Powered by Blogger.
RSS

[Totally-Bouncy-Gallery] File - * NEW NOTE! *

 


We have a new photo album!

Think "2007" or "where the new photos are"!

If you can see them, Congratulations!
go the the "2007" album, follow the description and get
the best of the best Glamor photos!

If you can't see photos or albums, like some people.
sorry, your out of luck.

As for Totally Bouncy Gallery, don't fear loyal members,
TBG is still going to be here and some (not all) of the
photos will still be here too.

WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

I'm just trying to get the people who can see the photos,
even more a chance to get the best of Glamor and Fashion.

I wanted to take Glamor to a new level in CLASS!!

But members abused that, tried to upload pics that were
not of Glamor, ect, and only sent spam in messages.

This group is now 17,000+ members strong... and yet, how
many Totally true members are there?

Well, now management is going to find out.

If you can see the album, if you can see the photos, and
if you put a little time and effort into it... you can
still see the Best and classicist Photos on Yahoo!

If you can't ( AND NO! WE STILL DO NOT E-MAIL PICS! ) then
you can still be here.

So, now your in the know!

** MIZ **

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

[Totally-Bouncy-Gallery] File - Fight Fire

 


NEWS!.......... NEWS!................ NEWS!

Totally Bouncy Gallery is no longer
just an "ad" page for Real Bikini Gals!...
we have spun off our "Mother" Group
and are now our own separate Group!
Yay!...
TBG is going to focus on Glamor and Fashion ...
with still a bit of Amateur to keep things fresh!
Please don't be mistaken...
we are still affiliated with RBG Group...
and hope to broaden the field a bit!
** MIZ **

>>>>>>>
Since we are still affiliated with RBG Group...
>>>>>>>

Hate to fight fire with fire but...
Now if you use yahoo new group search there's like hundreds
of "Bikini" Groups out there and 99% are just an ad for some
garbageola pro site that just has gross links or few if any
pics or whatever.....

Don't ya just HATE that????

So this "ad" page Group had been made :(

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Real Bikini Gals link is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Bikini-Gals/join

