Bit.ly, the popular free link-shortening service, just added new features. Unfortunately, those features mean that the beloved one-click link shortening is no more.

Much like Facebook, Bit.ly has chosen to go with complexity over simplicity. The link-shortening service recently rolled out new sharing and bookmarking features. However, in the Facebook-like move, the Bit.ly folks assumed that everyone would want the new features. Judging from the user response, the new features get in the way of the tool's primary mission: shortening links.

Now, to shorten a link, users must click at least three times and are forced to save the link to a bookmarking service, "bitmarks," and have to reject the option to share on Facebook and Twitter before receiving the shortened link.

Take a look. In order to shorten a link, the user must go to the Add a Bitmark box, now hidden in the upper right corner instead of smack dab in the middle of the page:

Once the long URL is entered, the user must then annotate the saved link and click Save and Share. Nope, you still don't get the shortened link. Not yet.

That step takes you to a sharing step. There, at the bottom, almost as an afterthought, you can click Copy to copy the shortened link.

For users who yearn for simplicity in a world too full of sharing, this new feature set is cumbersome and counter-intuitive.

I'm assuming that the Bit.ly folks figured that people generally shorten links in order to share them, so why not save users the step and allow them to bookmark and share right away? Makes sense, I suppose, but for users like me, I'm not inclined to suddenly use Bit.ly as my bookmarking and sharing service. I use Diigo for highlighting and bookmarking articles, and I use HootSuite to schedule my sharing. I'm unlikely to switch those functions to Bit.ly just because the company made link shortening more complicated and decided to start promoting sharing.

In fact, since HootSuite does such a good job of tracking shortened link analytics when you use their native link shorteners, users would do well just to switch to the HootSuite shorteners and cut out Bit.ly entirely.

Infographic Friday: IP addresses are increasing worldwide and connection speeds are faster than ever.

The big eye-opener in this infographic is the year on year growth of IP addresses and who the big winners were: Brazil, clocking in at 27% and China at 26%. This leads one to wonder how effective the Great Fire Wall of China will be in the future in terms of blocking inappropriate content.

Presented By: OnlineUniversities.com

The new trend in Silicon Valley is the "brogramming" movement: programmers devoted to fighting the nerd stereotype with binge drinking, hot tub parties and sexism

There is a new trend in the tech world, and it's gathering both opponents and proponents faster than Apple releases new iPhones. "Brogramming" is the hot new trend, a new breed of coder that discards the pasty-faced geek stereotype and instead relishes his testosterone while boasting about being invited to naked hot tub parties.

How big a deal is brogramming exactly? Hard to say, as it's an emerging trend, which is more pronounced at tech startups than at more established organizations. A few examples to give you a general idea:

• Matt Van Horn, 28, speaking at SXSW on behalf of the social media platform Path, claimed he successfully got Digg's attention by sending them bikini shots from a "nudie calendar" he'd put together and used the term "gangbang" to refer to interviewing by committee.
• Sqoot, a deals aggregator, advertised for a Boston hackathon listing "friendly (female) event staff" as one of the event's perks.
• At MegaStartup weekend, one male team repeatedly used a gratuitous picture of leaping bikini-clad women, despite the fact that the audience was half women.
• When a female coder complained about a Geeklist video featuring women dancing in their underwear, a Twitter flame war ensued.
• Klout, the social media influence-measuring company, recently advertised for coders at Stanford University career fair with the following pitch: “Want to bro down and crush code? Klout is hiring.”

For more details, MotherJones last week published a great post on the brogramming problem and also has a Storify summary of the biggest brogramming Tweets, videos and posts to date.

I attended a session on the brogramming trend at BarCamp Seattle last weekend, and the discussion became quite heated. (Take a look at Alyssa Royse's fantastic slide deck and talk here.) While valid points were made on both sides, what became apparent is that this was the first of many discussions on this growing trend. Most of the polarized points of view centered around personal anecdotes ("I'm not offended if someone belches, so this is just an overreaction to boys being boys" or "I used to have other female colleagues; now I'm the only one") rather than comprehensive views of the effect of this cultural trend as a whole, which indicates that we are still at the knee-jerk-reaction stage of this topic.

Where's the harm?

