Pinpics Proposes Ebay Photo Use Ban

[dawny]

YO theothersteve you lost me after the first sentence----smarty

 

[Whitney]

WHOA! Over the years I've taken a slew of those photos and when my old Dell breathed its last, I didn't get copies!

Ebay isn't a horrible dark place - there are nice traders, like me, who suddenly find they need to sell some or all of their pins. Anyone remember when MaeBlum had her tuition stolen out of her car? I helped her sell some of her collection during her emergency. Sometimes it just has to be; it doesn't make anyone a bad person to sell on Ebay. I think most people know my story and how when I suddenly went from married to single mother and when we were down to a can of peaches and some cheese sticks, my pin collection came to the rescue! It was all I had after I'd sold all the furniture and everything that wasn't nailed down! I'm just not ashamed to say that I sold on eBay and I think many people will, at one time or another, decide to sell something out of their collection. Believe me, I didn't think I would - but I did and Ebay was the fastest way to get it done!

Sometimes when I sold I used the photos on Pinpics. I didn't want to open the (just one example) LE 100 pack of 6 brand new pins because people like them better new/sealed! It was a time saver for me as well, I just didn't have the time or energy - it was panic time for me. I felt justified in using photos because I'd put so many up myself and I always gave a nod to Pinpics. Which takes me to my next, most important point: In 2005, after a trip to Disney and an introduction to trading, I came home and found pins on eBay where the sellers mentioned Pinpics. !? "What was that?" I thought. I went to check it out and that is when curiosity turned in to a huge hobby!

Had it not been for the mention of Pinpics on Ebay, I doubt I'd have ever found it.
Which means I wouldn't have met all these wonderful friends who are like family to me! I know I'm a broken record, but I met Coach through a Pinpics trade...if it weren't for Ebay, I wouldn't have met my boyfriend.

Besides all that, don't the people selling the scrapper lots use a stock photo of their own of a big bunch of pins?! I haven't looked for awhile, but isn't there usually a big photo of like 100 pins that they took and they reuse it over/over?! Taking away the ability to use Pinpics photos, a member built database, to reduce scrapper sellers just does NOT make sense. Once it's thought out...nope, it just doesn't accomplish what is intended.

Ebay and Paypal (redundant since it's owned by Ebay, but anyway) provide a huge amount of buyer protection. If you don't like what you received, you will get your money back. Unhappy buyers would kill Ebay in a heartbeat. Ebay knows that and will protect the business. Just please, don't perpetuate the feeling that every person selling on Ebay is evil and vile. @Swim2Sea (Margaret, if you're reading), WE met through Ebay, remember?

I know I'm bouncing around but please take away two points -
- Some good people sell on Ebay and using the Pinpics photos is very helpful.
- People FIND Pinpics through Ebay!

 

[Bellecat22]

I've also donated lots of pictures to Pinpics and had a computer crash so some of them got lost along the way. When I occasionally sell pins on Ebay, I have both used pictures from Pinpics, crediting them for the use of the information, and uploading my own picture.

But everyone that buys pins from Disneystore.com, those aren't the pins you're actually getting, they are stock images. If you don't like it you return it, just like most sellers on Ebay allow.

 

[supertank]

I agree... just because someone sells on eBay doesn't make them a bad person, and it doesn't make them "for profit." I live hundreds of miles away from Disneyland, and frankly I have difficulty trading my pins through pinpics for the ones I want. So I sell a lot on eBay, and I use that money to buy the pins I want. Third party trading, if you will.

 

[yenne]

I know I'm bouncing around but please take away two points -
- Some good people sell on Ebay and using the Pinpics photos is very helpful.
- People FIND Pinpics through Ebay!

It's funny that these are the exact two reasons why an eBay exception was made in the first place, and even after all this time it's still accomplishing these goals.

 

[Steve]

When you agree to a contract it can't just be changed by one party. Unless the original agreement said that you surrender all rights to the image then you still retain copyright of it. You may have given them permission to also use/distribute/modify/copy it, or whatever, but that doesn't stop you from also using it. Any changes they may make can only be enforced for new pictures loaded after the agreement has been changed and after they have given you a chance to see it and agree to it.

Contracts cannot just be changed in retrospect by one party. So - no point in keep worrying about it. Even putting a copyright or watermark on an image doesn't mean you cannot still use it because for something to be 'copyrightable' it has to involve a measure of original work and effort that constitutes 'artistic merit'. Stamping a watermark on an image doesn't make it sufficiently different from the original that they could claim that they have done 'artistic work' on it that qualifies it for copyright.

