Thursday, May 31, 2012

Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 7

Pinterest doesn't automatically delete images pinners have chosen as folder cover decoration (highlighted in red above)
following a DMCA take-down notice.

If you file a DMCA notice for an image, you'll notice that one of the two versions Pinterest fails to remove is the one that a pinner may have chosen to use as a folder cover image. That's right. They don't remove everything. Pinterest will force you to chase that URL separately.

If that wasn't annoying enough, the folder cover images are wrapped in script attributes that block Firefox from being able to fetch the image URL by right-clicking on it. A creator trying to protect their copyright not only needs to jumps through endless loops to get their infringed work properly taken down, he or she has to deal with a behemoth of a passive-aggressive organization working tirelessly against the rights of artists to retain the rights to distribute their own work. It's not in Pinterest's business model to give artists that don't want their images pinned any help.

While these images are smaller than full-size, they are mere decoration and lead nowhere, and making an image smaller doesn't automatically make it "fair use."

To find the URL of these folder cover images, you will need to view the source code. In IE, View>Page Source, and in Firefox, Ctrl U.

Search the page of code for the character string: uploads/cover and you will find the URLs of the infringing cover images. They are in this format:

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Nasty Linking Practices


Looking deep into Pinterest's code reveals some unsavory practices that hurt artists and photographer beyond the mere infringing upon their copyrights. Unlike copyright infringement, which is against the law, these sneaky actions are legal. What they are is a stark reminder that we are not merely dealing with gentle souls programming a nice little platform for the ladies to line up pretty pictures; we are dealing with an ugly, unscrupulous pirate without an iota of respect for artists' livelihoods.

Today, we will demonstrate that when Pinterest creates links to the original source of the material (the creator's website), Pinterest uses a sneaky "nofollow" link that tells search engine to NOT count this link towards PageRank credit for the target website. It is an instruction to the search engine bot not to follow this link for crawling and explore the creator's website, but to continue perusing Pinterest.

We will also show the flip side; when Pinterest creates links to itself, those links are NOT "nofollow" links, and that further, they are attempting to fool the search engines into thinking that "" actually points to a page within Pinterest, that contains a partial aggregate of your material that has been pinned. I repeat: Pinterest attempts to fool search engines into thinking your website is on Pinterest.

The screenshots of the code below have been obscured in some places to remove identifying information.

In this screenshot, the outbound link pointing to the creator's website is a worthless, deprecated "nofollow" link. It counts for nothing in your search engine rankings, and slows down the rate at which your website would be crawled.

This snippet shows a pinned image with the alt tag "Pinned Image" pointing to the creator's website with a deprecated "nofollow" link. The significance of the "Pinned Image" anchor text is that even a search engine does not treat a "nofollow" tagged link differently, the search engine will credit the creator's website as being a "Pinned Image," sabotaging its search engine ranking with a non-specific anchor text that has nothing to do with what the image actually is.

This is a series of three thumbnail images of pins that point inward to Pinterest's page that aggregates a creator's images from a source website, on Pinterest's servers, in this format: This inward link is NOT a deprecated "nofollow" link. By default, search engine bots will follow this link and continue to crawl Pinterest instead of being diverted to the creator's website. This increases the importance of the Pinterest page that aggregates your material in the eyes of search engines, and makes it float to the top of the results.

Pinterest actively hurts the source websites, while helping itself.

This last one is the nastiest of them all; using your website URL as the anchor text, Pinterest points an inward link to the page that aggregates a creator's images from the source website. This tells the search engines that they can find your website on Pinterest's servers, on this page: - rather than on your actual website. While search engines may not be completely fooled, they are fooled enough.

Typing my own website URL in Google's search box, the page where Pinterest aggregates my infringed content ( tops the page 2 results. It might be higher if I weren't so vigilant in removing infringed content.

Typing "" (a large image website with very heavy presence on Pinterest)in Google's search box, the page where Pinterest aggregates the infringed content ( is the third result on page 1.

Typing "pinterest (the name of a webmaster forum)" in Google's search box, the page where Pinterest aggregates the infringed content ( is the first result on page 1. The second result is another pinterest page. Only the third result is the webmaster forum, with Pinterest-related threads highlighted.

Pinners like to laud the "great publicity" creators are getting from having their work pinned and repinned on Pinterest. Some publicity! Pinterest's linking scheme, by design, is to steal traffic from the source websites, and decrease the share they deserve from organic search results.

The duplicate content penalties that are bound to arise, as outlined in the earlier blog post entitled: Clone Wars further compounds the problem. This post did not get the attention it deserved, it's a good idea to catch up on it.

Pinners are hypnotized by their illicit collections of pretty pictures - nearly all of them completely unaware of the unfair, underhanded way that Pinterest is trying to grab not only content, but traffic from creators. They believe that creators are getting good vibes from having their work pinned on Pinterest. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any extra trickle of traffic comes at a very high price; the loss of search engine ranking for website images, and the website as a whole, to Pinterest's benefit.

