PinPics - New Format / Big Site Changes!
- Messages
- 4,470
- Location
- New Mexico
Thank you for keeping this discussion fact and information based Hope.The issue is that, from my understanding, US copyright law treats compilations of data and the underlying data as different entities and thus treated differently. If someone put up a website identical in code, layout and data to PinPics that would be a copyright violation. But facts are not themselves copyrightable. Anyone can independently, build their own database of Images (their own or submitted), with Release Origins, Release Date, Price, Edition Sizes, UPCs, number of posts, text of backstamps, and other details one can collect about a pin, and they can use resources such as other websites to research this type of factual information. There have been cases that have worked their way through the courts and why law websites describe database copyright violations as a hard thing to prove. It's really only examples that are literal copies, including typos and duplicated erroneous information that have been successful. For example this description: Lists, Directories, and Databases Under Copyright Law The other pin sites are clearly different in the way they organize and present the factual data, and are usually very clear about not copying Descriptions or Images from other sites, where it is theoretical easier to prove the necessary creativity.
Also, I found this regarding the use of proprietary numbering systems. The examples I normally see are about Parts Lists, but PinPics numbering system would seem to qualify. The first is in regards to trademark protection, and I don't think PinPics has any trademarks, but if they did. Part Numbers : Trademark, trade secret and Intellectual Property Rights in OEM Part numbers And also this case: Toro Company v. R & R PRODUCTS CO., 600 F. Supp. 400 (D. Minn. 1984) where the Company, Toro, agrees that the other company has a right to publish a table with their number in one column, and Toro's number in another, for cross-referencing purposes. Their objection was the numbering system was identical except for sticking a character in front of it. AFAIK, no pin database says pin 112 on their site is the same as pin 112 on Pinpics, and all the way through with all the numbers. But in any case the court denied Toro's claims of copyright and upheld the other companies use of duplicating the numbers.
Also, also, when I did a bit of research in the past there are similar cases concerning Deep Linking, one website linking to another's pages, and that is also generally seen by the courts as permissible, and there have been cases such as Ticketmaster suing others. It is encouraged by some law sites to gain permission, and don't do it, if a TOS prohibits it. But the reasoning seems a case of etiquette and not legality. Connecting to Other Websites and an example of how it's interpreted by a group who might need to know what is permissible ALA | Hypertext Linking and Copyright Issues.
This is why there is pushback, because other people's interpretations of existing copyright and trademark laws and court rulings do not align with PinPics statements. It may feel wrong to some people, but it doesn't mean something is protected content. It may absolutely lead to increased server costs, via increased traffic and that is one of the issues described as a reason why entities try and fight it. That's why those are the type of decisions one must consider when choosing to operate a website such PinPics. Or be a contributor. And all of this is a factor for users to decide how much effort they want to expend in PinPics' direction. I don't Zoom with my family, I don't have any interest in participating in Zoom chats in order to gain some sort of status of fairness to judge the quality of a product I use. If character and intent of business owners was the determining factor of a business success or failure, there would probably be a lot more businesses that didn't fail. But that's not how the world works. People judge products all the time if they meet their needs.
This is the first thing I’ve seen in this thread that is a personal attack. Everything else is a discussion of policies and preferences on those policies. My apologies for trying to provide relevant information on the terms under which people shared their “content” to help provide understanding for why people feel betrayed when those terms are changed to something very different without their prior consent or options to remove their previously provided “content.”As for picking out TOS from 2002 . . . are you kidding?????!!!!!
You are not welcome to use any of my content.All of you that have submitted content over the years we thank you.
Since it was stated that Pin Trading Database is OK with this, that means that hypothetically - someone could go and copy all the pins in PTDB or P&P and add them to PP and there would be no issue whatsoever? I bet there would be an issue.
About the Terms of Service from 2002 - That's 21 years ago! Times have changed and the online world has become unrecognizable from what it was back in the dark ages of 2002. People have changed, online security has changed and the amount of cyber crime has escalated beyond the charts back then. No comparison. Besides, that was multiple owners ago. I'm also getting the feeling here that a lot of the previous owner's problems and faults are being lumped in on the new owners. Any argument using ToS from 2002 is lost already. That was decades ago and many owners ago. The internet was different and the people were different.
As for picking out TOS from 2002 . . . are you kidding?????!!!!! That is 21 years ago, everybody. Those were written by the original owners of PinPics. We are now living in 2023. The site has been sold multiple times. If you're complaining and harboring this anger and negativity about something from 20 years ago, then there's really no help. You are angry at those original owners and their decision to sell out and stop maintaining the site in their way. The minute that PinPics was sold, the rules changed. The new owner called the shots. That owner has since sold up. The site changes again. So, you're angry that one of those owners sold out.
You are not welcome to use any of my content.
You have no right to watermark my images that YOU DO NOT OWN.