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We have Real Gals!!!!
No Fakes Site!!!
Real Pics!!
Real Group!
************
~~NO BOTS!~~
~~NO SPAM!~~
************
Real Bikini!
No Pay Site!
Real Females!
No Hidden Links!
Real Amateurs!
No Pros!
~~~~ And Good quality!!!! ~~~~
~~~~ NO GARBAGE!!!! ~~~~

~~~~ Often imitated....NEVER duplicated! ~~~~

Isn't time to "Get Real"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Good quality Groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Real-Bikini-Gals
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Totally-Bouncy-Gallery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mardi-Gras-Gallery

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Not correct.

They were for instance sued (and lost) by a Belgian newspaper. Google were obliged to stop publishing news excerpts from it on Google News.

There are very fundamental differences between Pinterest and Google and I am sure someone else will go into that in detail.

-Per Karlsson
http://www.bkwinephotography.com

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, RK <rolf.krohna@...> wrote:
>
> Google is big enough to ignore both laws and governments,
> and they do, only EU and China has been big and powerful enough to make
> them kneel.
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Mr Noyce has here, as usual, hit the nail on the head and given the best response to this tomfoolery so far.

P. Forsberg

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Noyce" <groups@...> wrote:
>
> >>lmatlow: most of what you said is pretty much what I said. Except the bit
> about posting a link to someone's work being actual theft of that work. In
> my country, it isn't. Period. Exactly as I said before. Your country may
> differ, but please don't make statements about what IS and ISN'T as if the
> same thing applies all over the world. There is too much of an attitude
> amongst US users in Yahoo groups that America = The Whole World or The Rest
> of the World isn't entitled to a say in anything or to have their own,
> different legal system.
>
> No country AFAIK has a problem with posting a link but that's not what Linda
> said and that's not what is happening
>
> >>Still, I'd like to know how you'd feel if I, as a professional
> photographer, went and hunted down your website (which I can't do because
> when I click on your UID here it tells me the page (your profile) doesn't
> exist but if I could ...) and actually liked your work so much that I copied
> the URL of your website and posted it on here, or on Facebook or on my own
> website or somewhere, with a comment saying, "I found this other
> photographer's website and I really like his/her work so please go and have
> a look" - would you call that theft?
>
> Telling someone to go and look is obviously not theft, using their content
> to populate your site is. Pinterest do not post a url they display your
> images making the content of their website your creative work. They either
> take your image and store it on their server without permission which is
> illegal or use your bandwidth to display your picture on their site which
> may or may not be illegal but is certainly unethical
>
> >>If so, then I would suggest you just don't put your work on the web at
> all, because that is how the web works. It's ability to market your work for
> you without any input from you is something that many people regard as a
> massive benefit of the web!
>
> Having someone filling the content of their site with your images is not
> marketing
>
>
> >>As I said before, sadly, if you put your work on the web, it is going to
> be stolen by people who don't give a stuff about legality. Some people are
> so thick or lawless or both that they either can't or don't wish to
> understand why it matters to you that you retain 100% control over your
> images. If you put them on the web, in any way, shape or form, IT IS NOT
> POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THAT CONTROL SO THERE IS REALLY NOT POINT IN GETTING YOUR
> BLOOD PRESSURE UP THERE BY GETTING ALL INDIGNANT ABOUT THEFT.
>
> Why should you not get upset about theft. If I went into the supermarket and
> helped myself I would expect a legal response if caught. The fact that most
> shoplifters don't get caught does not excuse, or make acceptable, their
> action
>
>
> >>If you have unlimited time to chase after misuse and get lawyers on the
> case, good for you. I'd rather be taking more photos.
>
> Not 'misuse' theft. I'd rather not pay for a police force but, as a society,
> we seem to feel the need to minimise the lawlessness.
>
> Refering to your earlier response to an earlier email registering your
> images with the US copyright office is not a requirement to register your
> copyright there anymore that it is in the UK, it just enables you to sue for
> punitive damages and so make it worthwhile for a lawyer. The UK seems to be
> also looking at this http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce.htm
>
> >>The ones that are really important to me - the ones I sell as limited
> edition, signed prints - they don't go on the web for precisely the reasons
> you outlined about not being able to guarantee to the purchaser that they
> have not been distributed or used anywhere else.
>
> Stock photography is about selling files not prints which is why keeping
> control, keeping records and preventing orphans is so important. And if
