Okay, Hubpages. I was giving you all kinds of love because you have a track record of being sensitive to copyright issues. Because of that, I'd started posting my original photo essays here even though they make more money elsewhere.
Now, you've joined the ranks of sites more concerned about grabbing traffic from Pinterest than in protecting the copyrights of its members.
The problem with the "Pin It!" button is that it encourages, invites, and gives EXPLICIT permission for anyone on the web to pin our content.
Pinning other people's photos without permission violates copyright and image licenses. It gives Pinterest a permanent license to sell, distribute, and "otherwise exploit" those photos. Numerous blogs and third parties are taking advantage of Pinterest embed codes to illustrate their sites with pinned photos and make money off of them. (See my article on Pinterest and Copyright for examples and info on these issues.)
There's nothing wrong with encouraging Hubbers to pin their own work and take advantage of Pinterest's traffic potential. For many hubbers, the benefits outweigh the downsides! But it's not right to OFFER our photos to Pinterest without our permission, and give that permission on our behalf.
So please, make the "pin it!" button optional, so that those who want their photos pinned can give permission, while those of us who don't want our photos copied can defend our work. It's hard to do that with a "help yourself!" button at the top of our articles.
(Sorry. I hate being a gadfly, but I really believe this is too important to shrug off.)
I agree (no gadfly about it), make Pin It an optional sharing button on a Hub. The question of copyright infringement on pinterest is enough to make me want to have nothing to do with it. I really don't want others "pinning" my stuff and in the process violating copyright law.
If anyone on Pinterest was to make money from any of my work...They had better pay up!!! A DMCA will be sent as soon as found.
It is one thing to send a link and a Very Brief summary back to the original hub, but it is a violation to the Hubber when someone else can steal from you and take potential earnings from your Hub.
Same with pictures "Pinned." WHY would anyone need to follow the link back to Hubpages, when they can see the image on Pinterest?????
I'm rather new here but I'm not a moron. Reading this and a related hub, I totally agree that this should be optional. I'll not further repeat what has already been said.
This Pinterest thing is an invasion, traffic stealing, and copyright violation scheme done up to look like a profitable thing for everyone. It is pure violation of a writer's rights -- regardless of how it is worded.
I totally agree that Pinterest should be an OPTION for the original author.
We are now being encouraged to illustrate our hubs with our own drawings or personal photos. Although I would love to include my own drawings and photos in my hubs, there is NO WAY I will do this now when others can steal my images without my written permission!!!
It is bad enough when there are people out there who commit copyright violations and get away with it -- now to make it easy for them to do so is an outrage!
PLEASE make the Pinterest button an optional decision for the hubber!!!
If you, HP, are going to not give us hubbers the option of protecting our own images, you might just as well put in a button that allows all people anywhere to copy and use our hubs as their own work.
What about the Apps in the Chrome store for Pinterest? And then the sharing services? It's the TOS that is the problem isn't?
Not only that, my concern stands where someone pins your hub, but you do not have a Pinterest account yourself to see how it is being shared. I now feel that I am obligated to obtain a Pinterest account to see what is mine that is being shared freely.
You don't need an account to see what's being shared.
Just go to:
http://pinterest.com/source/YOUR-SUB-DO … pages.com/
Just replace YOUR-SUB-DOMAIN-HERE with whatever your subdomain is... so for me it would be melbel.
To be honest, I'm happy to see my things on my hubs being shared.. I'll take the traffic and back links. That said, I'm a crummy photographer and I personally don't mind if my photos get stolen. I can understand why others mind, though.
Pinterest has really been one of the best social networks for traffic for me and I really <3 pinterest as a user.
I suppose for others sake, making it optional is a good idea. I would like to keep it, though.
I never suggested that it should be removed completely -either did GreekGeek -she says so in the thread title. I just think it should be optional at the sub-domain level, that's all. Or have it visible only to the author so that the author can pin if he/she wants or not. Then if it shows up on the site we can easily file a complaint rather than try proving we mind when there is a button at the top of our page.
