Pinterest - vote in the Polls before I send the stats to Squidoo HQ

I was very thankful when Wizzley made the Pin It Button optional on our pages. Hubpages has done it too and I will be going through my pages on both sites to take advantage of this option.

This is a great example of sites listening to members' concerns.

I will be writing to Squidoo HQ soon, to tell them the stats on some Polls I have on a page about why I am not using Pinterest and why I want to be able to opt out of having a Pin It Button on my Squido lenses. It does seem that a lot of people agree that it should be made optional and whether you do or do not agrre with my views about Pinterest, you can have your say too.

The polls are here: Pinterest? No Thanks, Not Pinterested

Have casted my vote, thanks for making this important subject a lens AJ.

After reading your lens, two thoughts come to my mind. 

First is that if someone pins my lens and posts an Amazon product to their pinboard, how am I at fault?  Or am I?  Wouldn't the person who pinned have to answer to Amazon should a problem with TOS arise?

Second, I love that lens about your Dad and it is such a sweet, personal photo.   However, I don't include photos on any of my work pages that contain personal photos or photos of my family.    Even the photos of my kid's birthday parties do not include my kids in them.   (with maybe one or two exceptions).  And I am not an artist, so am not concerned about my art being copied.   Therefore, I have no problem with any of my photos being pinned.  

That being said, I am not a member of Pinterest myself, however, I do receive a lot traffic and exposure from the site.  So, for now, I am fine with my pages being pinned.   Are there copyright issues with the site?  Most likely.  But, there are copyright issues all over the Internet.  All I can do is make sure the images I use are legal and let the people who are more verse in copyright law take care of  the potential problems.

Janet, I agree that you, as the Amazon affiliate who has complied with the Amazon TOS with regard to publishing images is not the person at fault for breaking the TOS. It is the person who does the pinning. But it does beg the question if the "pinner" is an Amazon affiliate, then do they run the risk of losing their Affiliate account?

I hope so. Not out of any malice, but it does seem to me that the threat of losing an income stream may be enough to make some of these Pinners stop what they are doing.

And yes, with regard to the pic of my Dad, this is the first time I have ever used an identifiable pic of any of my family on a page - for the very reasons that I am guessng make you excercise caution. However, in this case I made an exception because my Dad's smile in that photo just is so typical of him.

I will check from time to time to see if any other websites are featring that pic and I will tackle it if I find it.

I don't get this thing about "repinning Amazon images". These images feature links back to the sales page. Shouldn't Amazon be highly interested in getting their product images in front of more eyeballs?

Achim, by "sales page" I take it that in this case you mean the Squidoo Lens?

Amazon TOS are quite clear that you can only use their product images IF the link on the image and the relating text directs people to the Product Page on Amazon.

When an Amazon image from a Squidoo lens is pinned, the link from the image and the relating text that goes to Amazon is replaced by a link from Pinterest to the lens.

I am awaiting clarification from Amazon regarding their position on this.

Here, I'm talking about Wizzley articles, AJ.   

If I make a Wizzley sales page about an Amazon product and someone repins it, the link to my Wizzley article/sales page stays with the image, right? Although you may have to click through a couple of times...eventually you will land on my Wizzley product review, where you can make a purchase. And that, I think, is in the interest of Amazon.

Am I missing something?

The response is the same for Wizzley pages as it is for lenses

Let's break it down, step by step...

You have a Wizzley page. It has an amazon module that contains an image of an amazon product. The image and the content relating to that image are linked directly to the Amazon product page.

So far everything is OK. The Amazon TOS allow you to use a product image from the Amazon product page on a Wizzley page because the image is linked directly to the Amazon Product page.

Now, if that image from the Wizzley page is "pinned" on someone's board at Pinterest, the image link changes because now the link to the Amazon Product page has been broken. The link associated with the "pin" on Pinterest changes to a direct link to the Wizzley page and not the Amazon Product page. This is a violation of Amazon TOS and is a Copyright Violation.

