Friends have, no doubt, noticed that I’m stuck, hung-up, PINNED on the topic of Pinterest lately. I know, I know… I complain about others “beating a dead horse” and yet I’ve been a broken record on the Pinterest topic. I contend I am not beating a dead horse. When it’s dead, I’ll stop whipping on it. I promise. :^)
In the mean time…
Here’s an example of why I’m pinned on the topic of Pinterest.
This photo, uploaded by a Mr. Scott B. was not taken by Mr. Scott B. though it shows it was uploaded by him (from web). There is no link to the photographer. So how do I know it wasn’t Mr. Scott B.? Because this is my photo.

This is just one example.
Yeah, yeah… Pinterest has a copyright infringement form that I can fill out. I have already filed a copyright infringement complaint for this photo. It was removed. This guy added it three days AFTER the last complaint I filed on it. So, apparently Pinterest removes copyright infringing material but allows the same material to be pinned all over again.
There is a great amount of fantastic photos and other creative works pinned on Pinterest without permission of the content creator. Pinterest boards would be pretty empty without all of the stolen images. That is copyright infringement. If the image has a link back to the original site, there is a slim chance the content creator will get some site traffic out of the deal. I can tell you, though, that I have found several of my photos pinned (and re-pinned) and I have not seen a single hit on any of my websites from people following a link from Pinterest (I do have site metrics for all of my sites). That’s because, with one exception, none of my photos found on Pinterest have had a link to one of my sites, let alone my name, attached to them. As I scan over photos, I see that is the case 95% of the time.
So, Pinterest is going to start selling advertising because of all the traffic they are getting. Content that they did not generate and do not own is driving that traffic. Content that the content owner did not “donate” do the Pinterest cause. That’s not right. They are stealing content, aided by users who certainly don’t mean to be participating in theft (I know that) for their own gain.
I know, I KNOW, people using Pinterest aren’t trying to hurt anybody. I understand the appeal. The concept is great, in theory. In practice, Pinterest is allowing, encouraging, the theft of content to drive their traffic.
While there are users with blatant disregard for copyright, there are also many users who wouldn’t deliberately steal, cheat, or do anything unethical, let alone illegal. I am not “whipping” on them. It’s Pinterest that I’m after. I am not against Pinterest users. I wish they understood, but I’m not against them. I am against Pinterest.
Everyone who generates content, from music, to movies, TV shows, books, photos, and so on, is fighting the same battle when it comes to copyright infringement. At least people know when music or movies are stolen. They know what they are doing. They are the unethical minority (legit options for downloads helped a lot but much damage was already done to the industry, I know). In the case of Pinterest, it looks legit, it looks harmless and so people who would never steal music or anything else unwittingly participate in stealing content because Pinterest has led them to think it’s all good for promotion and marketing and they are doing content producers a favor. In certain cases, that might even be right, but most of the time it isn’t.
Pinners should be the ones required to swear under penalty of law that the content they are uploading is NOT an infringement of the copyright of another. I have to swear that it is to get my content removed. Besides being a hassle, they try to intimidate copyright holders with all caps bold text about penalty of perjury when copyright holders file a take-down complaint.

There is a small portion of content on Pinterest that was ploaded by its creators. THAT, of course, I have no beef with. It’s the “pin it” toolbar button that allow people to pin anything they find on the web that isn’t pin-blocked, and people taking screen captures and uploading them, etc., that is the problem — and, Pinterest, in word and deed, has encouraged that (by creating the “Pin it” toolbar button, for example).
I just added the code to block Pinterest pinning to this blog site (the last of my sites to be so modified). However, let the record state that I object to the need to do so. I should not have to alter my site to opt out. I did not give permission for Pinterest to grab my content. Participation should be opt-in, not opt-out. I should not have to block them. I did, but I should not have had to.