While brogramming may simply appear to be a case of the testosterone-heavy just being themselves and light-heartedly proclaiming a new self-identity for coders who work out, engage in binge drinking and are hip enough to attract sexy women, as Business Week pointed out,

"There’s also an audience that feels left out of the joke. Women made up 21 percent of all programmers in 2010, down from 24 percent in 2000, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Anything that encourages the perception of tech as being male-dominated is likely to contribute to this decline," says Sara Chipps, founder of Girl Develop It.

So what's wrong with boys being boys in the workplace? Same thing that was wrong with whites being whites in the workplace: having a self-identity is perfectly acceptable, as long as it doesn't create a hostile or unwelcoming work environment for another gender, race or religious group. What is unacceptable about Klout's job pitch is that it entirely excluded one gender, and bro or no, that is not cool in the workplace.

Try out this analogy. The brogramming culture is inappropriate for the same reason that it's inappropriate to bring a crying baby to your cubicle: both are acceptable in your personal life as part of your personal life decisions, but neither is appropriate in the workplace. Creating a culture that celebrates one gender while alienating and marginalizing another is not acceptable, productive or ultimately sustainable.

I have a confession

And now, I have a confession. I was terrified to write this post. I mean truly fearful. Even now, I actually have butterflies in my stomach, and I'm only writing the draft, for Pete's sake! I'll admit that I am afraid of the label "feminist" as well as the polarized controversy that may erupt as a result of addressing this topic. I am generally a fan of moderation, and I have never enjoyed being at the center of any type of confrontation or controversy. However, this is something I feel strongly about.

The best companies create a corporate culture that encourages creativity, independence, respect and wackiness for all its employees, no matter their gender. Is it okay for guys to identify with and talk about more testosterone-oriented pursuits? Absolutely. Go to those naked Malibu hot tub parties on the weekend and use the word "gangbang" to talk about how the baristas made your coffee. Just keep it out of the workplace.

Podcasting your passion, my favorite talk! Honored to give it at the Toastmasters regional event today

I don't often get called to speak on podcasting these days, even though studies have shown that podcasting is still cool. So I was delighted when Mike Whitmore was kind enough to refer me to speak at the Toastmasters regional conference on the theme of "Take a Chance at Success." I still believe there is nothing quite like a podcast to establish familiarity and credibility with an audience and build a super engaged community.

Be geektastic with these nifty iPhone camera apps

I'm an iPhone photography geek--a lazy one. While there are many folks out there who are far more talented photographers than I will ever be, there is no one more talented at getting nifty-looking pictures out of the iPhone with minimal effort and skill. The iPhone has really created a revolution in photography: it gives us, the unskilled and untrained masses the chance to play with color, filters and composition without having to purchase expensive lenses or photo editing programs.

My favorite iPhone camera apps

PowerCam

PowerCam (Full disclosure: this was originally a compensated review) PowerCam is a free iPhone camera app that enables the user to apply instant, live filters and effects to images and video BEFORE and WHILE shooting them. What you see on the screen before you snap the shot is what you get. What I love about this app is the ability to apply over 50 live filters (such as neon outline, sepia, watercolor sketch) to live photos and videos before you take them. It's like having Photoshop on your phone for every picture and video. Also, the app allows for easy sharing to social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, and you can save the photos to your iPhone native photo gallery.

Incredibooth

Incredibooth from Synthetic, LLC. Remember those photo booths that populated boardwalks and pizza restaurants of our childhoods? You'd squeeze in one with your best friend, press your heads together and take four wacky photos in quick succession. Why? Because back then, cameras were bulky and required skill to use, and we didn't all carry them around with us all the time. Incredibooth is a fun iPhone camera app that lets you relive that childhood fun, minus the cramped, smelly booth. The red curtain swings back, the red light blinks, and you and your buddy take four shots in 20 seconds, all captured in good, old-fashioned black-and-white glory. Get your photos, grab some popcorn and cotton candy and then hit the Ferris wheel!

Hipstamatic

Hipstamatic Half the fun of Hipstamatic is the brilliant in-app recreation of those cheap, plastic textured camera casings of the 60s and 70s. And the rest of the fun is in the recreation of the limited flash range and focal length of those tiny instamatic cameras. I snappped a picture of my mom in her kitchen with the Ina's 1969 filter, and it's like we had been transported back to the year of my birth. Hipstamatic also provides easy sharing features for posting to Facebook, Twitter and other sites, but the pictures stay within the app and can't be added to the iPhone's native photo gallery. However, the photos can be emailed to friends directly from the app.