Take all of my writing and my images off the site.
As I have asked over and over and over again.
(For those reading - they won't do it because I contributed way too much that they're afraid to lose and clearly are unable and unwilling to replace with their own original content. But longtime contributors knew it was a bad sign for the site when our names were removed from listings we had contributed.)
I just spoke with the creator of PinPics. They love what we are doing with the site and support us wholeheartedly. As well as supporting our terms. There one request when they sold the site was that the site as it stood would be free. It is free in its Classic form plus a lot of improvements that we have included.
She is even going to write up the history of PinPics that we are going to add to the site in our blog/article area! We are so excited for this……we appreciate her support!
I think I'm starting to lean towards Jabberwocky on this one...
The original creators of PinPics have NOTHING to do with this. We all LOVED them, and everything they did (I think). It was the first group that bought it from them that started the problem.
But if this your first (and only?) response to everything that has been said so far.. 'I talked to the creators, they love us! We're going to blog about it!'
That's just COMPLETELY avoiding and ignoring the issue at hand.
How about a specific, and detailed response to Jabberwocky about why you are refusing to remove their copyrighted content?
I think that should be your next, and ONLY, response in this thread. That will tell us who you truly are...
When you asked for the original creators 'wholehearted support', did you show them the complaints made here? That people's public, copyrighted information was basically hijacked and requests for the removal of that copyrighted information are being completely ignored? They 'wholeheartedly support' those actions?
Hmm, maybe they knew the first buyers were going to lock it all behind a paywall and were all for it... Possibly shedding new light on the original creators as well, and their true intentions...
Interesting that she apparently said 'our one request was that the site remain free' when the exact opposite happened the instant they sold it... Maybe there was always a free aspect of it, but the first buyers starting putting everything except 'browsing the pins' behind a paywall...
This is not my first response. I have responded several times. Just anything positive that is said some of you want to just pull it all apart and tear it down. For those of you that have been positive and supportive thank you. Since we acquired the site 10s of thousands of pictures have been replaced, 10s of thousands of descriptions written or rewritten on older submissions, 10s of thousands of titles fixed and so on. In talking to the original owners the same terms have been in place….that once you have submitted an image it is PinPics to use at its discretion. And if it is your original picture it is also yours to use at your discretion. Jabberwocky I do not know what happened between you and the owners before us. I am not going to be able to mend the wounds between some of you and the owners before us…….
Any content added to this site becomes the property of Pin Pics and can be used by Pin Pics without restriction. This includes any uploaded pin images.
The site is Free as it stand in this Classic stage and that information will always be free. Really Classic+ with the enhancements we have made. The original owners of PinPics have a lot to do with this because when they sold it a lot of people got upset and rightfully so. I am not ignoring his request. The terms then and the terms now are the same in when you submit your information….that once submitted it is ours to use. That is the same on all of these sites. We are not making money quite the contrary we have invested a lot to bring this site back from the brink. The site is FREE to use and how it stands the Classic version it will always be Free. And we are adding an App in this Classic version. Well all I can respond to is what we are doing and have done….and it is not behind a paywall.
Only once. I think there's more than meets the eye. The question is who can you trust?That was about the first buyers of the site. They started charging people to see images larger than 150x150 of any pin, they watermarked all the images, and I think they said even the trade system was going to be subscription only. That's when people started hating PinPics. I don't know how much they started actually charging for (I know at one point I could no longer see larger pin images without paying, but I don't know what else), but they either back tracked, or whoever bought the site next took that away...
Out of curiosity, how many people have owned the site now since it was first sold?
So, creators sold it to, who?, 'pinopolis' or something? And then current owners bought it from them?Only once
Sent from my motorola edge (2022) using Tapatalk
Dm sent to you.So, creators sold it to, who?, 'pinopolis' or something? And then current owners bought it from them?
I didn't realize the first buyers held on it to for so long, I thought they had gotten out quick... Maybe it was just that they stopped really doing anything with it...
1. Site uptime - this has definitely improved.
2. Finding your pin amongst the 100,000 listings - I still hear from people, casually, about the difficulty of this. See requests from others to find pins they can't find in the database.
a. Image quality - already discussed as why this has been problematic
b. Search
i. Titles
ii. Descriptions
iii. Filters
c. Speed at which updates can be made to your Owns, Wants and Trades
d. Speed at which new pins are added
3. Trade Assist
a. Compare Feature - discussed to death
b. Communication - sorry, version 2 is still clunky and not as convenient as the original email system. I understand all the reasons why PinPics needed to and had to develop an internal system, but it's not enough. People thought original PinPics was dated because of the visuals not the functionality, and the visuals of the forum messages are not elegant. Instructional videos will not change that.