If you think, as a Pinterest user, but not a content producer, that Pinterest won’t hurt you, I beg to differ. How so? Pinterest could cause removal of good content from the web. Even when there is a link back to source, many Pinterest users won’t click it, they will just look and read there on Pinterest. If someone with a wonderful craft blog pays for their website from advertising revenue (Google Adwords or what have you), and they don’t get any site traffic, they get no ad revenue. Pinterest will get the ad revenue for the content the craft blogger created. When the craft blogger decides it’s not right and not fair, down goes that site. Pinterest, in that event, might do the damage of reducing good content on the Internet.
If Pinterest had made it abundantly, perfectly clear, from the get-go, that people should only upload content they created… but, they didn’t. Instead, they encouraged grabbing stuff from the web. Now there is no way of knowing who the content owner is when you look at a pinned image. That’s the point of this post. In the example I posted, it sure looks like that guy was the content originator, doesn’t it? There is nothing to indicate otherwise. The kind of form I have to fill out to remove content is the kind of form that should be required to post content. They are doing lipservice to “respecting copyright” now because they are starting to feel a little heat. Not enough, though.
Here are a few articles written by others that offer additional thoughts and perspectives:
Pinterest: Enabling Copyright Theft on a Global Scale
Pinterest? No, thanks, not Pinterested
Is Pinterest a Haven for Copyright Violations?
Lawyer: Never “Pin” A Photo On Pinterest That You Don’t Own
Added 3/30/2012:
A Facebook friend posted a link to this article today, which shows how one blog site owner dealt with the images from her sites that were on Pinterest in a no-holds-barred manner that I admire and respect. In the article, she informs readers that you can search for photos on Pinterest with your url as source. In a nutshell, you type
http://pinterest.com/source/”your url” in your browser’s address bar. Of course, this method only finds images with the source link intact, which has only been the case with one of my photos found on Pinterest, but it’s something. Her approach in dealing with Pinterest is something more. Check it out. MAKING A MARK: How Pinterest removed all my pinned images in minutes (#1)
Pinned
Friends have, no doubt, noticed that I’m stuck, hung-up, PINNED on the topic of Pinterest lately. I know, I know… I complain about others “beating a dead horse” and yet I’ve been a broken record on the Pinterest topic. I contend I am not beating a dead horse. When it’s dead, I’ll stop whipping on it. I promise. :^)
In the mean time…
Here’s an example of why I’m pinned on the topic of Pinterest.
This photo, uploaded by a Mr. Scott B. was not taken by Mr. Scott B. though it shows it was uploaded by him (from web). There is no link to the photographer. So how do I know it wasn’t Mr. Scott B.? Because this is my photo.
This is just one example.
Yeah, yeah… Pinterest has a copyright infringement form that I can fill out. I have already filed a copyright infringement complaint for this photo. It was removed. This guy added it three days AFTER the last complaint I filed on it. So, apparently Pinterest removes copyright infringing material but allows the same material to be pinned all over again.
There is a great amount of fantastic photos and other creative works pinned on Pinterest without permission of the content creator. Pinterest boards would be pretty empty without all of the stolen images. That is copyright infringement. If the image has a link back to the original site, there is a slim chance the content creator will get some site traffic out of the deal. I can tell you, though, that I have found several of my photos pinned (and re-pinned) and I have not seen a single hit on any of my websites from people following a link from Pinterest (I do have site metrics for all of my sites). That’s because, with one exception, none of my photos found on Pinterest have had a link to one of my sites, let alone my name, attached to them. As I scan over photos, I see that is the case 95% of the time.
So, Pinterest is going to start selling advertising because of all the traffic they are getting. Content that they did not generate and do not own is driving that traffic. Content that the content owner did not “donate” do the Pinterest cause. That’s not right. They are stealing content, aided by users who certainly don’t mean to be participating in theft (I know that) for their own gain.
I know, I KNOW, people using Pinterest aren’t trying to hurt anybody. I understand the appeal. The concept is great, in theory. In practice, Pinterest is allowing, encouraging, the theft of content to drive their traffic.