ToonPaint

ToonPaint is available for $1.99 and will instantly turn photos into a cartoon-like line drawing. I admit to a bit of disappointment on this one; in order to get anything other than a black and white ink line drawing, a $.99 color filter must be applied. However, I've been wanting to do a cartoon headshot for Facebook and Twitter for a while, so I suppose $3 is cheaper than getting a custom drawing. And the app does allow you to either take a fresh picture or to cartoonify one from your existing albums, which is rather handy.

AutographThis

Autograph This Wanna be a star, or just feel like one? Don't laugh; someone at a recent event actually asked for an autographed picture, and my first reaction was, "I bet there is an app for that!" And indeed there is, for .99 from Vamp Apps. Autograph This allows the user to take a photo and then sign it with a finger using light or dark "ink," whichever has the best contrast to the photo's background. The photo can then be posted to social networks or sent via private message. Run into someone famous? Snap a pic and ask him/her to sign with a finger. Someone thinks you're famous? No more carrying those pesky 8x10 glossies around; just use your finger!

Mike Daisey created a popular one man show outlining labor abuses perpetrated by Apple in China. There was just one problem: the stories he told were riddled with factual inaccuracies, and some didn't even happen to him. Instead of apologizing to his fans, Daisey circled the wagons and claimed dramatic license. When will people learn that a sincere apology is the best path to the public's heart?

Update 4-3-11: This morning, I received a link to this blog post by Mike Daisey from an email address that appears to belong to Mr. Daisey. There was no greeting or commentary attached.The blog post contains a defense of Daisey's actions and, in the ninth paragraph, an apology to his theater colleagues and then the journalists he deceived. At no point does he apologize to his audience or the public for deceiving them.

When a segment of Mike Daisey's show The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs aired on my favorite podcast, This American Life, I was torn. I like Apple. I admire Steve Jobs. I want to like Apple, and I want to believe that its business practices aren't any more heinous than that of any other American corporation taking advantage of cheap overseas labor. Like most others who heard the broadcast, I believed that most of what Daisey claimed happened to him was true.

But the media appearance ended up spawning more controversy than anticipated when it came out that much of what Mike Daisey reported was either not true, not experienced firsthand or patently exaggerated for dramatic effect. A Slate reporter summarizes his surprise at some of Daisey's claims as well as Daisey's unwaveringly defensive reaction to them. And worse (at least for Mr. Daisey), Ira Glass and the TAL team did something unprecented: they aired a one-hour retraction of the original segment, in which they explained the fact-checking and follow-up process and cop to their original mistake in airing the story. One could argue that the retraction is far more enlightening than the original piece and a coup de grace for the This American Life team, whose journalistic ethics and prowess remain nearly spotless through the kerfuffle.

The theater vs. journalism debate

What has been fascinating as this controversy has unfolded has been the philosophical debate over whether Daisey's piece is journalism or theater. The arguments go something like this:

• Theater: Daisey is an artist. He took artistic license when creating his piece so it would play better to the theater crowd.
• Journalism: But wait... the basic facts presented are still true, right?
• Theater: Essentially, yes.
• Journalism: What do you mean, "essentially"? Did Daisey actually talk to a person whose hands were shaking uncontrollably from xxx poisoning?
• Theater: Well, no. But he read reports of it, and they seemed credible. And it was more powerful to relate them in the first person in the show. I mean, when a comedian says, "This is a true story," everyone knows it isn't a true story, just a relatable one, right?
• Journalism: So the most powerful moment in his show didn't actually happen to him even though he says it did?
• Theater: We're pretty sure it happened. And the story needs to be told. That's what the power of theater is for.
• Journalism: Wait... what about the 13-year-olds working in the factory? Did he really talk to them?
• Theater: Well, he saw some girls that looked 13, and he assumed they were. That counts, right? The message is still valid.

The 60-minute retraction that TAL produced goes into far more detail, but it turns out that Daisey deliberately lied to the journalists who were fact-checking his segment by telling them his translator, the only one who could verify the events in question, was unavailable. He even lied about her name. Despite the fact that the journalistic team impressed upon him that in order to be aired on the original show, the content would have to survive journalistic standards rather than theatrical ones, Daisey asserted (and still does) that everything in his production is essentially true.

