Shared publicly  - 
 
Pinterest Updates TOS - removes the word "selling" and much more...

--> Pinterest G+ Hangout - Join us Live Mon at 7 PM PT!

See... I told you that Pinterest had no interest in "selling" your photos. They just removed that from the TOS... Obviously, I'm predisposed to support an open-and-sharing internet because that's how you drive traffic and interest.

Pinterest now accounts for over 15% of all the traffic to http://www.StuckInCustoms.com !

I talked to Pinterest CEO +Ben Silbermann on the phone, and he was perfectly cool and awesome about all this stuff. He's a photographer himself, and he understands the sharing nature of the internet. Ben said "Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms" on his blog today... the same thing he told me on the phone.

And maybe... just maybe... we can talk Ben into joining the hangout. I know heavy-hitter Pinterest user +Kalebra Kelby will be there with me... I spend half my time in Pinterest re-pinning her stuff! See you Monday night... it will be a great hangout!

Here is my Sky-Is-Not-Falling article about Pinterest I wrote a few weeks ago...
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/02/13/why-photographers-should-stop-complaining-about-copyright-and-embrace-pinterest/
146
41
Misraim Lugardo's profile photomeadow ingram's profile photoStan Showalter's profile photoCheryl McGregor's profile photo
46 comments
 
Gonna play the drums and improve my good singing i always wanted to sing and all i have to do is try :)
 
darn you! why you post just as I begin Social Media Exchange article for local paper!? I'm already running up on deadline! lol Thanks for the heads up!
 
I have been listening to both arguments and have been waiting for two things. to understand how pinterest is driving traffic to my site and increasing the potential for sales and how much time I need to invest in yet another site for the return of my efforts. 15% is a huge number to have driven to your site by one source. Now I need to do my homework!
 
Thx...

+Ron Clifford yes it is a big source.. I don't even have that many followers on there, but followers don't matter so much on Pinterest. We get about 300,000 uniques on the blog a month, and Pinterest is a big chunk of that now!
 
+Trey Ratcliff I really appreciate that kind of feedback instead of speculation and the chicken little mentality. I am glad to know the people driving it are beginning to make the changes necessary to alleviate common fears, I heard the same things said about G+ in the beginning. My aren't we a predictable people!
 
Wheh....what a relief. Trey has endorsed the Pinterest model so we can all jump on board. What would we all do without the great Yoda to guide us? Give it break already.
 
Wheh....what a relief. Trey has endorsed the Pinterest model so we can all jump on board. What would we all do without the great Yoda to guide us? Give it break already.
 
+Brent Fishman I think I understand what you mean -- you are saying that someone's photo could be used to drive traffic to another site that has ads on it? If that is happening with your photos, then you can go into http://pinterest.com/about/copyright/dmca/ and fix it -- so that it points back to your site or goes away....

(unless I misunderstood your scenario)
 
Well, you can't win them all +Trey Ratcliff I think you are wrong with Pinterest. It will come and go. It's just a fad. Driving traffic definitely, but after a while people has to get bored of looking at thousands of pictures. It's like people are going back to tot's books all pictures and no words.
 
folks will milk Pinterest for what its worth -in terms of getting marketing exposure. 500px caters more for photographers!
 
+Alex Garcia well even if it is just a fad - it will be around for at least a few years... and maybe some of the new people that come along will like my blog... and come back even if Pinterest fades away. And, respectfully, I don't think people will ever tire of looking at thousands of pictures.
 
These kids today with their fire and their wheel...
 
Oh right - I see what you mean +Brent Fishman yes that is a tricky one. It's not that different than, say, Mashable using my photos in their blog post, but they have ads on the right hand side... it's hard to make an argument that the photo is the reason people are reading the article and seeing the ads, but it is part of the reason. Currently, I'm fine with the link-back to my website. I think that is more valuable than the fraction-of-a-penny they are getting off the ad impression when you account for the impact of my photo within the entire webpage.
 
That other photographer had to apologize for offending women when dismissing pinterest. You, on the other hand, have nothing to apologize for on the matter, period.
 
Not sure I have the time for another website i might need to automate things more 
 
+Alex Garcia - if it was just looking at pictures then 500px will disappear first. Pinterest is more than looking at pictures. Because the pictures link back to an original site - you get the blog and/or any other info. Take food - if you are interested in cooking or a specific diet - you see the picture but then get linked back to the blog with the recipe. I have subscribed to at least half a dozen blogs to my blog reader in the last couple of weeks just from things I've seen on Pinterest. I've added well over a dozen recipes to my file. I've pinned 500px pics that I like and by pinning them - the folks who like that picture get driven to the 500px page of that photographer.
 