In fact, nearly all self-publishing webmasters are as unaware of the multitude of ways they are being wronged as the pinners themselves. They count visitors, check for sales. They're not looking deep into the downright evil linking scheme that in the long run, will rob them of more visitors than they will gain, while Pinterest makes millions off their work, and the visitors that should be theirs directly, without going the roundabout Pinterest way.

Pinterest is a vampire. There's nothing pretty about it.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

It's Not About Prints!

Many Pinterest enthusiasts are convinced that their activity isn't cutting into the artists' lucrative print business, therefore no artist is losing revenue from the copyright infringement.

Dearest Pinterest enthusiasts,

Hardly any of us making a living from our art or craft has ever made a penny from framable prints. Only a few photographers do, most do not.

Prints isn't how we put food on our tables. We understand that it's difficult for you to grasp the multitude of ways we squeeze boxes of Kraft Dinner and Ramen noodles from our work. It's a hussle, we have to be creative in art, and in business.

Copyright infringement hurts us.

Enjoy pinning your own work, pictures with a "PIN IT" button, and images from Creative Commons.

The Artists.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Image Copyright Is A Lesser Copyright

Plagiarism of the written word is sometimes taken more seriously
than image plagiarism.
I think photographers, artists, and other intellectual property copyright owners need to catch up with this trend as well. Whether for good or ill, the internet has become a place for sharing and the free exchange of ideas. [...]With sites like Pinterest, many artists and photographers and other relatively unknown sites are getting great exposure. And isn't that the goal of an artist--to have his or her work appreciated and admired?

- "Cocopreme" in How To Use Pinterest Legally

Obviously there is a line and some people do cross it. I've had my articles copied word for word on other sites before and had to report it.

- "Cocopreme" in How To Use Pinterest Legally

I think writers need to catch up with this trend as well. Whether for good or ill, the internet has become a place for sharing and the free exchange of ideas. With sites like Tumblr, many writers and other relatively unknown sites are getting great exposure. And isn't that the goal of a writer--to have his or her work appreciated and admired?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and outright copying is just sharing free ideas.

What appears like a reasonable opinion about images sounds outrageous when applied to the written word, doesn't it?

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Dating Your Screenshots

Dated screenshots can be valuable evidence in the event of a lawsuit.

Screenshots can be forged.

Dated screenshots can be forged.

But so can a 5 dollar bill. Sometimes we have to do with the best we got.

In order to take a screenshot of the infringing material, you need to press the "PRINT SCREEN" key on your keyboard and paste in a graphic processing program. Not all of them work; the very basic MS Paint does. You probably have this program in your accessories if you have a PC. To take a dated screenshot, you need to pop up your desktop calendar, normally by double-clicking the hour/minute clock icon at the bottom right hand corner of your screen.

  • Pop up your calendar
  • Press the PRINT SCREEN key
  • Paste in suitable photo editing software such as MS Paint
  • Save, crop, and you're ready to go.
  • Saturday, May 26, 2012

    Like A Plague Of Locusts

    If you think it's already difficult to chase your content on Pinterest's servers, imagine what it will be like when some of its clones start to become popular.

    There are many ways to join them if you can't beat them - joining Pinterest and posting your pictures on it is the least imaginative and the least profitable.

    There is better!

    SEO Toolster markets a Pinterest clone script, reasonably priced at $749, with free installation. Cogzidel offers you Pinderful, another remarkably similar knockoff for just $299. The aptly named Pinterest Clones, produced by Social Curation Solutions, features a similar app for under $200.

    These scripts are shockingly faithful reproductions of Pinterest's look and functionality. It's a wonder that Pinterest isn't suing them for... copyright infringement.

    Some of the clones are already trying to make inroads with different target clienteles. Many have chosen to concentrate their efforts on a language and a country (this may explain Pinterest's recent urgency in trying to go international). Others are jumping on Pinterest's cast offs, and specializing in pornography.

    Why not jump on the copyright-infringement gravy train, and run your own Pinterest? Call it "Pinfringe." It's probably a lot less work and more money than what you are doing now, something that is almost always true of dishonest work.

    Friday, May 25, 2012

    Party Time

    First party: The copyright-infringement enabling platform, eg., Pinterest.

    Second party: The agent of copyright infringement, aka the pinner.

    Third party: The victim of copyright infringement, and the website the pinner is scraping content from, for the ultimate monetary benefit of Pinterest.

    Fourth party: Through the intermediary of the EMBED code, a website utilizing images belonging to the third party, unlawfully uploaded to the servers of the first party by the second party, presumably in order to profit from the display of that pictorial content, just like the first party.

    Thursday, May 24, 2012

    Should You Allow Your Images To Be Pinned?