There is no law against downloading an image, that is not infringement of copyright, only the owner of the work can complain about unlicensed usage, and the image on the site is still your image even if it has a watermark on it because nothing of any artistic consequence has been done to it that makes it a 'different' image. It's still the same picture and it's still yours. You may have agreed under the existing agreement that they could do what they want with it, but they cannot stop anyone from copying it and using it (even with a watermark) because they still do not own the copyright in it. Only the copyright owner can complain, and they are not the copyright owner, they are a licensee of certain rights, but not exclusive rights, and they do not know whether you, as the copyright owner have authorized someone else to use the image (either the original or the one with the watermark on it - which is still your copyright).

If putting a watermark on an image made it 'sufficiently different' to be a new work of art, then you could change a few words in War and Peace and claim it was a different book. Doesn't work!


Steve

 

[yenne]

There is no law against downloading an image, that is not infringement of copyright, only the owner of the work can complain about unlicensed usage, and the image on the site is still your image even if it has a watermark on it because nothing of any artistic consequence has been done to it that makes it a 'different' image.

In practice this is a bit more complicated. When you upload an original picture to Pin Pics you are giving Pin Pics a license to use that image for its own purposes. You are not necessarily granting the right for anyone to use that image, and in fact this may be exactly what you don't want to happen. By watermarking the image we can demonstrate that it was copied from Pin Pics, which gives you, the owner, valuable information about how your works are being copied.

From Pin Pics' perspective, finding one of our watermarked images used somewhere else may be outside the agreement that the owner established with us for appropriate use of that image. Since the image was clearly ripped from our site, it's not outside of the contractual boundaries for us to notify the 3rd party that they do not have permission within the terms of our agreement with the owner to copy that image from our site. It would then be up to the 3rd party to contact the owner directly and acquire their own license to display the image, which most people don't bother to do, electing to just remove the image instead.

So, it's totally reasonable for Pin Pics to notify 3rd parties. You're right, though, that the ultimate responsibility for granting license still resides with the original owner.

 

[unibear]

Hey Bretu and unibear,

I hope you are not directing these comments at me, because all I am saying is I like sellers to post pictures of actual pins I am trying to buy. I guess I have a right to post here if I am a member, don't I ?

I did NOT read Bretu's comment as an attack on anybody (other than expressing a frustration regarding Pinpic's "decision" to take information given to them freely and charitably by its community of users, and unilaterally decide that this said community cannot use these images in selling on eBay), and my response to her comment about the Bible was not intended as a personal attack, but to express MY frustration regarding this decision.

 

[Whitney]

One of you smart people, help me out here?

So they can say photos uploaded from 'now on' cannot be used...

but

can they say 'no one can use the photos in the database all the way back to the blessed 2000 Dancers?'

It's one thing to change the rules from here forward, but to change the rules all the way back?! :shock:

 

[markheardjr]

Have they stated the reason? Or did I miss it? I assume they are saying it costs them money to host the pictures and if you link them somehow to eBay you are costing them download bandwidth traffic. For that reason I can see why they would want to limit those using pinpics on eBay. I think the original owners had it right though, donations are the way to go. If they can't generate enough donations, maybe come out with a line of official Pinpics pins they can sell to generate revenue. I heart Pinpics or Pinpics rocks or whatever. Just an idea.

 

[TiggerNut]

When you upload an original picture to Pin Pics you are giving Pin Pics a license to use that image for its own purposes.

Correct - but that purpose is not granting Pinpics permission to ban me from my own picture!

This goes back to donating photos from 5 & 10 years ago...do you realize how long it would take to find the original, which is why I gave it to the database in the first place! My CDs are by number of scan, not character or title of the pin. Which is why I have a problem with this decision. My decision was based on it being a tool for myself, while giving the community a better image of the item.

As another concern - what if Pinpics/Lansam decides to implement this policy selectively? Giving their friends permission to use the photos; while reporting photo stealing to Ebay on others?

I for one, will not be banned from my photos. If necessary, I will file a class action suit on behalf of those who donated their photos with the understanding that they could be used by the community for ANY purpose -whether that is Ebay, Amazon, Craig's list or writing in the sky. What is being suggested is wrong, and violates the understanding many had when giving the photos. I have no problem cataloging and requiring my photos be removed if there is a plan to ban my access.

From my count...I have thus far found 4,800 images that I can show in my possession that were given to Pinpics -for the joint purpose of use for the community -whether that is for sale, or admiration of their beauty.

 

[latemetal]

Have they stated the reason? Or did I miss it? I assume they are saying it costs them money to host the pictures and if you link them somehow to eBay you are costing them download bandwidth traffic. For that reason I can see why they would want to limit those using pinpics on eBay. I think the original owners had it right though, donations are the way to go. If they can't generate enough donations, maybe come out with a line of official Pinpics pins they can sell to generate revenue. I heart Pinpics or Pinpics rocks or whatever. Just an idea.