Thanks melbel for sharing the link on how to see what has been shared from your hubs.
I really don't know very much about these issues, but when I went and had a look at which images had been pinned from my hubs (3 not really very inspiring ones I have to say), I was a bit surprised that there appears to be no attribution on the images whatsoever, and that you had to click back to the hub to see the image details/attribution.
Since it has always been a big thing on HP to correctly attribute your images and state clearly where they came from, this somewhat laissez-faire approach at Pinterest does surprise me. And the more an image gets re-pinned, the more I can see the original attribution getting lost.
I can see that this could lead to some fairly acrimonious fighting going on in the future
Thanks for the info Melbel. Just had a look at some of my stuff that's been pinned - have to admit, my first reaction was "Mmmmm, free backlinks - nom nom nom!" So I'm coming round to the idea of the Pin button.
I would imagine that HP management feels the same way - anything that generates traffic for the site is going to get implemented site-wide, and I doubt if they will give people the option of opting out. And if people can pin stuff via the Pinterest site itself, then not having a Pinterest button on one's hubs isn't going to make a massive amount of difference (it might stop "casual pinning", perhaps, but it won't deter someone who really wants to pin lol).
I suppose as someone else has suggested, serious photographers might want to use low-res images and keep their high-res pictures offline. Which is good practice anyway, because low-res images mean faster page downloads.
I personally use the bookmarklet in my browser more than the buttons on I find on sites (buttons similar to what HubPages just added). I think a lot of Pinterest users would use the bookmarklet since the button isn't really put on many sites yet. I think removal of the button at the subdomain level won't really do anything to stop pinterest users from pinning things... I seldom click those buttons, but I am a pinterest addict! That bookmarklet button I got from Pinterest is seriously my new best friend!
I agree about the casual pinning point, though. The lack of a button would likely prevent them from pinning, but Pinterest users with the bookmarklet would not miss the button.
A question suddenly occured to me, if someone 'pins' our hubs or photos, do we earn from ads on that site? or does someone else? sorry if this has been answered, my brain is sort of fuzzy today as I still have the flooo! lol!
having said this though, maybe this has already been addressed, but anyone can save any pic you put on your hubs onto their computer & then reupload it to where they want - Pinterest is not the only place you can 'borrow' peoples pics...maybe i'm missing something here....?
Thanks hinazille, I was just wondering if there was any point in it, fair enough if it causes a link back to your hub, then fine, but not sure if there is any other point?
This is true. However, those with most to gain financially from sharing other people's work tend to do things very quickly and on a large scale. So any technology that facilitates it may make the problem a lot more real. This goes for blogging tools as well as for photos.
Yes, it can be done, but do we want to encourage that and make the process easier? Or, if there actually is some benefit to the Hubber who posted it, someone could let us know what that benefit is. Or, as Michael said, HP could allow Hubbers to place some type of mark on their original photos to show ownership, so that when the photos are pinned or otherwise redistributed, the name can go along with the photo.
i do agree that the Pin it button makes it much easier to effectively take another persons pics, but i think this can actually be beneficial to some extent..firstly you will get backlinks to your hub (if the person references your hub as the source of the pic)... i dont know how good of a back link it would be quality wise, but it would be a backlink nonetheless if they reference it properly... secondly, im on pinterest & i wasnt aware you could make money from there...how do they actually make money from your hub pics??? and third point - you can put a watermark or some sort of tag on the pic to ensure that even if it is stolen, those viewing it can always attribute it back to you...
just my two cents...
Not true. HubPages does not allow watermarked images.
oh ok i never knew that - i dont put watermarks on my pics... but i have started putting text on my pics.... so if the pic is a view of the sea, i will place text on the pic saying 'A View of the Caribbean Sea' ... after that if anyone wants to take my pics... go ahead... if you link it back to me thats great, if not, then honestly there is little i can do, unless i want picture-less hubs...
No problem. There has been a lot of debate over the issue; maybe watermarks will be permitted in the future, only time will tell.