The fact that after a couple of clicks the visitor to Pinterest may just end up at Amazon, does not, in my opinion, justify breaking Amazon TOS.

So far Amazon has been silent on the matter. I am sure many others have, like me, contacted Amazon about this but until Amazon say you CAN do this, then my advice is don't.

If Pinterest were to make changes to their site to ensure that the actual links on Images, that appear on the source page (in this case a Wizzley page) are kept intact, then Amazon TOS would not be violated.

This would also work in favor of the owner of the original page, because the Affiliate link would remain intact too, but to be honest from what I am reading, the owner of Pinterest is a "coder" and seems to know little about the realities of running a site like this.

He knows how to make a visually appealing site and how to promote it. However, he is obviously naive if he thinks that if his own TOS state that people can only pin Images that they own or have permission to reproduce, then it will make his site legal, then he knows "naff all" about how so many people operate on the web.

But it is not just Amazon that this relates to, it relate to all afilliate companies that state in their TOS that images can only be used if they (or the related content) link directly to the product page on their site. So there's Zazzle, Allposters, Cafe Press, Etsy, ebay - to name but a few.

Well, I get all this, AJ. It's just that everywhere you look you can read about Pinterest currently being the greatest traffic generator for retail businesses. I simply can't imagine that Amazon would have a beef with that.

And if so, wouldn't they have published at least some kind of statement, already? It's an avalanche that can't be stopped overnight let alone be fixed, retroactively.

But you're correct, of course, if you base your doubts solely on the wording of the Amazon TOS. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I know what you mean Achim. But to me Pinterest is benefitting from people not realising ALL the "ins and outs". But I would also be interested to hear if anyone is really benefitting.

I have seen a few people reporting an increase in traffic, but is that traffic converting?

And what about the fact that the image on Pinterest could start competing with the image on the original page? You are then relying on people clicking through from Pinterest to the original page, so I would also be interested to see the mediium and long term effects to the original page of pinning an image. Short term it may result in traffic, but what if long term it results in traffic drying up?

What some commentators are holding their breath and waiting for is the first test case. No one wants to see some 40 year old single, work at home Mum or a retired 65 year old writing online for something to do or a student trying to pay their way through college, being dragged into court for Copyright Violation, and thank goodness it has not happened yet - or even being sent an invoice for $10,000 because they used an image and pinned it without permission, and yes, that HAS happened - it was not on Pinterest but someone who took an image down when they were caught by the owner, and they still had to pay.

And you know the crazy thing about all of this? There's plenty of other sites where you can get backlinks and generate traffic and they are a whole lot more legal than Pinterest.

Amazon have a huge dilemma, which is why I think we have not heard from them yet. Yes, they want to get their products out there in order to make sales. BUT, what sort of an example are they going to set if they give in on this and say it is OK to "bend the rules"?

And you know what, if they decide their sales are not going to increase (and I dont think they will) as a result of additional "exposure" on Pinterest, there could be a lot of Amazon Affiliates deleting a lot of pins.

As an affiliate who has had content pinned without her permission (which is not hers to give anyway in the case of Amazon images), I am not worried about my Amazon Affiliate Account because it is not me doing the illegal pinning. But I do think that anyone who is pinning and who does have an Amazon Affiliate Account needs to watch developments very carefully.

Amazon does go after Bloggers who are affiliates and who display their products in plagiarised content.

I think your points are very valid AJ.  I am not an Amazon affiliate, but I get what you are saying.  I have been thinking that if a pinned item had a good link, back to the original owner of that picture, it would be okay to re-pin.

Now, since I have no idea if the original poster or writer (such as yourself) wants their stuff pinned in the first place, it only makes sense to NOT re-pin anything and to get permission before pinning anything on there that is not mine.

I've come across many beautiful pictures and art that links nowhere and that is disturbing.  I do believe that posting the few Zazzle items that I have "pinned" has brought some traffic to my stores, but Pinterest says that we should not pin only our own things - which of course leads to pinning lots of things belonging to others.