    Many artists and webmasters have to decide whether to allow their pictorial work to be broadcast by Pinterest with incomplete information.

    Do you have a recipe blog or website where large-scale off-site display of your image may result in increasing the number of visitors following the link to fetch your recipe? Your case may be one of the rare instances where Pinterest traffic may represent a valuable boost. Indeed, Google Trends show that the most oft-visited websites by pinners are recipe-related. Such traffic boost may make it worth your while to ignore possible erosion of your search engine rankings from duplicate content penalties and the damages from fourth-party webmasters exploiting your images through the EMBED button.

    If your website sells products, and the images are little more than visual aids to promote sales, devoid of artistic embellishments, you may need to monitor visitor activity closely to make a decision. At this time, there are vastly conflicting results as to the worth of Pinterest traffic as a sales driver, ranging from "god-awful" to "amazing," so it's safe to assume that it depends on the products you are peddling.

    In the event that you are selling crafts or objects that while pretty, may have very little practical value to the owner, pinners may feel satisfied from viewing the image, aka being inspired, translating into very few sales. To be fair, this may be true whether the visitor browses Etsy directly, or comes to a specific page from a Pinterest link. The real danger here is a mass exodus of people browsing Etsy for "inspiration" and perhaps a purchase, to Pinterest for "strictly viewing." Instead of buying that special item they will "acquire" it by adding it to their pin/repin collection, changing how a craft is consumed as an object, to being consumed more as its image.

    Over time, the proportion of images displayed that have been already SOLD will increase, and people may become leery of following links to Etsy expecting to reach a SOLD page. In many instances, normal consumer behavior would cause one to expect that a much-repinned craft image will lose its appeal as something representing one's unique eclectic tastes.

    It should be noted that Etsy is NOT among the top 10 sites visited by pinners.

    The high quality of photographs on Etsy and the artistic nature of what they depict make them prime targets for EMBED button exploitation, and the images will end up on the websites of lazy webmasters trying to cobble together micromoney-making websites on subjects they often know nothing about, using other people's content. These embedded images may frequently supplant the creator's own images in image searches.

    Over time, one might predict that overall, the existence of Pinterest will be a lose-lose proposition for Etsy, as a direct competitor and sales black hole.

    Photographers depending on licensing their images are very divided on the issue - as divided as there are ways to exploit licensing. While some worry about the popularity of some of their images on Pinterest making it near impossible to license, because no sucker wants to pay to display an image that is displayed for free everywhere, even at a higher definition or in another medium (like print), others seem to feel that the very display of their watermark may bring them more business.

    It's unlikely that the kind of activity on Pinterest will result in someone paying to buy your image printed on a T-shirt or a mug. Pinners are on Pinterest to look and share pictures for free, and have their egos stroked for their great imaginary style, not to buy merchandise - except for a few lucky impulse purchases, it's not clear whether it's worth having your images re-broadcast by way of embeding in fourth-party websites.

    For most other websites with have a traffic-based monetizing strategy, having their images reproduced on Pinterest is quite likely to be a traffic sink that is bound to hurt more and more as Pinterest grows.

    General information websites range from mostly textual, with images as decoration, to completely pictorial. At one end of the spectrum, a site with much text, and few images, pinning these images may bring a trickle of traffic that may not otherwise discover the site, and be actually interested in the written details. Further, even if all the images of a website whose images represent 5% of the content, Pinterest will still only exploit 5% of that content, and any damage to image search engine rankings may be of little consequence.

    At the other extreme of this same spectrum, a site with largely pictorial content could literally have its entire content copied over and over on Pinterest, meaning that Pinterest exploits 100% of that website's content, and erosion of the original content's search engine rankings for images for duplicate penalties favoring Pinterest-hosted images may have dire consequences. Pinterest's EMBED function simply add further injury after a fatal wound. Any traffic from Pinterest is likely to be unproductive, since an image-based website offers little more than what the visitor has already seen on Pinterest.

    Unless search engines process Pinterest differently from other websites, having one's images pinned and repinned on Pinterest is quite likely to hurt one's organic rankings.
  • Images are subject to duplicate content penalties.
  • EMBED button leads back to pin page, not original source.
  • Overall, Pinterest creates many more links towards itself than to the original source.
  • Pinterest recreates each pin in 4 different size formats.
  • The multiplicity of some images on Pinterest, and all their repins, increases the likelihood that image searches will weigh in Pinterest's favor rather than the original source.

    An artist may want to share art and believe that no one should profit from the display and distribution of creative work on the internet and that making a living from art soils it, even if this means that in the long run, the quality and quantity of this collective body work is bound to decrease. Another artist may not have figured out how to monetize their work and be willing to give it away for others to distribute, and may appreciate the attention.