I admit that I don't know enough about the watermark issue, but from what I have read in other forum threads, I believe any text or logo at all on a photo is not allowed in HubPages, even though they are not always technically watermarks. If you have some that you have used here, chances are that they just haven't been caught yet. However, if I'm wrong about this, I hope someone else will speak up and clarify.
im sorry but this is ridiculous if it is true - why cant i label my own pictures with whatever i would like unless its inappropriate or offensive in some way? that is taking away my personal freedom to be creative with **my own pics**! can someone clarify this because this is really going to put a spanner in the works if i am unable to place visible text on my pictures...
The standard is "Low quality pictures," according to the FAQ. On the reporting button on hubs, it talks about "Watermarked or pixelated" images. So, there seems to be no explicit rule against such text. Therefore, it may be a judgment call whether or not text - other than a watermark - will make an image to become "low quality." If someone reports an image, presumably a moderator will have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
By what I am reading, it sounds like I may need to either Remove all of my Own images from Hubpages...or they will be distributed at any time without MY permission and HP is OK with this.
If I send a DMCA to a HP member or HP about a HP member who has "pinned" my images or MY hub, will HP step in and have it taken down? Or will they just say that it is my content and I am responsible, when HP makes it possible for HP members to do this?
IF HP is going allow people to "pin" images, then it should be allowable for us to "mark in someway" our images for protection against theft of the images.
Took a look and in a nutshell:
copyright same rules as usual.
If you pin a hub you have to make sure it has the link back to the owners page, not just copy and paste.
No, there are no affiliates at the moment, its just starting out so good or bad just for links all depending on how you look at it, and
last but not least for the moment,insert this link in your site, or hub page, if you don't want anyone to pin it:
name="pinterest" content="nopin" /
obviously I left out some of this insert otherwise it will get clipped on here.
So there you go, okay?
How would you add this to your hubpage? We cannot add html to our pages.
Nell: I just published a rant about this button. I had been waiting to publish it until we knew for sure. I altered it a bit and added this forum as a link. Thanks for the reference via pinning and not pinning. Do we have to add a non-pin to every hub then?
Hi, sorry took me so long to come back, I am not sure I just read the rules on pinter very quickly, but I would think so, as Michael said we don't do html, I will come over and take a look!
The code you suggested above won't work for Hubpages, which doesn't allow us to write more than a very limited subset of HTML. Also, it doesn't change the fact that a PIN IT button at the top of our hubs gives permission for our images to be pinned. We cannot file a DMCA notice claiming we didn't give permission for our content to be used if there is a button at the top of our hub giving permission.
People are already making money off of images pinned on Pinterest. I covered this in my article. Also, photographers are reporting on the frequency with which they're finding misattriibuted and uncredited images. Of the first five sites I looked at that earn money through images taken from pinterest, one did not give image credits, and another credited photos to Bing and Google.
Back to the money earning. Pinterest has been using Skimlinks to make money for a little while now, but a huge uproar erupted when people found that Pinterest was replacing affiliate links with its own affiliate links. In some cases, the replaced links were for the stock photo sites that the images had been stolen from, so the photographers from whom the images were being pinned found they were paying Pinterest commissions on their own images! Pinterest has now removed skimlinks due to the controversy, but is looking for other ways to monetize. It has to, as it wants to be a profitable site! Which is fine if the material it was making money off of was owned by the people who submit it, but in most cases that content belongs to someone else.
If you haven't read this, you should:
http://greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Is-Pi … Violations
It will give you a clear understanding of how your stuff can be stolen on Pinterest and of how you would be stealing others' stuff by pinning there.
I wonder if I may watermark/personal watermark suggestions/ranting seems so pointless now!
How is this issue different than the images search on Google or Bing? I search by a particular topic on their site and my pictures show up with a link back to my article. Ditto for Pinterest.
Granted, the idea that Pinterest is exerting some sort of "use" right on my pictures is odd, but rest of it seems comparable.
Are these issues being raised about the image search engines?
Is Pinterest being sued or is there legal action pending regarding this issue?