> someone buys you print, photographs it and sells the file on or puts it on
> the web do you turn a blind eye to that too?
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Peter Noyce
>
> www.stock.peternoyce.com
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

They have actually been sued for having thumbnails, don't remember the result though. Google is big enough to ignore both laws and governments, and they do, only EU and China has been big and powerful enough  to make them kneel.

In the end, most of these guys are too big for us to take on, and most others we can't get at, so put on the thinking cap, rev up the grey cells, and figure out how we are to survive and make money despite this copyright mess. Technology has massacred the old copyright system anyway, at least for us small guys, it just has refused to lie down because some other big guys keep propping it up. What is next. What can we do that the big and ugly can't.

On 16/08/2012 8:49 PM, Alex Bramwell wrote:

 

Out of interest, can you sue Google.com for having you images visible in its search results? How is Pinterest different?


--
Alex Bramwell
Calle Peru 44 3C
Las Palmas 35010
928268816
660445960
alexbramwell@gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Out of interest, can you sue Google.com for having you images visible in its search results? How is Pinterest different?


--
Alex Bramwell
Calle Peru 44 3C
Las Palmas 35010
928268816
660445960
alexbramwell@gmail.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

RE: Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

>>lmatlow: most of what you said is pretty much what I said. Except the bit about posting a link to someone's work being actual theft of that work. In my country, it isn't. Period. Exactly as I said before. Your country may differ, but please don't make statements about what IS and ISN'T as if the same thing applies all over the world. There is too much of an attitude amongst US users in Yahoo groups that America = The Whole World or The Rest of the World isn't entitled to a say in anything or to have their own, different legal system.

No country AFAIK has a problem with posting a link but that’s not what Linda said and that’s not what is happening

>>Still, I'd like to know how you'd feel if I, as a professional photographer, went and hunted down your website (which I can't do because when I click on your UID here it tells me the page (your profile) doesn't exist but if I could ...) and actually liked your work so much that I copied the URL of your website and posted it on here, or on Facebook or on my own website or somewhere, with a comment saying, "I found this other photographer's website and I really like his/her work so please go and have a look" - would you call that theft?

Telling someone to go and look is obviously not theft, using their content to populate your site is. Pinterest do not post a url they display your images making the content of their website your creative work. They either take your image and store it on their server without permission which is illegal or use your bandwidth to display your picture on their site which may or may not be illegal but is certainly unethical

>>If so, then I would suggest you just don't put your work on the web at all, because that is how the web works. It's ability to market your work for you without any input from you is something that many people regard as a massive benefit of the web!

Having someone filling the content of their site with your images is not marketing


>>As I said before, sadly, if you put your work on the web, it is going to be stolen by people who don't give a stuff about legality. Some people are so thick or lawless or both that they either can't or don't wish to understand why it matters to you that you retain 100% control over your images. If you put them on the web, in any way, shape or form, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THAT CONTROL SO THERE IS REALLY NOT POINT IN GETTING YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE UP THERE BY GETTING ALL INDIGNANT ABOUT THEFT.

Why should you not get upset about theft. If I went into the supermarket and helped myself I would expect a legal response if caught. The fact that most shoplifters don’t get caught does not excuse, or make acceptable, their action


>>If you have unlimited time to chase after misuse and get lawyers on the case, good for you. I'd rather be taking more photos.

Not ‘misuse’ theft. I’d rather not pay for a police force but, as a society, we seem to feel the need to minimise the lawlessness.

Refering to your earlier response to an earlier email registering your images with the US copyright office is not a requirement to register your copyright there anymore that it is in the UK, it just enables you to sue for punitive damages and so make it worthwhile for a lawyer. The UK seems to be also looking at this  http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-copyright-dce.htm

>>The ones that are really important to me - the ones I sell as limited edition, signed prints - they don't go on the web for precisely the reasons you outlined about not being able to guarantee to the purchaser that they have not been distributed or used anywhere else.