The reason they gave is that it helps protect the buyers on eBay since they can see the actual pin they are buying. As I stated earlier, eBay purchases have the best buyer protection around. It has nothing to do with bandwidth at all. If that was an issue, they would just ask people to save a copy and upload to eBay's servers and have them host it for the auction. Problem solved. Everyone I know that uses pinpics pictures on eBay always do this anyways, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

When you really start to think about issues they revealed during the Q&A and chat, their plans seem to go against the reasons why they are doing it in the first place, I'll explain more on that in the other thread where it is more on topic.

 

[Merryweather]

Hmmmm ....

 

[wdwjuan]

While we're remembering that, let's also consider that their goal is to expand the site's features as best benefits the pin community. They've been very willing to gather opinions from the community and take these into consideration. Your statement suggests that you feel that you have little input in the process, which should be disproved by the lengths to which Lansam has gone to chat, post, and otherwise communicate their ideas.

I understand and wasn't trying to be negative. I appreciate what is being done to inform the community.

I was just trying to say that while everyone has opinions on both sides of the subject, when it comes down to it, the site is owned by them and they can make changes whether we (the community) likes it or not. I appreciate them getting feedback from us during the process.
While I do understand the sense of some sort of personal ownership people in the community feel for the site after many years of making entries and adding information, it still doesn't qualify as any actual ownership.
-------------


As for pictures, I do agree with the concerns of people that have added many pictures to the site. While I see that they will always retain their right to the pictures, once a picture is replaced on pinpics (and they've talked about replacing tons), the owner of the replaced picture will have to upload their personal picture to use on an Ebay sale.
While that may be frustrating, once a picture is replaced, there's not much we can do about it.

 

[Cicada]

The point I am trying to make is this: As far as I am concerned, using the actual picture instead of a Pinpics picture, helps the seller.

+1

Granted, i'm not a "power seller" but in all ebay auctions i have made, I have always made it a point to take the most detailed photos I can of the actual item they will be receiving. However, I understand that this is often not feasible for someone that has 5, 10, 20 or more of the same item.

In any case, a photo of one of the actual items in your possession is much better than using stock photos or photos from around the net.

 

[Cicada]

Hmmmm ....

creeeeeepy.... :lol:

 

[WhitDisney]

...those who donated their photos [did so] with the understanding that they could be used by the community for ANY purpose -whether that is Ebay, Amazon, Craig's list or writing in the sky. What is being suggested is wrong, and violates the understanding many had when giving the photos.

+1

 

[Steve]

?.. When you upload an original picture to Pin Pics you are giving Pin Pics a license to use that image for its own purposes. You are not necessarily granting the right for anyone to use that image, and in fact this may be exactly what you don't want to happen.

...

From Pin Pics' perspective, finding one of our watermarked images used somewhere else may be outside the agreement that the owner established with us for appropriate use of that image. Since the image was clearly ripped from our site, it's not outside of the contractual boundaries for us to notify the 3rd party that they do not have permission within the terms of our agreement with the owner to copy that image from our site. It would then be up to the 3rd party to contact the owner directly and acquire their own license to display the image, which most people don't bother to do, electing to just remove the image instead.

So, it's totally reasonable for Pin Pics to notify 3rd parties. You're right, though, that the ultimate responsibility for granting license still resides with the original owner.

Well, unfortunately have shot yourself in the foot here because you agree that the ultimate responsibilty for granting licence resides with the original owner.

It is true that by uploading the picture the owner gives Pinpics a right to do whatever they want, and it's also true that they do not give everyone a right to copy it.

The issue here is that by uploading it to pinpics they do not give pinpics the right to prevent anyone else from using it. Makes no difference where they get it from, whether the owner sends it to them or they download it from Pinpics. In terms of copyright ownership it is the same picture, watermark or not.

So what you are saying is correct that if a pinpics image is used elsewhere you can tell the owner and its up to them whether they want to allow its use or not. You also agree that pinpics have no right to prevent people using pictures off the site, only the owner can do that, and they are also perfectly entitled to use their own pictures for any other purpose they want.

Issue settled.

 

[Cicada]

One thing to consider is the pinpics bandwidth usage if an auction listing uses a direct link to pinpics instead of making a copy of the image and uploading it during the auction listing process.

I ran a movie poster website many years ago and another site in Asia used our images (via direct links) in their store listings - the site got hit with a 400% bandwidth (2Gb allowed, 10Gb used) overage charge (much like what happens if you go over your monthly cell minutes or download data allocation) which cost several hundred extra dollars that month before I found out about it and removed the images. Hopefully pinpics has an 'unlimited bandwidth plan'.

