Then CC-license your content with the most restrictive CC version (non commercial, no derivative works, attribution required). That’s essentially what Pinterest's "anyone can repost anything that anyone has posted" sharing style is, anyway.
By using the full "all rights reserved/copyrighted" status, you’ve essentially told Flickr and any users viewing your photos that any use of that photo must go through you first.
What if I’m a professional photographer who doesn’t want my photos re-posted everywhere to, in essence, help Pinterest gain users make money? (Rhetorical, by the way; not a pro photographer and most of my photos are under the least restrictive CC-BY license. I personally think photographers could stand to get a lot more exposure via Pinterest.)
Depending on how the work is split between the pinterest bookmarklet and the pinterest server, it is possible that Flickr would just have to omit the <meta> tag for my own photo pages if I'm logged in.
> How do you expect Flickr to differentiate from you and someone else who wants to rip off your content?
Any photographer or artist who really doesn't want their images shared should not make them available on the internet. Period. Given the capabilities of current computing platforms, there exists no method by which you can restrict redistribution.
Er... just because you can't prevent something by technical means, doesn't mean you shouldn't try to prevent it by social means.
For example: There's no technical way I can prevent you from slandering me, short of preventing all of your speech. However if you do slander me, and I find out about it then I can take you to court.
The nopin setting just enforces a gentlemans agreement between Pinterest and the site in question. If the Pinterest user really wants to share that picture, all they have to do is copy the link and do it manually.
This is a good point. If you don't want your photos seen by others, don't put them on Flickr. If you want to sell highres versions of your photos, only put lowres versions up. So long as things are properly attributed and only low-quality images are stored/used, I see this as Fair Use.
How do they currently do it outside of Pinterest? They don't.
Flickr makes an effort to spell out to visitors the terms of your image's copyright (whatever they may be), as a photographer that's where their responsibility ends, and I'm ok with that. I do not expect Flickr to slap DRM on it on my behalf and go out of its way to prevent the inevitable.
If someone wants to throw my photos on imgur and share them without attribution, there's not a lick of anything I can do about it, Pinterest or otherwise. Flickr has done its due diligence informing users about the legalities of whatever use they have in mind, and that's fine.
Also, when I hit the Pinterest bookmarklet, I am logged into Flickr, and staring at one of its own pages. Flickr knows exactly who I am - the same logic that's locking out Pinterest could just as well check if I have permissions to share these images.
I wouldn't, if I was making that decision. I can see too many users changing the setting to disable sharing, testing it and then claiming Flickr is "broken" (or worse). And rumors like that easily spread and are hard to disprove.
As you have little trouble hotlinking your images off of Flickr servers to your own site (without Flickr's required attribution), can't you just pin the direct JPG URL?