One of the things about pin interest is that an image is not just pinned there once. The way it is used is that other people then re-pin the image on their boards and this happens numerous times. To be honest, I did not fully understand how it worked when I signed up a couple of days ago. I suppose the ones from the button here on HubPages will be set up to give back links.
Since looking at the OP's hub on the subject I am concerned about it (though I do need to read it again when I have more time).
On the surface the idea looks innocent enough, but I can imagine that copyright will not even be considered by some people if they have not come across the concept very often.
BTW Maddie has a blog post on here about it, but I have not yet read it.
Looking at this from another angle if I re-pin an image and the person who originally pinned it has used a copy righted image without the owner's consent, I might be doing something wrong unintentionally.
I also doubt that few of the people arriving to look at a linked photo will stay on the page long enough to read it or to click on an ad when most will be wanting to get back to their boards.
Pin interest is linked to Face Book and Twitter. When on the site you load the image with a URL or from your stored images in a similar way to the way you add photos to hubs. The ability to re-pin a photo from someone's board to your own is almost instant. I have not used the button on HubPages or added any photos from HubPages.
I need to read up about it when I have more time. Thank you Greekgeek for sharing the information.
im still a little confuzzled about this whole text on pics issue. i am going to attach a picture here that has text on it that I placed myself - if i wrote a hub with that pic in it, is my hub likely to be kicked off?
Like I wrote above, it is a judgment call the moderator will have to make in every case. In this case, I doubt the picture would be considered substandard because the text makes the image look like part of a travel brochure or magazine. Text and image integrate well, since the text complements the image. Like a book cover or a movie poster would. They also have text and images, and there are lots of them in hubs. I see no problem. But that is only my personal opinion.
I too am concerned. If enough of us hubbers 'boycotted' the Pinterest issue, do you think that would help draw attention to the internet piracy and non-protection of our IP? In particular, I have replaced all the original pics I had with a "picture notice" I made to indicate that I had temporarily removed my original pic to prevent it being used in an illegal manner. (I used MS Powerpoint - create word art or a text box and save the slide as a JPEG).
This change only affected maybe 1/4 or 1/3 of my hubs (e.g. http://gisellemaine.hubpages.com/hub/Fa … rlic-Bread ) . I left the captions as is, mainly so that I would have a memory aid if I ever decide to go back to my original picture! For now, IP concerns trump anything else for me. I would rather not have my pics up at all instead of having them be at an increased risk of being used illegally by others. So right now I'm using these 'placeholder' notices for my pics until I hear any more updates.
Well, here's an irony. On my hub about copyright violations, I used one of my favorite Creative Commons photos, linked and properly credited. 49 pins since this morning have pinned it without permission. i bet most of them are linked to my hub and credited to me, breaking the image license and failing to credit the artist.
I have now put a warning for Pinterest members to credit and link the original artist, but it's too late -- they've already uploaded the file to Pinterest. And when I clicked the number next to the "Pin It" button, I couldn't find a way to check the pin and make sure it's credited correctly. (and does Pinterest make another copy of the image every time it's pinned, or just the first time?)
let's change Pinterest to No-interest
There is no one speaking of an increase in traffic or anything for that matter. How can this benefit this site if the writers concerns outweigh the pro's? Hate it already. Doubt it will change however hopefully become optional, that's fair :
I am learning so much from this thread.. thanks Greekgeek for sharing so much on this thread. I am just learning what Pintrest is:) lol
This certainly will get out of hand very quickly and our images WILL BE Raped for sure, without any ability to 'Mark' our ownership.
Perhaps there is a significant financial reward for sites like HP to provide such access to those with no affiliation to the hubbers whatsoever - This stuff is getting worse and factually this site is simply another upgraded version of that pirating site visualize splat com!
Love to view the vested interests in this site... who owns the shares?
How is this different with any other form of Sharing? Should we remove the Facebook button too? Pinterest explicitily state that you must have rights to the pictures and content you upload - therefore it's Pinterest who should be doing something about copyright not HP.