    Some artists may not want their work on Pinterest simply on principle - even if they believe that upon the whole, they are neither winning or losing. They may feel that Ben Silbermann has no business becoming a millionaire off their work, combined with the work of their peers, taken without permission, and against copyright laws. They may not want their work posted on websites they do not approve of through the abomination that is the EMBED code. They may understand the importance, for the long-term survival of digital display of art on the internet, that copyrights be respected.

    Wednesday, May 23, 2012

    EXIF Data Stripper

    Photographs uploaded to Pinterest are stripped of their Exchangeable Image File Format (EXIF) data.

    This "metadata" is part of a photograph's copyright management information. Digital camera will automatically record a long list of parameters for each photograph, from aperture to date the image was taken. Using the computer interface provided with their camera, photographers can also program their camera to add their name to this information. It's important to learn how to add one's name to one's camera; since 2011, EXIF data is crawled by Google and is searchable in Google Image. If the EXIF data on a photograph displayed on the internet is intact, you should be able to find it by searching for your name in image search.

    It's yet another Pinterest practice that makes it difficult to find your images on their site.

    You can check the EXIF data on your own images using one of the many EXIF viewers available online. You can view the data for an image on the web, or from an image saved to your computer.

    Similarly, you can remove the EXIF data yourself by using an online service.

    Tuesday, May 22, 2012

    What Pinners Are Handing Over to Ben Silbermann

    Pinners are giving Pinterest CEO Ben Silbermann
    the gift of free content, exploitable for his profit.

    When an artist wishes to create something with some hope of deriving revenues from his work, a lot of time, effort and creativity are called upon. All Ben Silbermann needs to obtain that same content is for a pinner to make one little click for him.

    ONE Craft Photograph
    Crafter vs.
  • Spending days designing cute crocheted slippers
  • Making several slippers, improving design and yarn selection each time
  • Writing out instructions
  • Hassling friends for a baby to put slippers on for photograph
  • working to get that perfect lighting and baby foot position
  • One click

    ONE Painting
    Painter vs.
  • Spending years perfecting a concept and a style
  • Getting a really good idea
  • Buying materials, making the art
  • Taking a good photo without glare and even lighting
  • One click

    ONE Photograph
    Photographer vs.
  • Finding that perfect location
  • Airline ticket to perfect location
  • Hiring model
  • Hiring make up artist
  • Hotels for everyone
  • Waiting 4 days for the right clouds
  • Digital post-processing
  • One click

    This is the work that pinners are handing over to Pinterest. Who should profit from the work of an artist? The artist him/herself, or Pinterest's Ben Silbermann?

    Monday, May 21, 2012

    The Image Is The Product

    "An Image Is Worth More Than The Object It Represents"

    Welcome to the digital age.

    Many pinners have convinced themselves that artists ought to be eternally grateful for the publicity. They haven't noticed how few artists are posting their own content for their own publicity on Pinterest. When pressed, they'll argue that posting a digital representation of an artwork, a craft project, or a landscape photograph, cannot possibly hurt the sales of that product, on the contrary!

    Not to single out pinners, many attorneys, photographers, writers and visual artists themselves still have a view that the only avenues for profiting from one's artwork is to sell the work itself, or its reproduction on less expensive media ranging from coffee mugs, calendars, giclee prints and t-shirts, or by licensing rights to the ever-shrinking print media, or internet news behemoths like CNN.

    It is often thought that multiplying the images of the object on the internet in no way interferes with the sales of the object, so why should artists complain? The more the object is seen, the greater the likelihood that it will be purchased by someone. Pinners justify themselves thinking that they wouldn't have bought licensing rights to the image under any circumstance, such that the artist isn't losing any licensing income. They are, after all, only looking.

    In the digital age, the image of the object has become the product.

    The image is consumed through the viewing of it.

    Self-publishing artists can profit from the distribution of their images for viewing on their own websites, supported by advertising sponsorship. The images can be displayed on their own as sources of inspiration, or simple viewing delight. They can be essential decoration to how-to articles. They can support ideas and help with brand recognition. None of these strategies to profit from one's images involves sales of physical objects of any kind.

    The artist's ability to profit from self-publishing is eroded when pinners contribute to the building of a large, central marketplace of image consumption. Pinterest, as a central viewing marketplace is not only populated by the artist's own images (forcing the artist to compete against his/herself), but it also conveniently features the added bonus of the best work of many other artists.

    In the aggregate, the consumers of digital images will be satisfying their viewing needs in the new, more convenient central marketplace, stripped of intellectually-demanding accompanying text, and have no incentive at all to consume images in their dispersed and non-uniform original sources.

    If there is any doubt that it is the image itself that is consumed, kindly refer to this article: Pinner Hall of Shame?

    Sunday, May 20, 2012

    Get Around The No-Pin Meta-Tag To Display Your Own Message

    Not pleased with the nopin meta-tag, or the infuriating message they display to thwarted pinners (they're not actually thwarted, they just get a warning that they can ignore) - "Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!"? Frustrated that Pinterest encourages pinners to harangue webmasters to argue about their "right" to pin everything?