Stock photography is about selling files not prints which is why keeping control, keeping records and preventing orphans is so important. And if someone buys you print, photographs it and sells the file on or puts it on the web do you turn a blind eye to that too?

Kind Regards

Peter Noyce

www.stock.peternoyce.com

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

lmatlow: most of what you said is pretty much what I said. Except the bit about posting a link to someone's work being actual theft of that work. In my country, it isn't. Period. Exactly as I said before. Your country may differ, but please don't make statements about what IS and ISN'T as if the same thing applies all over the world. There is too much of an attitude amongst US users in Yahoo groups that America = The Whole World or The Rest of the World isn't entitled to a say in anything or to have their own, different legal system.

Still, I'd like to know how you'd feel if I, as a professional photographer, went and hunted down your website (which I can't do because when I click on your UID here it tells me the page (your profile) doesn't exist but if I could ...) and actually liked your work so much that I copied the URL of your website and posted it on here, or on Facebook or on my own website or somewhere, with a comment saying, "I found this other photographer's website and I really like his/her work so please go and have a look" - would you call that theft? If so, then I would suggest you just don't put your work on the web at all, because that is how the web works. It's ability to market your work for you without any input from you is something that many people regard as a massive benefit of the web!

I'd call it no different from someone 'pinning' one of your images on Pinterest. Pinterest links back to your website. By pinning an individual image, it gives other people an immediate idea of why the 'pinner' has chosen to draw attention to your work. A text only link leaves people without a clue as to the type of photography they'll find if they click through. People who like beautiful landscapes or fabulous portraits might be offended by photos of car crash victims, but to some people that macabre stuff is also art. So in my view it's better to give people a little taste of what you're recommending so they can tell if they're likely to enjoy looking at it.

As I said before, sadly, if you put your work on the web, it is going to be stolen by people who don't give a stuff about legality. Some people are so thick or lawless or both that they either can't or don't wish to understand why it matters to you that you retain 100% control over your images. If you put them on the web, in any way, shape or form, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RETAIN THAT CONTROL SO THERE IS REALLY NOT POINT IN GETTING YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE UP THERE BY GETTING ALL INDIGNANT ABOUT THEFT.

It's the exactly equivalent of going on holiday and leaving windows open. Not quite the same as leaving your car on the drive with the key in the ignition, or leaving all your computers, cameras, TVs etc on the drive as a free for all. But it really is the equivalent of leaving all the windows open and having no burglar alarm.

If you have unlimited time to chase after misuse and get lawyers on the case, good for you. I'd rather be taking more photos.

The ones that are really important to me - the ones I sell as limited edition, signed prints - they don't go on the web for precisely the reasons you outlined about not being able to guarantee to the purchaser that they have not been distributed or used anywhere else. And that includes film shots I took in the '70s. And film shots I still take and develop in my darkroom now. Please don't go shouting about photos you took in the '70s as if it sets you apart from the rest of us.

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "lmatlow" <lmatlow@...> wrote:
>
> We've sent out over 2500 DMCA notices to Pinterest and Tumblr since last July and not one single 'Pin' has translated into a sale for me or any photographer I personally know,and I know hundreds
>
> However,I register my copyrights and we go after all infringers.
>
> It's stealing.Period. Only the copyright holder can dictate where and when their images appear. Let your images fly all over the web,soon they will be orphans,worth nothing because you can never sell them as 'rights managed' and tell a client they have not run anywhere. Part of my job as a business of photography is to keep as accurate records as possible on sales history of my images.With over 300,000 in my two libraries I own it's a lot of work but after 30+ years,I still get to do what I love every day without having to work at a regular job.
>
> I have some images shot in the 70s and 80s I've made more than $75,000 with and are still selling.No one is going to profit from my hard work.Period.
>
> Legally you can't even go into Kinko;s and make a scan from a magazine or a book!
>
> One of our lawyers has recently collected $25,000 for us on an infringement...
> Linda
>
> --- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Avril Jones" <aj@> wrote:
> >
> > Dale, you can't blame Pinterest for the fact that it can be used by unscrupulous thieves. Pinterest tries to do the right thing by pinning a full link back to the original image. That was all I was saying about Pinterest.
> >