If you're going to stop one site from using your images, then you essentially have to do it on every other site - Reddit, Redgage, Stumbleupon, Digg etc. - your articles can all be posted on these sites without your permission and usually they use one of the photos from the article - in many cases you can pick the photo too (Facebook, Redgage do this).
I do note that I agree with he concern that the full image is uploaded to Pinterest - HOWEVER there's a simple way to solve that - don't upload the full resolution image to HP - there's no reason to have high quality images on an article (as in the full top quality image that you take) - 'dumbed down' versions of your pictures will still exceed the requirements of HP - have a JPEG version on HP and then if you want people to see your full image provide a link to a main site sotring all your photos - it gives you the ability to protect the professional photo.
Doesn't the new button on HubPages seem to grant such a right? I thought that was the problem.
I agree with that - it does make it easier - but someone can simply copy the URL anyways.
OK, I see. I am not familiar with how it works. Thanks.
In regards to the OP's concerns your point therefore appears moot.
True - I just don't see why this has suddenly become a concern with Pinterest - Facebook, and all the other 'sharing' websites effectively do the same thing - I feel that we should focus more on the underlying problem which is copyright violation on any site. There's nothing to stop me simply copying any image from any article and posting it to a blog, selling it etc.
You Are WRONG.... the thing that will eventually kick your butt for stealing the image will be....
A VERY LARGE BOOT to a notsosmartarse!
If you had read my article, you would know why.
Facebook does not create and store a full-sized copy of the original photo that will compete with the original in Google Image Search, only a thumbnail which doesn't compete with the original.
Facebook is designed and used primarily for people to share their own content, not to share other people's.
Facebook does not provide embed codes for other people to use it as an image host to get free photos to illustrate their blogs, whereas Pinterest does and people are using them.
A landmark copyright lawsuit against Google was won on appeal -- barely, reversing an earlier decision -- because it was ruled that (a) Google Image Search did not store copies of the photos on Google's servers, only displaying them from the original site the way a web browser does and (b) it did not display full-sized copies, but thumbnails, so it was Fair Use under the "limited excerpt" factor and the "competing with the original" factor (there are four factors under which Fair Use is determined). Pinterest falls short on (a) and (b).
Suggestions to HP for Pinterest Options:
When the Hub isset to publish, Author should approve/disapprove the Pin request
A callback function so the Hubber knows where the hub is pinned or repined.
-a link list on Hubber Account.
Watermark and/or rename Photos to the Hub Title for easier URI tracking.
I know this is a tough one, because of how HP uses photo uploads
(i.e. http://s4.hubimg.com/u/5243747_f520.jpg )
-- but it isn't impossible. At least then, the Hubber can wrap their photos in Title or Tags and boost their own Hub SIO [Search Image Optimization].
ps, PLEASE PLEASE for the love of locus, add the jQuery script to disable image saving/right click/drap-drop. It discourages photo thieves.
I don`t get why things like this are being overlooked by HP.
Seems the more being added turns into more 'outsourcing' of Hubbers.
If HP has a vested interest in Pinterest, then revenue share for photo allowances are in order.
Too many SBM [social bookmarking] sites are getting rich off of OPC/P [other peoples content/photos]. Heck even Google and Ying [Yahoo Bing] are too, because users do not understand how the code works or have the tools to really optimize their pubs. Not to sound neg toward HP, but it is getting a bit wordpress-y without the plugins.
HP should be "in sourcing" Authors for increased optimization.
Why Hubbers do not have a Photo feed channel or photo optimization tools is beyond me. Even more, why HP doesn't have its own internal Photo Engine. Put in the aesthetics like a Hub Hopper for Photos and watch how fast those images get indexed on Ying & Google.
Okay, I mean, my site gets only gets 10-20k UV a month at the moment. [lost a ton of traffic since re-entering RnD mode], but HP is getting 350-600k UV a month. With that kind of flow! Crickets!!! Hub views would triple.
As a perk, after all this, offer Hubbers which SBMs they prefer to release their content and not the free-for-all-you-can-scrape-trough
The point is that people can pin articles with or without the pin button on HP - as Uninvited Writer noted, anyone can add a Pin button to their browser and Pin anything they want.