It's PR, not theater vs. journalism

While the artistic license vs. journalistic integrity debate is a fascinating one that we intellectuals love to mull over and debate, those arguments actually only serve to complicate and obscure the heart of the matter in the Daisey controvery. And, not surprisingly, it comes down to PR: the public who heard Daisey's stories, whether in the theater or on NPR, feel lied to. And with good reason.

And what does one do in this age of transparency when one's public feels deceived? One apologizes. Sincerely and honestly. Describe the initial intent, promise to do better in the future, but always apologize.

What Daisey fails to understand is that in the age of transparency, opaqueness doesn't fly. Even if Daisey insists on sticking to his "artistic license" guns, he's making a fatal PR error by not apologizing to consumers who feel wronged. Much in the way that Susan G. Komen fans were unimpressed with Nancy Brinker's frigidly rational defense rather than a sincere apology on the hot button issue of women's reproductive rights, theater fans and NPR listeners alike felt they deserved an apology, regardless of Daisey's intentions were when creating his stories.

Even when an organization's intentions are pure, fans can still feel wronged. The best move is almost always to apologize for the misunderstanding, acknowledge the emotions that the users are feeling and, if absolutely necessary, explain the initial intent of the communication. Promising to consider future changes is the frosting on the apology cupcake.

Daisey has failed on all PR counts. Foolishly believing that sticking to his guns will somehow boost his credibility, he has steadfastly refused to acknowledge any regret or make any apology to his audience for the deception, even if it was unintentional. Bad move. Fans don't tolerate it when corporations refuse to apologize, and they don't tolerate it when actors do, either. Like a corporation caught with its pants down, Daisey should have the courage and conviction to apologize to his fans. Because soon, he won't have any.

Americans seek instant gratification more speedily than ever before--and organization that can't keep up will lose.

After chatting with a commenter regarding a post I made a while ago on How to Communicate with Americans, the idea of appreciation of conciseness and brevity was at the top of my mind this morning. In that post, I posited that American's aren't stupid, exactly; we just value our time above all else, so we tend to appreciate speakers who will tell us within the first 30 seconds what their point is and then give concise supporting evidence, preferably in three main points. As I wrote then:

Whether you are in conversation or giving a marketing presentation, within the first 30 seconds, you must tell us why we are communicating and what the ultimate goal of it is. If you do not share this information within 30 seconds, we will pull out our Blackberries or iPhones and get some work done.

We tend to value productivity, even though there is evidence that ostensibly time-saving practices such as multitasking makes tasks take an average of 25% longer.

So when this infographic came across my desk, I wasn't at all surprised at how unwilling we Americans are to wait. For anything.

Created by: Online Graduate Programs

A fun little app with live drawing filters for the iPhone camera.

Full disclosure: this is a compensated review without expectation of favorability.

A few weeks ago, I reviewed the free PowerCam iPhone app, which I am a huge fan of. This week, I played with PowerSketch by the same company, and while it's still a pretty cool app, in comparison to the PowerCam, it's rather underwhelming.

The Skinny

What is cool about the app is that it enables the user to apply instant, live filters and effects to images and video BEFORE and WHILE shooting them. What you see on the screen before you snap the shot is what you get.

So here's what I see as the differentiating factor from services such as Instagram:

• Instant live filters (not simulated) for both video and photo--see the filters on the screen before you take the shot
• A sketch effects--Photoshop-like sketch filters to impose on your images and videos as you are shooting them; no guesswork involved
• No photo loss. All photos and videos go to your iPhone camera album as well as the Gallery section of the app.

While this app is cool, my biggest issue is that it is in effect a scaled-down version of the fabulous free PowerCam app, which has four times the filter options. So why pay .99 for a restricted version of a free app? Perhaps the company is experimenting with the business model, checking to see what photo geeks will and won't pay for.

My explorations

The effects and filters can be applied instantly to live photos, and that is still pretty cool. Some of the sample effects are below:

Even though PowerSketch not as full-featured as the PowerCam, it's still a pretty neat app if you're looking for artistic filters for live iPhone pix. The fact that users can apply the filters and effects to videos and images before taking them is like mannah from heaven for photographers who don't want to do a lot of heavy post-production but still want to explore interesting effects.

Me, I'm lazy, so I love this stuff. I use this app or the PowerCam for almost every outdoor picture I take!

In an announcement that was shocking to some and shrugworthy to others, yesterday Gartner predicted the post-PC era by 2014, stating that most consumer tasks will be performed virtually, in the cloud.