4. Information Integrity
a. Images that are of unauthorized pins - this is a point of contention elsewhere on Social Media. Some people do not trust that images of real pins were replaced with pins that are counterfeits, because there are too many examples of people who know, for a fact, they own an authentic pin and it does not match the picture that is now there.
b. Errors or missing information - removing the full release dates, to replace it with a year, is a major negative to me. I've played enough with databases to suspect the issue is one of programming and the problem with storing incomplete dates. But these dates helped me determine what individual trips I acquired a certain pin on, and placing pins that are part of a series in their release order.
c. Changes in what types of listings are allowed - this is probably a "personal to me issue," but the rule of original PinPics used to be that items would only be added in the form that they were originally sold in, and breaking that down into their individual pieces. So a framed set, could have the frame and each individual pin listed. However, 5 individual pins that were only obtainable *separately* could not be combined into a single listing. IMO, it gives people the idea that once upon a time you COULD have obtained them all in a single purchase, even though that was never the case. So things like the TDS game prize sets being listed as their sets, really bothers me, because of informational integrity. Yes, there are people that prefer to trade them as sets, but the way to address this is through Trade Assistant functionality (even if it is harder) NOT the listings.
The original owners sold it to the person who owned the Acme License in the US. We purchased all of the assets of PinPics from him in June of 2021. We are the sole owners, my husband, my sister and me.So, creators sold it to, who?, 'pinopolis' or something? And then current owners bought it from them?
I didn't realize the first buyers held on it to for so long, I thought they had gotten out quick... Maybe it was just that they stopped really doing anything with it...
I had typed out a long post, and then my internet crapped out and lost it, and I do not have the energy to repeat it.I can answer some of this, as I work on updating listings every day.
snipped for character limit
I had typed out a long post, and then my internet crapped out and lost it, and I do not have the energy to repeat it.
These weren't questions.
Right now, I'm feeling like the posts I made about my concerns about PinPics when Molly Anne and family bought PinPics which included a suggestion to refer to the older posts here, concerning the period following when LANSAM bought PinPics in 2012 including my own posts, were futile, and I know you were a participant in at least one of the threads where I made them, because I just reread it. I feel talked down to, when I know what I've already posted in regards to the complexity of the challenges any new owners would be facing, and specific ways to improve things. And the crazy thing about it is Chris from Pin & Pop contacted me about the things I said at the time, and we talked a little and I've seen some of those things be included in updates. I've also seen some of the suggestions I've made over the years implemented at My Pin Central too (even though I have no plans to use that site, other than some research, for reasons). Did someone read them, or did someone else independently have the same idea, I don't know. But seeing some sites implement the things people have been asking for, demonstrates we weren't off our rockers for suggesting them.
For example, this is one of the things I said in 2021, "This is one of the reasons I've been a long time advocate of any new database using Keyword Tagging approach, instead of relying on Users for properly spelling something, or including all the characters on a pin, or listing all the movie associations. One of the benefits of a database system is the data integrity that comes from storing information as numbers in fields instead of just "text." It has to be correct once, and then everyone else selects from a dropdown or autofill. Keyword tagging also helps with things like searching for Si or Am or Nana or bringing up on the Chip (chipmunk) pins vs Chip (the teacup) or pulling up all "Walt Disney World" pins that SAY "Walt Disney World" on them instead of every pin that was ever released at Walt Disney World. Similar thing, but a field for Series. People want a quick way to find all the pins in a series, and while trying to normalize the name helps, typos or missing one entry where someone did it wrong leads to duplicate listings." (Highlighting the points where I demonstrate knowledge of the problems with the old site, and pointing out that normalization of nomenclature won't be enough, and I'm sure PinPics Mods will learn in time with the volume of times they have to fix stuff.)
I feel that your eagerness to defend PinPics and "explain," completely blows right past the more general points I was trying to make, and so as a response, it is unsatisfactory and your answer to 4c completely misinterprets what I mean by set listings vs individuals. It's not pins that were sold together, like the Harvey's set you mentioned. It's pins that were *never* released *together* (only at the same time) combined into a single entry. It would be like if Harvey's released 3 separate pins on the same day, but then on PinPics they were photographed and listed together as one item. That is what has happened with the TDS game pins.
I don't really need explanations about why things aren't right. I have a pretty good idea, that is confirmed with each new data point. But the PinPics owners seem to be confused about why people are so hard on them, why people aren't helping more, and I'd also guess why their work so far hasn't been as well received as they had hoped (ultimately the point in buying PinPics in the first place, right). My attempts to address that, appear to be for naught. And so the message is received loud and clear about the futility. But for one final go... you listed your reasons why Pin & Pop does not work for you... I listed areas in which PinPics does not work for me, and probably others. And the reply feels like a combo of "your expectations are too high," and "it works fine / that's the way it is." If Pin & Pop replied to you that way, I'd guess you would be pretty disappointed in that sort of response too, and make you even less eager to use that site.
And ugh, this is far too long again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?