While there are users with blatant disregard for copyright, there are also many users who wouldn’t deliberately steal, cheat, or do anything unethical, let alone illegal. I am not “whipping” on them. It’s Pinterest that I’m after. I am not against Pinterest users. I wish they understood, but I’m not against them. I am against Pinterest.
Everyone who generates content, from music, to movies, TV shows, books, photos, and so on, is fighting the same battle when it comes to copyright infringement. At least people know when music or movies are stolen. They know what they are doing. They are the unethical minority (legit options for downloads helped a lot but much damage was already done to the industry, I know). In the case of Pinterest, it looks legit, it looks harmless and so people who would never steal music or anything else unwittingly participate in stealing content because Pinterest has led them to think it’s all good for promotion and marketing and they are doing content producers a favor. In certain cases, that might even be right, but most of the time it isn’t.
Pinners should be the ones required to swear under penalty of law that the content they are uploading is NOT an infringement of the copyright of another. I have to swear that it is to get my content removed. Besides being a hassle, they try to intimidate copyright holders with all caps bold text about penalty of perjury when copyright holders file a take-down complaint.
There is a small portion of content on Pinterest that was ploaded by its creators. THAT, of course, I have no beef with. It’s the “pin it” toolbar button that allow people to pin anything they find on the web that isn’t pin-blocked, and people taking screen captures and uploading them, etc., that is the problem — and, Pinterest, in word and deed, has encouraged that (by creating the “Pin it” toolbar button, for example).
I just added the code to block Pinterest pinning to this blog site (the last of my sites to be so modified). However, let the record state that I object to the need to do so. I should not have to alter my site to opt out. I did not give permission for Pinterest to grab my content. Participation should be opt-in, not opt-out. I should not have to block them. I did, but I should not have had to.
If you think, as a Pinterest user, but not a content producer, that Pinterest won’t hurt you, I beg to differ. How so? Pinterest could cause removal of good content from the web. Even when there is a link back to source, many Pinterest users won’t click it, they will just look and read there on Pinterest. If someone with a wonderful craft blog pays for their website from advertising revenue (Google Adwords or what have you), and they don’t get any site traffic, they get no ad revenue. Pinterest will get the ad revenue for the content the craft blogger created. When the craft blogger decides it’s not right and not fair, down goes that site. Pinterest, in that event, might do the damage of reducing good content on the Internet.
If Pinterest had made it abundantly, perfectly clear, from the get-go, that people should only upload content they created… but, they didn’t. Instead, they encouraged grabbing stuff from the web. Now there is no way of knowing who the content owner is when you look at a pinned image. That’s the point of this post. In the example I posted, it sure looks like that guy was the content originator, doesn’t it? There is nothing to indicate otherwise. The kind of form I have to fill out to remove content is the kind of form that should be required to post content. They are doing lipservice to “respecting copyright” now because they are starting to feel a little heat. Not enough, though.
Here are a few articles written by others that offer additional thoughts and perspectives:
Pinterest: Enabling Copyright Theft on a Global Scale
Pinterest? No, thanks, not Pinterested
Is Pinterest a Haven for Copyright Violations?
Lawyer: Never “Pin” A Photo On Pinterest That You Don’t Own
Added 3/30/2012:
A Facebook friend posted a link to this article today, which shows how one blog site owner dealt with the images from her sites that were on Pinterest in a no-holds-barred manner that I admire and respect. In the article, she informs readers that you can search for photos on Pinterest with your url as source. In a nutshell, you type
http://pinterest.com/source/”your url” in your browser’s address bar. Of course, this method only finds images with the source link intact, which has only been the case with one of my photos found on Pinterest, but it’s something. Her approach in dealing with Pinterest is something more. Check it out. MAKING A MARK: How Pinterest removed all my pinned images in minutes (#1)