Having the option to not be pinned - like here at Wizzley - makes very good sense. 

Your Squidoo article is excellent.

Thank you so much Pam

I deleted my account at Pinterest because this really concerns me - should Amazon come back and say that they are okay with this or provide a way of protecting ourselves then I will look to rejoin

It's such a shame all this. I love the idea of pinterest because I am very much a visual person and like how easy it is to collect and group images on a theme which are very useful for sparking offf ideas. 

If only pinterest provided a way to make boards private, then I could carry on collecting visual ideas and not worry about the legal and or moral side of things. After all, art students are well known for keeping scrapbooks collecting ideas from all kinds of sources.

Although I only ever post my own items or simply repin what's on the site, I've stopped using it for now. Hoping it can all be resolved.

People are definitely welcome to pin any of my craft and cooking photos, many of which have been watermarked.

Let's get this back into perspective.

Pinterest breaks all traffic records, the most reputable marketing consultants offer guidelines for viral success, none of the "big guys" write cautionary articles.

Why? Because if you use Pinterest the right way---use your own pics or public domain/CC images---you won't have any problems. Instead, you will tap into an enormous traffic and marketing opportunity. 

I would not stop pinning because of potential, future copyright issues with regard to Amazon images. I'd simply pin only my own pics.

chefkeem: 21. Mar 2012, 19:27

---

Why? Because if you use Pinterest the right way---use your own pics or public domain/CC images---you won't have any problems. Instead, you will tap into an enormous traffic and marketing opportunity. 

I would not stop pinning because of potential, future copyright issues with regard to Amazon images. I'd simply pin only my own pics.

From what I have heard Pinterest does not want people to only pin (promote) their own stuff.   They want users to pin other peoples photos as well.  Is that not true?  If so, that is where the problem arises since when people start pinning other peoples pages, they have  no idea what copyright exists with those images or if the site even wants their images taken. 

I see pages all the time that just grab photos from blogs and other sites.  For instance, if someone is creating a page to showcase Pirate cupcake ideas.  They provide a link back, but is that enough?  How do they know that particular blog wants their photo on your page?   One could argue, we'll why wouldn't they?  It is a backlink and potential traffic/exposure, therefore, a win-win. right?  Maybe not.  That is the question.  Is it really any different than using an 'all rights reserved' flickr photo and including a link back which we all know is not legal to do?   And, this in essence is exactly what Pinterest does.  Grabs photos from wherever they want without asking and provides a link back.   

Here's a link that someone shared in a one of my Facebook groups:

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=668806

It presents the case in a very factual and easy to read way about how Pinning other people's images can actually do them (the owner of the image) plenty of harm.

Yes, Achim you are right if people only pin their own images or images that they are licensed to pin, through CC and Public Domain etc, then there's no harm.

But as Janet points members are being encouraged to pin others' images. Recently an image of mine that was on the first page of Google Images for its very specific niche keywords has dropped off Google Images. I got a lot of useful traffic from that image.

On investigation, it has been pinned from the lens 22 times. So far I have only been able to find one original pinner plus 5 repins and no, Pinterest has not yet acted on the "take down" notice I have issued.

Pinterest just changed their terms of service, or are in the process of doing so.  They sent an email to all members last week.

It is good that they are starting to look at their TOS and the main concern for a lot of people has been resolved - and that is Pinterest no longer claims the right to sell people's images.

However, while all this revision is going on they are being very slow to take down my Image, that I reported last week.

I also have to say that while not all of us who are taking part in this discussion are in agreement, I want to say how pleased I am that the debate is remaining civil. Sadly, I cannot say it is the same everywhere and I have been the victim of two instances of not very nice behaviour these last few days.

Thank you Wizzley for being a "safe" environment where we can all be kind and civil to each other, even when we dont necessarily agree