> > As for right clicking, you can do that with any image, anywhere on the web, so long as it's displayed as a standalone image. I hope nobody thinks that disabling right-click protects their images for more than three seconds. That being how long it takes to disable JavaScript, which in turn enables right clicking.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

We've sent out over 2500 DMCA notices to Pinterest and Tumblr since last July and not one single 'Pin' has translated into a sale for me or any photographer I personally know,and I know hundreds

However,I register my copyrights and we go after all infringers.

It's stealing.Period. Only the copyright holder can dictate where and when their images appear. Let your images fly all over the web,soon they will be orphans,worth nothing because you can never sell them as 'rights managed' and tell a client they have not run anywhere. Part of my job as a business of photography is to keep as accurate records as possible on sales history of my images.With over 300,000 in my two libraries I own it's a lot of work but after 30+ years,I still get to do what I love every day without having to work at a regular job.

I have some images shot in the 70s and 80s I've made more than $75,000 with and are still selling.No one is going to profit from my hard work.Period.

Legally you can't even go into Kinko;s and make a scan from a magazine or a book!

One of our lawyers has recently collected $25,000 for us on an infringement...
Linda

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Avril Jones" <aj@...> wrote:
>
> Dale, you can't blame Pinterest for the fact that it can be used by unscrupulous thieves. Pinterest tries to do the right thing by pinning a full link back to the original image. That was all I was saying about Pinterest.
>
> As for right clicking, you can do that with any image, anywhere on the web, so long as it's displayed as a standalone image. I hope nobody thinks that disabling right-click protects their images for more than three seconds. That being how long it takes to disable JavaScript, which in turn enables right clicking.
>
>
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Dale, you can't blame Pinterest for the fact that it can be used by unscrupulous thieves. Pinterest tries to do the right thing by pinning a full link back to the original image. That was all I was saying about Pinterest.

As for right clicking, you can do that with any image, anywhere on the web, so long as it's displayed as a standalone image. I hope nobody thinks that disabling right-click protects their images for more than three seconds. That being how long it takes to disable JavaScript, which in turn enables right clicking.

As for the other person's assertions that stealing images for your own use is not copyright violation, you need to get your facts straight. I'm not an expert on all laws in all countries, but in my country you are highly unlikely to end up in court for keeping a copy for your personal scrapbook, so long as you never attempt to publish that scrapbook. However, if the author has accompanied his/her images with a copyright statement saying no image or part of any image may be used for any purposes whatsoever (that includes personal use by students for reference material) without the express permission of the author, then you had better hope you don't get caught.

If you steal someone's image, whether from a web page or a magazine page, then use it in your own publication, you are, in my country, in breach of copyright. If you go even further and try to claim that image as your own, you are in BIG trouble. That's not just copyright infringement, it's intellectual property theft. I appreciate some backward countries don't take any of that seriously, but my country does and I believe the US is much the same, except for their ludicrous requirement for creators to register everything they create on the national (NOT international) copyright database.

A.

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, RK <rolf.krohna@...> wrote:
>
> Technology is changing, and that drives change in attitude. Nothing you
> can do about it but to follow it, and make use of it to your own advantage.
>
> If you cut out a picture from the magazine and glue it into your scrap
> book, it has never been considered a copyright violation. Saving a
> picture from your screen is just about the same thing, but
> electronically, and interpretation of copyright in most places see it
> just that way, with exceptions. Many also see it the same way if you use
> a copied picture on your personal web site, which is your electronic
> scrap book, which you show to friends.
>
> If you are smart, not all people are, you put your email address, name
> or logo on the picture itself, and for everyone who saves it to their
> electronic scrap book, you got a free of charge sales commercial for
> your work.
>
> It is interesting to watch the development in China, where I work. Going
> back a long time, copyright did not exist. Now, artists, singers,
> musicians, painters, sculptors, and photographers, fight to get their
> work displayed everywhere on the internet. The more "pirating" the more
> fame and the more people knowing them, and they can charge more for
> their "real work". That eliminate the middle men, as the media industry
> we have in the west, primarily USA. The vigorous campaigns against
> "piracy" by them has little to do with piracy at all, that is just the