The problem is with Pinterest not with HP - Pinterest are the ones who effectively want people to ignore their TOS - any campaing should be against Pinterest not against Hubpages...
SimeyC, I undestand that Pinterest members can and will take images regardless of whether they have permission.
The problem with the "Pin It!" button is that it encourages them to do so and gives them explicit permission on our behalf. We can't say "no you can't" if there's a button at the top of our page saying "Yes, you can!"
I have a suggestion that may assist - would require HP to approve.
We all should be adding source info etc as text to the image - there must be a way where behind the scenes, any 'text' gets added to the bottom of the image, and looks exactly the same as it does now - so if someone copies the image, they also copy the source..
I disagree, partly.
On site, all content is the property of HP, including links, photos, videos, text, etc. It is the responsibility of HP to put their Hubbers first.
So, HP should review/know thoroughly the TOS of every SBM before considering it and then allow the Hubbers to decide what to release to those off site services. The Hubber should not have to hunt down the TOS or the Pin-ster or track where their content, from HP, is going. Pinterest, Flikr, SU, Technorotic, Mixx, Mr wong, etc could care less how they get content, so long as they get it and it makes them cha-ching.
Granted, people can pin any webpage using SBM like -FB, SU, Tweet Pic, Flikr - a list 3 kilometers. However, there is a way to block this action. I have a few codes in place already on client sites to ignore cURL and jQuery requests/scrapes for just this reason: our authors make up the community and without them, we are out our ear. My job is to make sure the`re info, content, etc protected on-site and have all the necessary tools/reports at their disposal, to make the decision, based on our recommendation, for those off site options.
Hubbers did not ask if they wanted this added feature, it was just automatically done in the guise of "cool stuff!" you can get more traffic/views using SBMs for photos/videos.
Actually incorrect - the content is not the property of HP - that's very specific in the HP TOS - so effectively HP do not have the right to file DCMA complaints etc.
The other point is no matter what code HP add, all someone has to do is copy the URL to Pinster - I agree that there should perhaps be a choice but it's not going to stop Pinster!
mia culpa on the HP owning content. A better word would have been under the protection of HP, owned by the author. The protection should be hugely inclusive of many things...
Pinterest is just another out-of-box bookmarking service.
Truth be told, even if a pinster grabs the URL, HP can block/scramble/deny the URI (image link). You can block permalinks, bookmarks, to or from any domain based on how the bind function is written. It is the same code used to filter adult content from sites. Same reason FB asks permission for APIs & APPS to access your information. This means the pinster can pin all they want, but only the url will show up, not the photo itself, else nothing at all.
HP should at the very least, offer the option of: "Someone requested to pin your article. Accept/Reject". The API for this is ridiculously simple.
Then reinforce that with image protection and internal optimization.
Because, like it or not, the point of bookmarking is to increase traffic to the hub not to the SBM. That is their own problem. lol
This whole thing has SOPA written all over it...
Tons of Ad Revenue is made because someone posted a link or a pic to an SBM.
how many of these shiesters would be locked out if better copyright protection was in place. Most public SBMs would go out of business. Even MLS would be in dire straits...
"Permission to use content
Are you interested in using an image or content from an article on HubPages for your own project? Please contact the author directly using the contact link on the article itself. Authors retain copyright to their work on Hubpages, so only they are in a position to grant you those permissions."
At least have the decency to:
1. Ask the author if they want the option.
2. Ask the author permission.
3. Credit the author after permission/bookmarking their work.
Well then.... given the previous indications of that site's objectives and tools provided to grab our images anyway.... This HP Notice is Redundant at best and Also on that basis... a Moot point WE!
So, HubPages will have to clarify what is given priority: The button or the rules. My guess is that they will say: The terms are binding, the button is just to make things easier, but should always be used within the rules. I wonder how many people will pay attention to the rules in practice.
That stance may well indicate a Vested Interest!
Currently many of MY images now carry HP urls...
As opposed to pearldiver.hubpages url..
they appear side by side with my urls in MY Image Keywords!
I don't appreciate that use of my hub images driving traffic away from My Hubs to HP's general pool.
This current decision with the new site is as inconsistent and opaque as the above problem..
FACTUALLY HP are NOT Being Completely Open in regard to the filing of DMCAs... They actually can file or represent the authors on specific problems.. Like MASS Theft of articles..
IF We Authorize them to act as our Agent for the Duration of the Troubleshooting and subject to the following conditions:..... a + b + c.
So often over the last 4-5 occasions that hubs have been stolen.. no action of any consequence has been implemented by them! Rather it has been the efforts of some of us who have acted proactively and closed down the thieves!
I did read your aritcle which is why I added
I do note that I agree with he concern that the full image is uploaded to Pinterest - HOWEVER there's a simple way to solve that - don't upload the full resolution image to HP - there's no reason to have high quality images on an article (as in the full top quality image that you take) - 'dumbed down' versions of your pictures will still exceed the requirements of HP - have a JPEG version on HP and then if you want people to see your full image provide a link to a main site sotring all your photos - it gives you the ability to protect the professional photo."
When a professional photographer post a photo to the web, they do not post a top quality image - they post a photo that is less than 100k - take a look at the image on the front page of the NY Times - it's a 57.6k JPEG - it still looks pretty decent. There's not protection on the image because there really isn't that much to be gained by copying it. The photographer has the original image in its original format - this is not online.
So by adding a 57k picture it doesn't really matter that much if there is a clip of it on FB or a copy on Pinterest - the image is still being viewed and copied....
It matters to me, because I get thousands of visitors a week to my photo essays which display photos of 400-500 pixels wide. Those visitors arrive through image search. Pinterest means full-sized copies of those photos will be appearing in Google Image Search, linked to Pinterest through all the blogs that have copied them, and those backlinks mean Pinterest's copy will appear before my own, taking the traffic that previously went to my pages and earned me income.
Hubpages is not well-designed to get image search traffic, since it renames image files with gibberish names and won't let us set the alt-name, even so, I'm beginning to get image search traffic that works.
On Squidoo, my photo essay articles earn $50+ a month. They are some of my most successful pages. I do not WANT to stop making them, but when Squidoo added the "Pin It!" button, it induced me to stop making them on Squidoo and start making them on Hubpages instead, even though Hubpages won't pay me as well for those pages.
And that's one example. There are many, many others. This was not a problem until Pinterest, just as it wasn't a problem for bands to share music on their websites until Napster appeared and gave people an easy platform to copy and download anyone's music for free (and that was what Napster was designed to do; it wasn't a side effect).
I'm not actually disagreeing with you - this issue does need to be addressed - but the questions and complaints should be directed at Pinterest (who effectively are telling people to ignore it's TOS) rather than HP who are simply adding tools.
Removing the Pin button may help a little - but I can go to Pinterest and download an App that allows me to Pin - so ultimately getting HP to remove the button is not going to solve the issue...
Just a note... people can pin your pictures without the Pin This button on HubPages. I downloaded a button that allows me to pin anything from any site.
Actually, several people did ask for it. I didn't and I can understand the concerns.
It seems that the best option would to be to make it a choice then? Some want the button some don't - there's not really much that can be done to stop people pinning anyway, but the removal of the pin button by choice would at least help!
No one gets paid on Pinterest for any photo they pin. There is no way of making money on there unless they come back to your hub and you make money.
If you really want to know who has your photo use Google Chrome go on Images and pull your image onto Chrome, drop it and Chrome will search and come up with your image and where it is posted. With your hub photo you have to bring up the photo in edit then pull it onto Chrome. Maybe most people know this but just thought I would put it on here in case some don't.
I'm not bothered by the pin it button. I think there are many more ways of people getting our hubs than Pinterest.
Trying to figure out the ins and outs/implications of this, looking at it from how the posts there might work.
So looking at the 2 images of my own that I added to test how the Pininterest site works - the images when I pinned them have a link to where they came from (one is from my blog).