Lack of focus is what hurts photographers and most should focus more on getting themselves known to art buyers and art directors.

Just like flickr, Pinterest may send you a HUGE volume of visits, but what's the purpose if those are NOT qualified buyers (which can be counted in hundreds or thousands maximum).

Granted, with the same resources as Trey to do my marketing, I would just use every possible channel to promote my brand, flickr and pinterest included.

In the meantime, I wonder why Trey never mentioned Agency Access as a great tool to help photographers. Maybe because it's not the audience...

just my 2cents!
 
Between working full time, photography, Facebook, Twitter, and G+ I barely have time for anything else. I think Pintrest is really cool, and lately I've been using Twitter much less.
 
I don't understand why they are waiting two weeks till April 6th to change their TOS. With the outcry from photographers it seems like a change they would make right away.
 
What was annoying was if they had no intention of selling, why put it there to start? The other major sites don't list that as an option so why add something to your legalese that does more harm than good? I'm not saying they had intent, I don't know, and no one here can say for sure. Maybe someone thought they could cover their butts when they grow and talk to major companies about their content. We're not Pinterest so we can't say. Just seems odd that all these other sites have ToS they can reference, yet they had to put that in.

For me again, as others pointed out, it's if your business benefits from the traffic and if it's targeted traffic. Traffic means nothing if it's not your potential clients. I can see it helping a lot of people, I really can. I haven't figured out if it's for me just yet. Maybe discussing how it helps family portraiture is a topic I need to dive into with others. I find Facebook super beneficial right now as families all live there and share and tag, so that was easy for me. Referrals are a ton easier than the random traffic. Pinterest, I found other photographers in my case using it to pin outfit choices, props, etc to show clients.

+Trey Ratcliff , I don't know how many others you have helping you on each site posting or gathering info or if you do it all yourself, but I assume most of us here are doing every facet of their business themselves. Between CRM, bookkeeping, photographing, studying, webinars, etc, I can see why people are hesitant to jump into a new field, even if it does last a couple years.
 
Why was it in there to begin with? Crazy kind of foobar for high paid lawyers to make.
Something smells rotten in Denmark.
 
+Ron Clifford For some other stats. I'm a nobody but some 30+ images of mine seem to be on Pinterest. Over the last few months I've received a total of 3 referrals.
 
i justed wotched draking dawn part 1 cool lol :)
 
+Trey Ratcliff What's your preferred way to pin a photo? Have you managed to do it from Google Plus? It seems to be blocked somehow, couldn't find any extension or bookmarklet that works!
 
+Brent Fishman They would be selling the space next to your photo, but not the photo itself. Yes, the value of the space next photo may go up due to the presence of your photo.

So, that would be like the value of the hotel just outside of a National Park goes up due to the presence of the park - should the hotel pay park service?

Although, I guess you could counter that argument by saying that should we also consider a photo in a magazine next to an ad that was sold.

Hmmmm. Interesting things to consider.
 
Just wonder why it is so important for you to keep ragging on this?
 
Super picture....................................................................................!
 
It took a while and it took pressure for them to do it though, if they got it right then maybe this would have been avoided in the first place.
 
I Kay wish google would get off their fat ass and get a real iPad app for google plus, reading this site on their limited iPhone app on a iPad is painful

Pinning I will try one more time maybe their is a real app for that 
 
+Daniel Schwabe both the shareaholic add-on and the pinterest bookmarklet have worked fine for me.
There is a draw-back when pinning from G+. The original poster does not get the credit; it simply links to G+, and not the post...
If - for example - I wanted to pin Trey's picture from this post, I would instead open the blog link, and do it from there, to be certain he got the credit, and to send him the (possible) traffic, instead of sending it to google.
 
i still say Pinterest id the wave of the future in the works
 
Enjoyed your Pinterest article, thanks.
 
Trey I'm sure you can understand peoples hesitation with the way it was written before. Intent or not. Lots of good intentions kinda get lost in the mix.. particularly if it's left as is and then a change of ownership, or leadership occurs and suddenly people's photos are being sold to stock sites. The TOS was bad.

Now of course it really wasn't a worry for me, as there is no threat of someone selling stuff I take... but I stay away from sites where the TOS could easily be abused and seems for it's abuse in mind.

Honestly it should never have even gone up with Transferable rights, Selling, and royalty free in it.
 
I just joined Pinterest last week and am figuring it out (with help from your original post). With this update in mind, I'm even more excited to use it. Thanks, and kudos!
Add a comment...