> smoke screen, it has to do with maintaining hegemony, control, and
> dominance. We photographer has no changes on that. We would be better
> off without the dominant media industry.
>
> If you don't change with the times and the technology, you'll go the
> same way as the dinosaurs.
>
>
>
>
> On 14/08/2012 7:06 AM, Dale wrote:
> >
> > I'm relatively new to photography (30 years interrupted by about 15
> > years), but I've been in computers a long time. All you need to do to
> > steal an image from Pinterest is right click on the image and select
> > "Save Image As . . ." Most browsers have this capability and once
> > you've downloaded it, you can put it anywhere you like with no credit
> > to anyone you don't want to give credit to.
> >
> > You can even claim it as your own if you'd like.
> >
> > I have a Pinterest account and have validated that you CAN do what I
> > just described.
> >
> > I'm sure Pinterest doesn't encourage piracy, but it doesn't do much to
> > prevent it.
> >
> > Dale
> > // /
> > /"Good Enough" is the enemy of "Excellence"
> > However, "Overkill" is the enemy of "Productivity".
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From: *"Avril Jones" <aj@...>
> > *To: *"selling stock photography"
> > <selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com>
> > *Sent: *Monday, August 13, 2012 1:47:27 PM
> > *Subject: *Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest
> >
> > Angie, I totally understand your concerns about what happens to
> > your images. However, although I've seen many and varied
> > 'warnings' that Pinterest is a terrible site that encourages
> > copyright infringement etc, a good look at it suggests otherwise.
> >
> > If you have a Pinterest account and install the button on your
> > browser toolbar, whenever you see something you like on any site,
> > anywhere, you can click the button to 'Pin it' and choose the
> > element of the page that you want to feature. Pinterest then
> > posts it on your chosen subject board (you create your own
> > categories) as a link back to the original page. That way the
> > author of the image is effectively credited and more attention is
> > attracted to their work by Pinterest members pinning and sharing
> > it. Unless, of course, someone has already stolen your picture
> > the Pinterest member has found it posted where it shouldn't have
> > been. That would not be Pinterest's fault.
> >
> > I would suggest you go and have a browse for yourself and see what
> > I mean. You may still not wish to allow people to use that site
> > to praise and promote your work and, if that's the case, I think
> > there might be a tool you can use on your own website that lets
> > Pinterest know you don't want any of your content pinned. Not
> > absolutely sure about that last bit, but I've certainly clicked
> > the Pin It button to find that certain images/content on a site
> > cannot be pinned.
> >
> > I don't think I'd mind people pinning my work, unless they somehow
> > got access to a photo that wasn't meant to be publicly viewable.
> >
> > Hope that helps.
> >
> > Avril
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Re: Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Technology is changing, and that drives change in attitude. Nothing you can do about it but to follow it, and make use of it to your own advantage.

If you cut out a picture from the magazine and glue it into your scrap book, it has never been considered a copyright violation. Saving a picture from your screen is just about the same thing, but electronically, and interpretation of copyright
in most places see it just that way, with exceptions. Many also see it the same way if you use a copied picture on your personal web site, which is your electronic scrap book, which you show to friends.

If you are smart, not all people are, you put your email address, name or logo on the picture itself, and for everyone who saves it to their electronic scrap book, you got a free of charge sales commercial for your work.

It is interesting to watch the development in China, where I work. Going back a long time, copyright did not exist. Now, artists, singers, musicians, painters, sculptors, and photographers, fight to get their work displayed everywhere on the internet. The more "pirating" the more fame and the more people knowing them, and they can charge more for their "real work". That eliminate the middle men, as the media industry we have in the west, primarily USA. The vigorous campaigns against "piracy" by them has little to do with piracy at all, that is just the smoke screen, it has to do with maintaining hegemony, control, and dominance. We photographer has no changes on that. We would be better off without the dominant media industry.

If you don't change with the times and the technology, you'll go the same way as the dinosaurs.




On 14/08/2012 7:06 AM, Dale wrote:

 
I'm relatively new to photography (30 years interrupted by about 15 years), but I've been in computers a long time.  All you need to do to steal an image from Pinterest is right click on the image and select "Save Image As . . ."    Most browsers have this capability and once you've downloaded it, you can put it anywhere you like with no credit to anyone you don't want to give credit to.

You can even claim it as your own if you'd like.

I have a Pinterest account and have validated that you CAN do what I just described.

