to display thumbnails in search results as they felt the work was transformed enough to warrant it and likely would fall under Fair Use. No where was there a determination of what size constituted a thumbnail and the major factor swaying the finding was how the content was framed. Was the content hosted on a server (server test) or was it visually incorporated (incorporation test) to direct people to servers Google couldn’t control? How Pinterest would fall out on this I have no idea and frankly no one will until a judge weighs in and there is a legal fight over it. So bottom line how big the thumbnail is really is a non-issue, but whether Pinterest would be able to claim fair use of its duplication of images is to be determined. If you’re on the fence to wait years to see how the outcome of this challenge that may never happen turns out I’ll be seeing you in my rear view mirror as I motor past you promoting my services.
- Pinterest demographics are predominantly female (82%) and between the ages of 25-54. Is that your target audience? Will the audience expand to other demographics and is Pinterest a waste of time to photographers?
A short story… I joined Twitter early and didn’t see the value in it. I quit Twitter and didn’t revisit it for several months as the demographic and seemingly generic functionality of the site seemed like a complete mismatch. It wasn’t until later that Twitter’s value clicked for me and the population of users completely transformed over time. Needless to say I find Twitter to be of great use as the community using Twitter helped shape it over time (hashtags, @replies, etc.)
It’s early for Pinterest so to rule it out as a waste of time for photographers is premature to say.
- A new web site, a new technology, and a new round of fear, uncertainty an doubt (FUD) as it relates to rights grabs and misunderstandings around Terms of Service. If you’re concerned about this check out my article How I Evaluate Terms of Service for Social Media Web Sites. The information in this post helped many with the frenzy surrounding Google+ when it launched and I’m sure it will help those concerned about Pinterest as well. Don’t get me wrong I think Pinterest can tighten up their Terms of Use and they will. They’re a young company. In fact a little heat on them is a good thing as it will prompt them to straighten things out sooner than later, but there is nothing I see in their ToS that makes me want to run for the hills just yet.
Moral of the Story
Photographers need to look beyond their own nose when it comes to social media web sites and copyright concerns. I’ve written about a fair number of photography rights grabs here on my blog and there have certainly been cases where there have been egregious violations of copyright that photographers should have been concerned about. By and large Pinterest has not proven to me they fit in that category. In addition social media web sites and the Internet as a whole are great tools to be exploited by photographers. Don’t be afraid of having your work seen. If you look beyond your own nose you’ll see these new tools and sites can be creatively applied to enhance your business versus kill it. Being creative isn’t just about taking photos its about creatively enabling your work to be found.
So how am I going to be using Pinterest? Check out The Dirt on Pinterest – What You Should Really Know via my Letter.ly newsletter Contagious Creativity.
A little about my Contagious Creativity and why I put it together.
In the meantime you can find me on Pinterest at http://pinterest.com/jimgoldstein/
Related Reading:
Hey Photographers! Pinterest is Not for You
Great post, Jim. I have to agree with everything you’re saying. While I still haven’t fully embraced Pinterest yet, it’s more because of a motivational aspect rather than fear of the ToS. I can’t imagine any company that wants to be anything these days building up a library of other people’s copyrighted works and then just turning around and doing something dishonest with them. It’s never made sense to me and it would completely bankrupt them overnight as well as ruining any future potential for anything they wanted to do thereafter.
I don’t really have an issue with the first three items but the 4th is a biggy. It’s the only social media site I know of that has an explicit agreement in the terms & conditions that you grant them a royalty free licence to sell any member contributed data.
Royalty free licences for storage and display are normal (and required to protece the network) but the inclusion of that single word (sell) in the terms and conditions makes me currently very unlikely to use it.
All fair points, Jim, though none of these elements ever posed a problem for me.
I am sure Pinterest will turn out to be very useful to many (case in point, check out Trey Ratcliffe’s post on this). However, the question it raises for me is: do we need another social medium? How many can a person spread over before losing one’s sanity…I am on G+ and on Twitter and recently closed my FB account. Is one better than the other? I don’t think so, I think they do different things for different people. It’s just that for me, I decided two sites were enough, end of story. I frankly do not have any intention to join Pinterest. Not because I am afraid, not because I don’t want to try something new, not because my images will be stolen. It’s simply because I can’t afford the time…
Royalty free license is in relation to use of the content on their site. The sell aspect is very likely their ability to sell the user data they collect about behavior and trends versus actually selling uploaded images. Note also they do make their money by employing Skimlinks to insert affiliate links. That is how they make money versus actually reselling small images that people share.
The key here is “…only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services. ” All those nasty terms that make photographers uneasy are only in relation to the microcosm that is their community.
Thanks for the comment Mike. Their focus, as you know, for revenue is via other means not selling images submitted by their community.
Well there is always that. At some point you hit a threshold of what you can and want to do online. That is natural. There’s always a point where activity online hits a point of diminishing returns. Thanks for the comment!
At this time the wording is far to broad and whilst the intent might be to cover the user data (which yes is entirely networks to trade) it currently covers any and all content.
The small thumbnailing of the images does somewhat offset the threat of this being a major issue but the wording should be tweaked to be more accurate about the sell component.
Jim, agreed on all points. I also read you response to the post on PhotoShelter and, in comments, agreed with you there and added a few of my own points.
The value of Pinterest or any social media platform is up to the individual/business to determine. A journey occurs online for many types of purchases that involves research, social validation, and eventually (maybe) a purchase. In the case of Pinterest, if the demographic target is right for your business and you can leverage the site to grow your online community, thereby gaining more exposure through cross-pollination with other streams (Facebook, Twitter, RSS, etc.), it could make good sense.
Completely agreed that it’s far too early to judge Pinterest’s value as a new way to share content. You talk about Twitter’s evolution and eventual value to your biz; Facebook went through the same evolution and today is a fantastic platform for both sharing (broadcast), engagement, and even ecommerce. Pinterest will morph, and it will find a role in marketing strategies.
Jim, if you don’t approve of how someone is pinning your creative, copyrighted work, you have to enter a separate DMCA takedown notice to each “infringement”. That seems onerous.
Also, selling data can include images, and we know images add value to data, so they really need to explain the “sell” wording much more completely. Not only will they “sell” but they strip the metadata from images. Not legal. We should be pushing back, not waiting passively.
Change happened when users pushed back at G+ stripping metadata. Any company who stands to make a fortune selling their user data can certainly do better before launch than Pinterest has. You’d think they’d get it by now, that people DO read and care about T/C’s and ToS’s.
I say “thumbs down” and let’s push them to take more care of their users. Even though the site is not for photographers, don’t “ordinary” need rights?
Sorry, this is just another scheme to make money from other peoples work, people are just too lazy to create their own…. have a read of these….
http://cnet.co/yQDLyb
http://bit.ly/zFmM6F
any webstite stripping Metadata from images belonging to other people should be illegal, there should be legislation against this especially when so many are looking at ‘Orphan Works’ legislation.
Demon Lee – NUJ, Canon Professional, Member of Pro-Imaging & Supporter of ABoR
Pingback: The Digest – February 26, 2012 | LPV Magazine
Pingback: Why My Surprising Take on Pinterest? » JMG-Galleries – Jim M. Goldstein Photography
Thanks for the responses. I started to write up a reply and then realize it was lengthy enough and content rich enough to be its own post.
Be sure to see “Why My Surprising Take on Pinterest”
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2012/02/27/why-my-surprising-take-on-pinterest/
Pingback: How Long Until Pinterest Is Sued Into Oblivion Like Napster?