When re-pinned by someone they say the name of my board that they are on not the the link to my blog. I think the person would have to click through from the re-pin to my board and then click the link to the blog.
I mean that the second time mine was pinned/repinned the link is no longer to my blog (only on my original pin) but to my board the pin is on.
Not sure that is how it will work here, there are two methods of adding pins to the site URL and upload. However do subsequent re-pins just take you back to the last board they where pinned on? Not sure yet.
Sorry if anyone has already covered this in detail. I hope this makes sense as I am struggling to explain it.
Everyone, there is a new thread that Jason has posted here:
HP staff are indeed looking into making it optional at the subdomain level and that is exactly what both people for and against the site would want. If you want your things pinned, you can. If you don't, having the button removed will mean that you aren't condoning your work showing up on the site.
It is great to know that this is an important enough issue that the staff is discussing this on a weekend. Sometimes we have to wait until Monday (like with the unapproved comments glitch).
Jason also mentioned that Pinterest has become one of the fastest traffic drivers to Hubpages. So, I do not see us having a "choice." Numbers will outweigh what we may want in the end. Remember when the Facebook app or whatever you call it was added? (For FB, I just make sure to be logged out of FB before opening HP)
Melbel thanks for the link in your earlier post - using it to check on what had been reposted is a bit of a surprise.
Yesterday I unpublished some of my articles here until I had made a decision about the images in them. I had seen no increase in traffic - the opposite in fact so assumed none had been added to pin boards yet.
I had a sort of plan - that I would not be able to avoid the new trend - so I would post links to the ones I thought might do well to be re-pinned,the ones where the images mattered less to me.
However looking at the re-pins of my subdomain from Melbel's link - I acted too late to unpublish my Greek images etc. they are already there on Pinterest and must have been added prior to yesterday without my knowledge.
So now many of my photos have been re-pinned before I removed the articles I wanted to think about. Fifteen images so far that I was unaware of being on the pin board site.
This falls into my cannot beat them join them category which I rarely resort to. I am off to pin my own hubs, the remaining ones.
Of course my now unpublished favorite photos are out there with no link to go to, so I lose out.
Every day there is something to put right or change and I am tired of this, I feel drained of enthusiasm, not enough remains to keep ahead of the game here.
The garden looks more inviting than writing hubs at the moment.
According to Wikipedia, Pinterest does have an option for the owner of an image to request removal.
Thanks for this information. Sometimes Wikipedia is incomplete, but that does not sound good to me.
I heard something about Pinterest changing ad codes via cookies. This could potentially mean, traffic from pinterest sees ads with Pinterest ad codes and not yours or HubPages. I'll have to look into this further, but I'll let you guys know when I find out.
If this is the case, it's not cool by me.
by John Coviello3 years ago
I have been pinning my Hubs on Pinterest for a few months now, and about 70 of my Hubs are now pinned. I have also had several of my pins to Hubs shared by others on Pinterest. Despite all of this, I do not...
by Sherry Hewins21 months ago
I started a Pinterest account about two years ago. I pinned some of my hubs, without much hope of getting anything out of it. Now Pinterest is running a close second to Google in my traffic sources. Have you tried...
by Jason Menayan14 months ago
We added the Pinterest "Pin It" button to the small collection of popular social-sharing buttons at the top of Hubs on Thursday. Pinterest has rapidly become one of the largest social media traffic drivers to...
by moonlake3 years ago
I have a hub with five easy family recipes with my own photos. I found my photo on Pinterest with another hubbers address on it. I looked and she does seem to be the one that uploaded it to Pinterest. I was surprised...
by moonlake3 years ago
I got a message that someone had pinned one of my Pins. It was a pin from Hubpages, when I clicked it I got a message 410. That page doesn't exist. I thought that person had left Hubpages but when I checked she is still...
by Liz Elias3 years ago
Hi--another question from this newbie to Pinterest...If I pinned a hub that originally had no photos, and have since updated it to include a photo, will it eventually update on Pinterest, or do I need to delete and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.