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. | Pinner |
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. | Pinner |
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. | Pinner |
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?
3 comments:
Then you have the pinners (copyright infringers) who pin the work of others having created NOTHING themselves.
There has always been an attitude (in the US anyway) that anything creative is a frivolous hobby and artists should give away their work. I don't blame the internet for that problem but it, or some sites anyway, sure has made it easier for copycats and infringers to just take what they want instead of pay for it or at least get permission.
The typical reaction, even if a person has outright taken someone else's intellectual property and is perhaps selling it, is to blame the artist. The lame excuses given just prove how ignorant people are about copyrights, or how ignorant they choose to remain.
And many seem to really believe they are doing artists a favor. They're not. They are pinning work to a site that removes the ownership/copyright info to the image itself (digital info), and often loses the link and credit. So it is hardly driving traffic to our sites.
I am not thrilled with pinners who ignore my prominent 'do not pin' notices on every one of my images, and the "do not pin code" on my blog. But, ultimately, Pinterest's methods, plans to monetize all that infringed content, and TOS, are the concern that many artists have with the site. If people can buy a cheap print through Pinterest, even if it's illegal, they will. That takes money out of artist's pockets and it's hard enough to earn a living in this field without theft besides.
Most of us are ok with legitimate social media sharing, but that's not what Pinterest is doing.
And they can print stuff too
http://invite.print-erest.com/
Domain owner is by proxy via GoDaddy
Post a Comment