As for references, websites automatically keep log files of what files are accessed and who requested them (IP address or website name) - an auction listing with a direct link to a pinpics images would show up in the logs with the auction site as the download requester. It is very easy to create a program to scan the logs looking for specific entries / patterns.

As a side note, log files are also one of the methods that is now used for tracking in HTML formatted email messages - the message has a 1 x 1 transparent image that also contains a customer ID value as part of the image link and that information is recorded in the log files for the site that hosts the image. 20 years ago email tracking was a fantasy (remember the "Bill Gates / AOL will pay you for forwarding the messages"?), but with the creation of HTML based email messages, not any more. That is why most email programs added image link blocking (skips over image requests using links) to their message display.

it's easy just as well to simply disallow hotlinking to any sites outside of a defined list in the site's .htaccess file.

disable hotlinking and right clicking? one can easy search their internet cache. or even easier, just print screen, crop, save.

it's going to be hard to enforce it, really.

 

[Cicada]

if it really does help even a little isn't it worth it?
figgy

+1.

 

[Merryweather]

Well, unfortunately have shot yourself in the foot here because you agree that the ultimate responsibilty for granting licence resides with the original owner.

It is true that by uploading the picture the owner gives Pinpics a right to do whatever they want, and it's also true that they do not give everyone a right to copy it.

The issue here is that by uploading it to pinpics they do not give pinpics the right to prevent anyone else from using it. Makes no difference where they get it from, whether the owner sends it to them or they download it from Pinpics. In terms of copyright ownership it is the same picture, watermark or not.

So what you are saying is correct that if a pinpics image is used elsewhere you can tell the owner and its up to them whether they want to allow its use or not. You also agree that pinpics have no right to prevent people using pictures off the site, only the owner can do that, and they are also perfectly entitled to use their own pictures for any other purpose they want.

Issue settled.

In front of my very eyes the poster of this changed from disneyqueenuk to Steve. How is this possible?

 

[Cicada]

In front of my very eyes the poster of this changed from disneyqueenuk to Steve. How is this possible?

database glitch, perhaps?

 

[tinkerbellfan117]

Did I miss something really important?

 

[erudolf]

Just throwing this question out there to provoke thought and an alternative look at this....

Just because you uploaded a picture years ago doesn't mean Pinpics has to use it. So, if over time LANSAM chose to take their own pictures and just trash all of you work, would that make you feel better? To some extent they are probably doing this anyway because some of those pictures aren't very good and lot of them are still Disney stock photos! The pins still exist somewhere as do a lot of their owners who would probably be willing to help...

Pinpics never agreed to store and retain your photos for you so if you didn't save your own copies or lost them, that's you problem, not theirs. And if you really want them that bad, go out and get them back now before they are watermarked. People may have contributes thousands of pictures, but how many of those do you really still need and have use for? Honestly....10%? If that?

All I'm saying is that if this is what LANSAM really wants to do then that is what they are going to do and if you raise a stink about them using your photos then they will pic by pic delete yours and replace them with their own. And ironically enough, that was one concern that was thrown out there. So, what do you want? Do you want them to use your photos the way they see fit or would you be happier if they trashed them and took their own photos. Be careful what you wish for and choose your battles wisely.

 

[wdwjuan]

Just throwing this question out there to provoke thought and an alternative look at this....

Just because you uploaded a picture years ago doesn't mean Pinpics has to use it. So, if over time LANSAM chose to take their own pictures and just trash all of you work, would that make you feel better? To some extent they are probably doing this anyway because some of those pictures aren't very good and lot of them are still Disney stock photos! The pins still exist somewhere as do a lot of their owners who would probably be willing to help...

Pinpics never agreed to store and retain your photos for you so if you didn't save your own copies or lost them, that's you problem, not theirs. And if you really want them that bad, go out and get them back now before they are watermarked. People may have contributes thousands of pictures, but how many of those do you really still need and have use for? Honestly....10%? If that?

All I'm saying is that if this is what LANSAM really wants to do then that is what they are going to do and if you raise a stink about them using your photos then they will pic by pic delete yours and replace them with their own. And ironically enough, that was one concern that was thrown out there. So, what do you want? Do you want them to use your photos the way they see fit or would you be happier if they trashed them and took their own photos. Be careful what you wish for and choose your battles wisely.

Well said.

And continuing off that statement, with LANSAM being near parks, at PTNs, events, WDI, etc, there won't be all that many pins that they won't be able to eventually find and take pictures.
Yes super low LE's will be tough, but most others will be found.