    You can display your own message to would-be pinners. When a pinner attempts to take your content and upload it to Pinterest's server, they will be shown an image to choose from that is normally hidden from your visitors.

    This method is expected to work with any Pinterest clone as well, so no future need to add stacks of nopin metatag for every user-generated content scraping site:

    (1) Add the following code in the HEAD of your web pages:

    <style type="text/css">
    .nodisplay {display: none;}

    (2) Right-click on the copyright warning image below, save to your computer, and upload in your website's main directory.

    (3) Add this image code somewhere on your page:

    <img src="copyrightwarning2.jpg" width=100 height=100 class="nodisplay">

    The image will not be visible to your visitors. However, when someone tries to pin it, it will appear in full-size among the images offered from pinning from your page.

    Below is the way your page might look (the copyright warning image is invisible)

    Yet, an attempt to pin will pop the copyright warning as one of the selections. The size is indicated as 100 x 100 pixels, but once uploaded to Pinterest it will spread in size.

    Saturday, May 19, 2012

    Clone Wars

    Pinterest vs. Your Image's Ranking In Search Engines

    Search engines are largely unable to pick an original from its clones.

    Search engines routinely discount "duplicate content" from their result pages, in order to provide a more varied user experience. Image recognition technology allow search engines to identify duplicate images as well, and purge them out of their Image searches.

    How do search engines distinguish the original content from its duplicates? The short answer is: "THEY DON'T." They are not able to recognize an original form a copy. The image that beats the clones is the one with the greatest "weight" as measured by imponderables like backlinks, anchor text, and page rank - the exact kind of scheme that repeated repinning of an image will favor. One could predict that a much-repinned image on Pinterest will handily supplant that of the original, under current search engine practices.

    Oftentimes, a page with a link to an image on a third-party website will rank higher than the page with the actual image. It's safe to say that the process is quite imperfect.

    We don't know how search engines will handle images hosted on copyright-infringement platforms like Pinterest in their ranking algorithms. It is certain, however, that Pinterest's copies of one's images represent a clear danger to the ranking of one's original images. They almost certainly will, in many instances, supplant the original in terms of ranking and hurt its visibility and credibility on the internet, unless a search engine manually punishes Pinterest-hosted images with a penalty.

    When a artist decides whether to allow Pinterest users to scrape their images and upload them to Pinterest's servers, he or she will often be blinded by flattery, and noble notions of free sharing. Few will consider the possibility that their original image's rankings will be hijacked by Pinterest's many copies, diverting their hard-earned traffic to Pinterest's benefit.

    Friday, May 18, 2012

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 6

    Writing an effective DMCA notice to Pinterest

    Better not to use the online form provided by Pinterest.
    It's horrible.

    An effective DMCA take-down notice is one that will allow you to wipe off all repins without having to chase them individually.

    Pinterest's online form will only allow pin pages, not images, making it extraordinarily useless in the case of medium to large scale cases of infringement. Further, a single error in a multiple submission will wipe the form clear and the entries are not recoverable, forcing you to give up on multiple submissions in favor of individual submissions.

    To work around these Pinterest's attemps to discourage you from enforcing your copyrights, you must email them your DMCA request direction. For this, you will need to re-format all image location URLs. If you don't specify every version of every image, they'll be more than happy to leave them on their servers. They are not there you help you; they are there to help themselves keep your content and leave their users as unmolested as possible by your take-down requests.

    You will notice that the infringing image URLs are in this format:

    Pinterest has many caches ("media-cache1," "media-cache2," "media-cache3,") and some versions dedicated to international traffic. In order to remove images from any of their many servers, you will start by stripping off the beginning of each image URL:

    This code will remain for each image:


    Right now, your image is stored in 5 different formats. This may change as the site evolves, Pinterest may decide to change the way they name these different format filenames, or add new ones. To delete them all (as they are named to this date), change the letters in the URLs to have a version that ends with a b, a c, an f and a t - in addition to a full-size original without a suffix.


    Mail your letter to this address:

    Below is an example of a formatted letter with the required legal declarations included:

    Remove these images from your servers (IMAGE LOCATIONS):

    They are from my website (LINK LOCATIONS):


    I have a good faith belief that the disputed use of the copyrighted material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law (e.g., as a fair use).

    I am the owner, or authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyright or of an exclusive right under the copyright that is allegedly infringed.

    This information is accurate.

    Wednesday, May 16, 2012


    Pinterest valued at 1 billion

    pinterest money
    If Pinterest really is worth 1 billion,
    no one can dispute that it is a worthwhile target for a lawsuit.

    According to a source on TheNExtWeb (TNW), "this most recent round of funding is said to include Bessemer, Andreessen Horowitz, FirstMark," and Rakuten. They have raised between 100 to 120 million fresh millions of dollar in funding, depending on the source.

    Rakuten, a giant Japanese e-commerce company that already owns Kobo, and is a lead investor."When asked about potential copyright infringement issues, Rakuten responded saying that Pinterest will ultimately overcome such problems. "

    We hope they are wrong about this.

    One billion may actually be an underestimate for the worth of all the content that Pinterest users have scraped from unwilling or unknowing third parties.

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 5

    Google Image To Image Search.

    The Google Image/Image search is an amazing new feature which is derived from Google's use of sophisticated image recognition functions to satisfy a need to eliminate duplicate images from Google's Image search. You may have noticed that over the years, the old problem of seeing the same picture over and over again in Image search has disappeared. Now, Google allows its users to harness this powerful tool for their own purpose. Thank you, Google.

    Go to Google Images, and type in your search term, example, "widget propellers."

    If you find an image that's yours on the page, click on it, and drag and drop in in the search box which will automatically enlarge when you hover over it. Like this:

    Image/Image search is a revolution in your ability to detect infringements on your graphical content.

    Your search result page will point out all your indexed image's twins on the internet:

    Scan this search result page for images attributed to

    Open in fresh tabs, collect link and image locations.

    NOTE: Currently, pins appear poorly indexed in this feature. It's not impossible that Google considers Pinterest's content so likely to be duplicate content that it applies a severe penalty against it in its Image search, but this is just speculation. Using the "site:" command in Google Image does yield a bevy of Pinterest Images, so they are in fact indexed for Google Images. There are mysteries.

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 4

    Using the SITE: command on Google.

    Google's SITE: command is one of the most powerful tools at your disposal to locate your content. It allows you to search a site specifically, in this example, Enter the site: command with your domain name in the format below in Google's search:

    SEARCH: ""

    Using the site: command to locate Pinterest content misattributed to Google yields an astonishing 14.4 million results.

    The search will yield both pin boards, and individual pin pages (recognizable by a URL with a long string of number). Pin boards appear to be more reliably indexed than the "deeper" pin pages, so many pin pages are actually missing from Google's database altogether and will not show up on search. Examining a pin board to find your content is a tedious chore. Use your browser search function to find your domain name on the pin board. Some pin boards have a reasonable number of pins that Pinterest serves to your browser in a single pass.

    Tragically, many pin boards are little more than poorly managed electronic hoards, and scrolling to the bottom of the pin board will stimulate Pinterest to serve you another helping of pins. If you still haven't found your image, scroll down again for a third helping. To reach the bottom of a completely full pin board, you may need to repeat this 10 times. Some electronic content hoarders may even surprise you with a link to a second page when you finally reach the bottom of the first page.

    Click on "more search tools" on Google Search page's left hand menu.

    Some useful features include pages created or changed in the past 24 hours or past week, as well as "page not visited" if you're starting to lose track.

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 3

    Make use of Pinterest's flawed and unsophisticated search function.

    This is hit and miss because it depends on pinners placing your content in intelligible categories (as opposed to geeneric "stuff I like"). Type the command below this in your browser address bar, replacing "red+black" by keywords that may describe your material. Don't forget to add a "+" sign between words:

    The address bar should look like this:

    You'll see a variety of images:

    Scroll down the page, you might recognize your images. Same routine: for each image, open a tab, collect link locations, image locations, and chase down the pinboards of the repinners for more of your images.

    SPECIAL NOTE: search result pages are very rarely updated. Weekly perhaps.

    Tuesday, May 15, 2012

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 2

    Don't forget this multi-page search tip

    In your browser's address bar, replacing "" by your own domain name, type the following:

    This page represents a selection of new, original pins, directly from your website. Repins don't show up on this page. Recently, it has been updated close to real-time. In Firefox, open the thumbnail images in new tabs. For your DMCA notice, you need the LINK-OUT URL and the IMAGE location on Pinterest's servers. The Pin URL is quite useless, if you choose to report Pin URLs instead of Image URLs, you'll spend a lifetime chasing repins. Do not use the DMCA interactive form on the Pinterest website. Right-click on the large images and COPY LINK LOCATION and paste in an Excel worksheet, followed by COPY IMAGE LOCATION, also to be pasted in the Excel worksheet.

    Type the following addresses in your browser's address bar, replacing "" by your own domain name, as you might uncover older, original pins:

    Pages stop at 9.

    You might find quite a bit of hidden material there. Again, from all these images, click and open a new tab. Then from these tabs, collect the LINK LOCATION and the IMAGE LOCATION.

    PRO-TIP #1: Find the ZOOM OPTION in your browser's View Menu. It will shrink everything on the page, so that you'll see more images per screen shot. You may have to squint to read the works, but Pinterest isn't for reading!

    PRO-TIP #2: Even if your multi-page search comes up empty, and you've had all of its content removed via DMCA, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ISN'T MORE OF YOUR CONTENT. You could still have thousands of images on Pinterest. A lot of is simply doesn't make it to that page.

    A Spammer's View of "Pin Hags"

    The image pinners wish to project.


    How spammers view pinners (excerpts from Black Hat World Forum):

    Don't get these glamorous pictures fool you, Pinterest is mostly older, fat ass women spending all their time on the internet, lazily clicking on pictures to pin them and getting their egos stroked for their amazing taste.

    They're dreaming about high heels and castles but trust me, what I make money on is the peddling of donuts and limited edition Pop Tarts. [...]

  • Thomas Kinkade crap
  • Amazon grocery products with quality photos: donuts [...], fruit and nuts [...], gift baskets [...], chocolate & candies are super hot [...], chocolates with really nice pictures [...], shit like these cupcakes sell like mad [...], candy apples [...], cute shit with jelly beans [...], 12-flavor gummy bears [...] - you get the idea.
  • Trendy shit like decorating items with seashells that you can put in their own folder. Example: [...]
  • ANY EFFING ANYTHING WITH HEARTS. Just search Amazon with the "heart" keyword in Home & Garden. They have heart-shaped measuring cups that no pinning hag will want to be caught without. You could fill up an entire fake account with heart junk merchandise. [...]
  • Niche stuff targeting the gullible and more likely to follow the links, like a folder of merchandise with Jesus or the Virgin Mary.
  • Bacon products, they'll pretend it's for their husbands but it's really for them [...]. I tried the bacon thing as a joke, now I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

  • Dresses (overdone, and pinners won't fit in them anyway)
  • Electronics (reading instruction manuals is intimidating)
  • Jewelry (looks spammy)
  • Diets. These gals love to eat more than they love to diet. Give them food instead. Easy food, none of that hard-work recipe business.
  • Craft stuff. They like to look at it, not do it.

    Link to Google Trends

    See the other websites that the pin hags visit?

    1. (FOOD)
    3. (FOOD)
    4. (FOOD)
    5. (FOOD)
    7. (FOOD)
    8. (FOOD)
    9. (FOOD)
    10. (HAIR - probably EATING IT)

  • Monday, May 14, 2012

    Hacktivism vs. Consumerism

    Let's be realistic
    "Dumps" not likely to go viral on the Pinterest crowd

    Hacktivism is the exploitation of the internet, through means that weren't necessarily intended, for the purpose of spreading a social message.

    New Forms of Hacktivism suggests pinning pictures of Occupy protests, infographics about climate change, quotes from Malcolm X or Naomi Wolf, garbage dumps or even Walmart. "The first time I posted an image of two women kissing, I got a complaining comment from a woman who said her granddaughter used the site and she didn’t want her exposed to things like that. Expose!"

    Finding Your Work On Pinterest PART 1

    Learn to recognize an original pin from its repins. This can speed up your DMCA take down chores. Although an "ancestor" pin and its subsequent repins all have different PAGE URLs, they display the same IMAGE URL. Do not submit PAGES in your DMCA take downs, as Pinterest will remove the page, and not remove the associated repins. If you submit IMAGES, then all the repins will be neutralized with a single request.

    STEP 1

    Take note of the number on the pin PAGE in the URL. This one is:

    STEP 2

    Get the image location by right-clicking on the image. Copy and paste in a text editor like Notepad or Word. This one is:

    Notice that the digit string for the IMAGE is the same as the digit string for the PAGE above (261912534548757080).

    When the image digit string and the page digit strings are the same, that means we are dealing with an original pin taken directly from the wed. This is the "ancestor" pin.

    STEP 3

    Find the links to the repins. Do not click on the repinner's name, click on the repinner's FOLDER. There are two repinners here, but we only need to follow one for this demonstration.

    STEP 4

    You have reached the repinner's pin board. Find the repined image. Here, it is dead center in a page with few images. You may need to scroll a lot, or search for keywords to identify this image on the page. If there are a great deal of images, you will need to scroll down to the bottom repeated to stimulate the Pinterest server to fetch even more of that folder's pins. Click on that image.

    STEP 5

    Take note of the number on the pin PAGE in the URL. This one is:

    Get the image location by right-clicking on the image. Copy and paste in a text editor like Notepad or Word.

    Notice that the digit string for the IMAGE is NOT the same as the digit string for the PAGE above, but it is the same as that of our "ancestor" pin.

    This means that we are dealing with a repin.

    It is hoped this will help creators find their way around the Pinterest maze - at least you will be able distinguish original pins from repins.

    Exploiting Pinterest's EMBED Feature

    The EMBED button is your gateway to DMCA-freedom and profits

    Let's envision the profitable avenues offered by Pinterest's embed button. The EMBED button provides pirate-minded webmasters endless pictorial content without risking their hosting accounts for repeated DMCA take down procedures. Indeed, the EMBED button is a form of hotlinking; therefore, they are not uploading infringing content to the servers, and remain outside of the reach of DMCA-fueled deletions. The only way the webmaster's access to the images can be disabled is by removing these images from Pinterest's servers themselves.

    Can an artist who has voluntarily uploaded their images to Pinterest keep these images on Pinterest, yet disable the EMBED feature to prevent other websites from exploiting them? The answer is "no." When the image was uploaded, the artist gave Pinterest the right to do distribute the images to pretty much anyone who wants to use these images for any purpose they please.

    What happens when an artist submits a DMCA take-down notice to the webmaster's host? Nothing. Nothing, because the images aren't hosted on their servers. They can't help you.

    What marvels can be done with this EMBED button?

    Displaying advertisements around Pinterest-hosted images for fun and profit

    The EMBED button opens up a treasure chest of free, hassle-free content. Webmasters can create pages targeting high-paying keywords for advertisement, decorate these pages with relevant images hotlinked, and slap advertisement, affiliate links, poker links, fad diet links, whatever they please.

    Now, let's examine the actual EMBED code:
    <div style='padding-bottom: 2px; line-height: 0px'><a href='' target='_blank'> <img src='' border='0' width='480' height ='320'/> </a></div><div style='float: left; padding-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px;'><p style='font-size: 10px; color: #76838b;'>Source: <a style='text-decoration: underline; font-size: 10px; color: #76838b;' href=''></a> via <a style='text-decoration: underline; font-size: 10px; color: #76838b;' href='' target='_blank'>ruthie</a> on <a style='text-decoration: underline; color: #76838b;' href='' target='_blank'> Pinterest</a></p></div>
    Translating this code into English:

    SHOW THIS IMAGE:' but make it a tad smaller than on Pinterest

    UNDER THE IMAGE, TEXT LINK TO SOURCE: href='http://www.sourcewebsite/ with


    via href='' OPEN IN NEW WINDOW


    How an embedded image is meant to appear

    This gives link juice and help with Google rankings to Pinterest for the "Pinterest" keyword, the pinner for the keywords "their-username", and the actual source for the keyword "" Two link juice units for the Pinterest website, just one to the source website.

    But of course, nothing can stop a webmaster from stripping this down to the bare minimum, and altering it; in fact, a webmaster with even the most basic skill-set will strip it to this:
    SHOW THIS IMAGE' in full size


    How an embedded image will appear, credit and Pinterest-outbound-links removed, replaced by profitable Pintere$t$

    And that's all legit.

    The image is displayed hotlinked, stripped of links, and credit. It's not against the law, and whoever uploaded the image agreed to this free licensing of their image, or, in most cases, for other people's images.

    Friday, May 11, 2012

    Pinner Hall of Shame?

    Welcome to the rarefied atmosphere of obsessive pinning. Do these users really do have the right to upload, say, 40,000 images to Pinterest's servers? Can they show permission for every image? Are they protected against a lawsuit for registered works, carrying damages from $15,000 to $150,000 per image, plus attorney fees, and paying for Pinterest's lawyers in addition to those of the plaintiff? Is it worth it? The more images are uploaded, the greater the risk of getting sued, and the more likely the damages will be maximal as they are when willful infringement can be shown. What arguments, if any, can be made that the copyright infringement was not willful in the case of someone with 70,000 pins?

    Jan Galbraith - 34397 pins

    Joanne Giroux - 35841 pins

    Marcy Rupp - 36458 pins

    Valerie Thorpe - 38156 pins

    Janessa VanOefellen - 38165 pins

    Janie Lane - 38798 pins

    Elaine Nasser - 39406 pins

    Kathy Jackman Hutchison - 41409 pins

    Kim Kiwi - 43652 pins
    1% handbags

    Lilly Styles - 44640 pins

    CasaBella Interiors - 45834 pins
    Disclaimer: "Pins are not our own property"

    Monica Bourne - 50693 pins
    "I'm an obsessive collector of inspirational and useful pictures [...]. And I compulsively organise everything."

    Pascale De Groof - 55223 pins

    Mayann Rizzo - 61503 pins
    That's a lot of "being authentic" with other people's content.

    Mary Beth Burrell - 78933 pins
    Is there an image she doesn't like?

    Christine Kysely - 80570 pins
    "Visual Content on my Pinboards is owned and copyrighted by its respectful owners."
    Why would a self-described artist and photographer infringe on the works of others to the tune of 80 thousand images, and admit it?

    Lise Lemay - 80680 pins
    Probably on the missing person list.

    Teresa Powell - 82903 pins
    There could be a few expensive lawsuits in those boards.

    Luann Lang - 106740 pins
    Please capture, drag away from the computer and air out in sunlight.

    Pin Hammer - 23 pins