I'm sure Pinterest doesn't encourage piracy, but it doesn't do much to prevent it.

Dale

"Good Enough" is the enemy of "Excellence"
However, "Overkill" is the enemy of "Productivity"
.


From: "Avril Jones" <aj@superblock.co.uk>
To: "selling stock photography" <selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:47:27 PM
Subject: Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

Angie, I totally understand your concerns about what happens to your images.  However, although I've seen many and varied 'warnings' that Pinterest is a terrible site that encourages copyright infringement etc, a good look at it suggests otherwise.

If you have a Pinterest account and install the button on your browser toolbar, whenever you see something you like on any site, anywhere, you can click the button to 'Pin it' and choose the element of the page that you want to feature.  Pinterest then posts it on your chosen subject board (you create your own categories) as a link back to the original page.  That way the author of the image is effectively credited and more attention is attracted to their work by Pinterest members pinning and sharing it.  Unless, of course, someone has already stolen your picture the Pinterest member has found it posted where it shouldn't have been.  That would not be Pinterest's fault.

I would suggest you go and have a browse for yourself and see what I mean.  You may still not wish to allow people to use that site to praise and promote your work and, if that's the case, I think there might be a tool you can use on your own website that lets Pinterest know you don't want any of your content pinned.  Not absolutely sure about that last bit, but I've certainly clicked the Pin It button to find that certain images/content on a site cannot be pinned.

I don't think I'd mind people pinning my work, unless they somehow got access to a photo that wasn't meant to be publicly viewable.

Hope that helps.

Avril



__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Selling Stock Photography Re: Acclaim/Pinterest

 

Peter, it's fair to say I don't know what Angie's target market is. When I said art buyers, I really did mean *art* buyers, rather than commercial picture editors. Their attitudes may vary in your locale. My lecturers and visiting art buyers all advised against watermarking as even a faint one can look like a fault in the image.

Speaking of your locale, I know your authorities try very hard to make you think otherwise, but the US does not own or even control the rest of the world. In my country, we are not made to do a load of unnecessary admin for every picture we take. Imagine the workload for an event photographer or someone at the London Olympics! The effectiveness of your system is questionable anyway, thanks to the types of people I mentioned in my previous post. If your images happen to catch their untrained eyes, they will end up distributed all over the internet anyway, regardless of copyright registration.

In my country, you create something and you own the copyright, outright, until an average lifetime has passed AFTER your death. For a photograph, so long as you never let anyone else get their hands on your negative or digital raw file, you can prove you own the original. The only way copyright on a creation changes ownership in this country is if the author or whoever inherits their estate sells or gives the work to someone else in a legally binding, documented manner. We have exactly the same issues with annoying morons nicking our work and passing it on, uncredited, to all and sundry, but at least we don't have anyone trying tell us that registering every individual frame with some anonymous bureau will work like a magic bullet to deter those people. People like that are either too ignorant to think of checking whether what they do is legal, or just couldn't care less because they don't believe they'll get caught, or that the consequences could be worse than the wag of a finger by an unsmiling schoolteacher.

How the stock agencies survive is another discussion altogether.

Anyway, the main thrust of my previous comment stands: that Angie might like to go and have a look at Pinterest to understand how it works, and then decide if she still doesn't want her images appearing on there.

Avril

--- In selling_stock_photography@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Noyce" <groups@...> wrote:
>
> >>2. Publish as above, but watermark everything. Take the risk that this
> defacing of your own work won't put off serious art buyers. It will, though.
>
> 3. Don't publish online. As far as getting your work in front of art buyers
> is concerned, this is probably equivalent to retiring from photography and
> selling your equipment.
>
> Avril
>
>
>
> In which case Getty, Alamy, AGE, etc are presumably going out of business
> due to buyers being put off
>
>
>
> In a commercial environment a faint watermark is accepted and understood.
>
>
>
> Alternatively use un-watermarked images, register everything with the US
> copyright office and set up a system to find and pursue every infringement
> and sue accordingly with punitive damages
>
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Peter Noyce
> <http://www.peternoyce.com/> www.stock.peternoyce.com
>

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
.

__,_._,___

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS