Pinterest and Copyright - Is Blocking Pinterest a Good Idea?

[KristineS]

For those of you who don't know, Pinterest has developed and made available code that can be added to a website or blog which will prohibit people from being able to pin images from that site or blog to Pinterest. Apparently some people have been expressing ownership and copyright concerns and Pinterest wanted to address the problem.

Now that this code is available, the question becomes should you block people from pinning images from your site? This article (http://www.blogworld.com/2012/02/21/should-you-block-pinterest-on-your-blog/) essentially says, for the most part, no, unless you have a very specific set of circumstances. I tend to agree, as I don't see any harm in sharing an image as long as it links back to the original. Obviously, other people disagree, and this certainly opens up a lot of questions as to ownership, the uses of images and whether or not someone who is collecting images on a specific theme, acting like a curator is doing anything illegal or wrong.

It's an interesting topic. What do you guys think?

[vangogh]

I don't think you need to block it either. I worked with several photographers and at some point they all ask about protecting their images so others can't use them. I usually explain it's not a big deal in the sense that images placed online aren't of good enough quality to create prints and that evidence suggests allowing your content, including images, to travel to other sites typically yields greater returns than trying to protect it.

The reality is if you place an image online you can't prevent someone else from taking it. You can try, but anything you do can be overcome without much difficulty. Some people will add a copyright or watermark on the image, which would prevent reuse of the image, however I think they water down the quality of the image that you're trying to show off on your own site.

It's probably best to release things with a creative commons or similar license that allows use as long as there's attribution along with it. That'll help get your images and ideas out on the web, which will result in more coming back to you than you might lose if a few random people do take your images without attribution.

It'll be interesting to see how Pinterest deals with the copyright issue as it gains popularity. Regardless of what I said above, there are people who won't be happy to see their images on Pinterest and current law is you can't use copyrighted images without permission. Some people will probably use the code (even though it doesn't really prevent the images being used). More who don't want their images on Pinterest will probably complain. I can see this being an issue for Pinterest unless current law and policy changes.

[SuperiorBMS]

Here is a very interesting article I found on Pinterest that I think every small business owner should read. It addresses the Terms of Service for Pinterest use and the vulnerabilities a small business might run into using the service. Although this doesn't directly address the opening post, I think it might have you think twice about having anyone post anything from your blog or website to Pinterest.

How your business could get sued for using Pinterest (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/startups/2012/02/pinterest-copyright-issues.html)

[vangogh]

Welcome to the forum SuperiorBMS. I hadn't seen that article before, but I've seen similar. I thought I might have started a thread pointing to one, but maybe not. The whole topic is interesting, because it's about more than Pinterest. They aren't the only site that lets people bookmark copyrighted content. It's an issue we need to be thinking about and working on a solution since it's not going to go away. We have to come up with a way to fairly compensate the people who create. I actually think the creators of images will ultimately earn more by letting their images and creative works in general be shared on sites like Pinterest. Not everyone sees that though and our laws have been set up to protect people under a pre internet system.

[websonalized]

Hey guys, first I must say that this is a great read and I'd like to add something that wasn't mentioned unless i missed it.

Pinterest is free and by being free they want to capitalise as much as possible with their service, its a great service and I don't frown upon it. This is just a situation where from providing you the service they think that the content belongs to them and in the process if they find the need to use your pins in anyway it protects them from harm, smart way of doing things.

I must add to that it could be that pinterest from inception wasn't really targeting a business base use for the service but this was something that manifested as i feel users are looking for the same things that all the previous social network has, some way of using it for business.

[nealrm]

We need to ask ourselves a question: Is it OK to build a business that at it's core is based in part on using the works of others without compensation or prior permission? Does using digital content in this manner really promote the original producer or does it just dilute their work by spreading it across multiple sites.

[vangogh]

If we stop it then search engines will be one of those businesses that go away.

The internet has changed a lot of things and one of the things we need to rethink is copyright. I don't think it's right for someone to simply copy an article you've written and post it on their own site without permission. On the other hand a search engine which pretty much just takes your content and profits off it, does add something useful. A site like Pinterest also adds value on top of the original content. It does provide benefit to it's community.

What I think a lot of people don't realize is that if you let your content travel more even if it means it ends up on another site that profits from it, you can still benefit. Using Pinterest as an example there are and will be plenty of photographers and artists who's work would barely be seen if not for a site like Pinterest. Instead of being upset that Pinterest is showing your image, understand how to use that to market yourself. Having their content spread out across sites doesn't dilute it. If anything it helps bring more people to it. Sites like Pinterest do allow you to opt-out. Granted opt-in is usually the better policy, but in the case of a site like Pinterest, the site couldn't exist under opt-in. The question is does it provide enough value to people to make opt-out ok. That's a judgement call, but given how popular it is, I'd suggest it does.

I'm not trying to suggest that copyright isn't important or that it's ok to just take anyone's work and do what you want. I am suggesting that like it or not things have changed. Technology has made it easy to create copies and that ease has provided a lot of benefit to society. It's not going to stop and it can't be legislated. It's time to rethink a lot of things where copyright is concerned. Copyright holders still deserve to have their works protected, but they also need to understand that there can be great benefit in not trying to protect it under every instance.

[KristineS]

I struggle with this question a lot as a blogger. If someone links to a post I've written on their blog or on Pinterest and proper credit and a link back to my site is provided, I'm happy as a clam. If, on the other hand, one of the aggregator sites picks up a link to content I've written, as they often do, and uses it as a filler on their spam site, whether it's attributed or not, although it usually isn't, I get mad.

I think intent matters here. Sharing content is going to happen and, from a marketing perspective, the more content gets shared, the more powerful it is. Where the lines need to be clarified is how something should be shared. Proper attribution is key. I agree with Vangogh that copyright and recognizing the original creator of a work is very important, but I also think there's value in encouraging people to spread your work, with proper attribution, of course. There is a difference between sharing something because you want others to see it, and using the work of others for your own benefit.

[vangogh]

I don't think the answers are easy either. I've just accepted the fact that things have changed and try as you might they aren't going back to the way they were. We have to rethink a lot of this stuff, because it's going to change regardless.

Kristine with those posts that get copied by the typical spam site.

Do you think someone who might have read the post where you published it is now going to read it on the spam site instead? Probably not. What are you really losing? Sure it sucks to see your content on someone else's site surrounded by ads. I know the feeling. I'd bet I've had more of my work copied and reposted than anyone here. A few years back I realized I really wasn't being hurt by it.

Understanding that it wasn't worth getting mad about helped me to use the theft to benefit myself. Take the extra minute or two to add links in your posts where appropriate to other content you've written. Those aggregators don't remove them. Free links for you. Not the greatest quality, but not like you had to work to get them either. Those links also help search engines understand which article was the original and helps the original outrank the copy.

Worst case scenario is the spam site does get some real people reading. Assuming you've linked well, people will follow and pretty soon be on your site and it won't take them long to figure out the source of the content they just read.

Letting your content travel across the web has been good marketing advice for a number of years already. That's why you publish an rss feed and try to get people to share your content on Facebook or Twitter and now Pinterest. As long as those sites can add value above and beyond the content itself then its ok for them to profit from that added value. You get the huge benefit of having others come across your creations who never would have known you existed.

[nealrm]

This is a tough question to resolve. Sharing content across the web is a great method of marketing, providing you have control of what is being shared. Sharing the title of a blog and maybe a line or two of content can encourage people to visit your site to read the whole article. Having the entire blog posted elsewhere, just reduces the need for people to visit your site. Vangogh, you asked if someonr where to read a blog on Kristine site would they then read it on a spam site? I will ask the opposite, if someone reads Kristine's blog on a spam site would they then visit her site to read the same blog?? Would they visit her site to click on her advertising so that she gets money to support the site? Nor do I think that intent matters. If I share a blog because I think it is really neat and everyone should read it, I have harmed the blogger. I have stopped people from going to that site and reading the work there. If I truly wished to help the blogger, I would have posted a link with the title and description.

Unfortunately, the solution to this is difficult. We need to remind people that stealing is wrong and that using someone digital content without permission is stealing. I think the copyright laws as they stand now are good. They could use some improvements in requiring sites to be more proactive on controlling the contents. Forcing content providers to find the copyright infringements on their own is a little like the police telling you that you have to search every garage in a New York and find you car parked there before you can report it stolen.

My true fear is that the scrapping of contents from websites it going to reduce the benefits of producing that content. That in turn will result in a general lowering of the funding to produce the content and a quality of the resulting product. We are already seeing this with news. Look at the news feed online. Ninety percent of it it is junk. Reports on economics that could be written by a middle school student or worse. Much of the "News" stories on Yahoo and similar news outlet are not even news stories. Even worse many are factually wrong.

[KristineS]

I think another thing that needs to be addressed is how people perceive content. If I see a blog post or a news story on an aggregator site, surrounded by ads, and obviously there as nothing other than a rankings booster and a draw for visitors, I'll discount it. Reputable sites sharing content will not generally share the whole item, they'll link and say why clicking the link and reading is a good thing to do. I don't want my content appearing on what are essentially the online form of spam e-mail. I think it weakens our company brand because people don't differentiate or understand the difference between our company sites and some random site which picked up the article through a web sweep. It's not just about people reading, it's about where they're reading.

[vangogh]

Neal I agree. These are difficult questions to answer. I've been thinking about this for several years, ever since my first post was copied and posted on some spam site.


if someone reads Kristine's blog on a spam site would they then visit her site to read the same blog

They probably wouldn't read the same post, because they've already read it. However I think there are a couple of possibilities beyond the one post.

1. If the person didn't like the post then it's pretty much irrelevant where they read it. They weren't going to read more or click to other pages leading to some action. In this case what has Kristine lost? I'd say nothing.

2. The person does like the post and wants to do something like read another post or subscribe or maybe buy something. This is the issue because the fear is they'll take one of those actions on the spam site. My argument is if you're smart about how you create content you'll come out ahead even if you might lose a few individuals to the spam site.

People generally don't read a single article and then buy something. More likely they want to read another article, subscribe, or they just remember the author's name for when they come across him or her again. If you make sure to to add links in the content you create to other content you've created (using an absolute URL) then when people want to read more, there's a good chance they end up exactly where you want them and your article worked just the same as if it had been read on your site. Similar for the reader remembering your name. Guest posting is currently a great way to market yourself and in a way the stolen post functions like a guest post, albeit on a site you didn't specifically want to guest post for.

I doubt most of the sites stealing your content get enough traffic to really worry about losing out to them. Those that do are because they know seo. Most of the visitors they attract probably weren't going to find you. They found your article as much because the spammer knew how to attract them than because of your article. If your content can't outrank your stolen content on a spam site you aren't getting much traffic

If you're worried about spammers hot linking your images you can set things up so instead of the image they linked to they receive any image you want. That could be an ad for you or maybe an image with a message saying how if the images is being seen it's because the site it's seen on is stealing content.


My true fear is that the scrapping of contents from websites it going to reduce the benefits of producing that content.

I understand that fear, but I don't think it will come to bear. I think when you look closer at this issue there's far less damage being done than it seems in theory. If someone took your content and used it in a magazine you still have the ability to take them to court to protect your copyright. When it's a common spammer stealing your stuff, the truth is few people are going to see it and those that do probably weren't finding it on your site in the first place. if you're smart about things you can benefit. That benefit isn't going to be great, but again neither is the damage.

Taking this back to Pinterest, they provide value on top of the content itself. They offer a service that helps you collect things you want to go back and see again or you want to share with others. In the process the content owners get a lot of visibility they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Pinterest isn't going to profit because your content is on their site. They'll profit because they add value on top of many people's content and they provide value back to you in the form of visibility.

If they're making more off your content than you are, it's more likely because you haven't done a good job figuring out how to profit from your content. If you are and don't want the visibility you can stop your content from ending up on Pinterest for the most part.

[billbenson]

Look at the news feed online. Ninety percent of it it is junk. Reports on economics that could be written by a middle school student or worse. Much of the "News" stories on Yahoo and similar news outlet are not even news stories. Even worse many are factually wrong.

That's part of why I started the politics thread. Neither side in this election is putting out factual information. That applies to all information. My lawnmower is better than yours. It's almost a given that you will receive biased information on any subject. It's up to you to do the research.

Here, it's interesting that something like scraping which certainly is theft, can benefit the writer. It strikes me that this will change the way things are written.

Take the copywriting thread for example. A discussion that you should write proper copy. But now you need to factor into how you write copy with the assumption that your copy will be stolen and how to use that to your best advantage...

[vangogh]

Take the copywriting thread for example. A discussion that you should write proper copy. But now you need to factor into how you write copy with the assumption that your copy will be stolen and how to use that to your best advantage.

I don't think this really changes copywriting. You should still be writing copy with a goal to generate some action. The words themselves don't need to change in any way. The only thing you really need to do to reap some benefit from the all out spammers is to make sure your content includes some links back to your site.

When it comes to your content appearing on legitimate sites like Pinterest there's nothing to change. The benefit is that Pinterest likely has a larger audience than you and it opens your content to potentially being seen by many more people. In Pinterest's case we're talking images, but on other sites where it text that appears, you wouldn't want to write it any differently. All you want to to do is make sure people who see it can determine who created the content and can find more of it.

People ask all the time how to approach social media. How can they market their business through Facebook or Twitter or whatever site. Well this is one way. You let some of your content appear on those sites to take advantage of the size of those communities. It gives your content the ability to reach more people. In regards to the copyright question, I understand how you can feel anger because another site seems to be profiting off your hard work. However the end result is often just what you're trying to accomplish. Creating content for other sites has been an effective marketing strategy for as long as I can remember.