Citing five consumer megatrends in personal computing, independent research firm Gartner is predicting that "the personal cloud will replace the personal computer at the center of users' digital lives"--in two short years, by 2014. The prediction is shocking not in its content but in the anticipated alacrity of adoption. Consumers are already relying heavily on smartphones and tablets for everyday tasks from banking to entertainment consumption to document creation. And with the rise of consumer cloud services such as DropBox, YouSendIt and iCloud, many consumers are already relying on the personal cloud for document and data storage. Not too hard to believe.

To summarize, the five megatrends cited by Gartner as driving this evolution in consumer usage are:

1. Consumerization: "Users have become innovators, and through the democratization of technology, users of all types and status within organizations can now have similar technology available to them."
2. Virtualization: Rampant virtualization has made applications device-agnostic and more accessible than ever through broadband connectivity.
3. App-ification: Applications are now designed with consumers and their myriad devices in mind.
4. The ever-available service cloud: Every consumer now has access to a plethora of online solutions and applications to answer any question or solve any problem, which "encourages a culture of self-service that users expect in all aspects of their digital experience."
5. The mobility shift--access whenever and wherever the consumer wants: Any given device now has the flexibility to be the user's main device, not just the desktop.

Yeah, makes sense

My reaction to this proclamation was a resounding shrug with an undercurrent of excitement that the personal cloud was getting some acknowledgement. Of course. Who hasn't noticed that consumers are depending more and more on the cloud? DVDs are no longer owned but steamed from Netflix. Files are no longer stored in hard drives in data centers but in DropBox and YouSendIt folders. Information is no longer filed but bookmarked socially using Del.icio.us or Diigo. Photo albums aren't hard copies but online on Facebook and Flickr. Books are no longer printed but published as ebooks and delivered to the Kindle or Nook.

It's not that the evolution wasn't expected. In fact, Wired pointed out that the post-PC world was predicted before; now it's practically old news:

Last week, former Microsoft chief software architect Ray Ozzie, reiterated his contention — building on thoughts expressed two years ago in his “Dawn of a New Day” memo  — that we’re in a post-PC world. For a sitting Microsoft exec to utter those words back then was revolutionary. Now they’re just accepted as fact.

Yeah, but is the PC really going to die?

GigaOm was quick to qualify Gartner's bold statement with a few words of caution. While many consumers do rely on a variety of devices for access, reliable broadband access is not yet universal. If you've ever paid $12.95 for two hours of Gogo inflight internet access, you can probably attest to this. The need for offline content creation still exists. Consumers still have a need to create documents, spreadsheets and presentations offline.

The article quotes Gartner analyst Steve Kleynhans as clarifying not the absolute death of the PC but the shift to multiple devices, including tablets and smartphones:

“Major trends in client computing have shifted the market away from a focus on personal computers to a broader device perspective that includes smartphones, tablets and other consumer devices,” said Kleynhans. “Emerging cloud services will become the glue that connects the web of devices that users choose to access during the different aspects of their daily life.”

What is a post-PC world?

Are we already in a post-PC world? Yeah, kinad, but it depends on how you define "post-PC world." We are also in a post-radio world in the sense that while radio still exists, it is no longer the sole delivery point for communications as it was in the 30s and 40s. Consumer communications tools and content consumption shifted from radio to television and then to the internet, but each medium still exists and adapted to the change.

The PC will continue to exist as a tool for content creation and collaboration, but it will be one of many, as opposed to the primary tool, suggests Wired magazine:

Microsoft chief software architect Ray Ozzie made recently, saying, “People argue about, ‘Are we in a post-PC world?’. Why are we arguing? Of course we are in a post-PC world,” Ozzie is is reported to have said at a GeekWire-sponsored conference last week. ”That doesn’t mean the PC dies; that just means that the scenarios that we use them in, we stop referring to them as PCs, we refer to them as other things.”

Take Gartner's prediction to mean that the PC is going the way of radio and television: still very much in our lives, but no longer the be-all and end-all of consumer computing. Rather, it is becoming a smaller part of a diverse system consumers use to access information and engage in communication. It's a ball point pen, and the typewriter just came out.

This week, Miss Seattle was called out for posting negative comments about Twitter--three months ago. And this begs the question: does a social media presence entail being nice all the time?

In a recent article in the Seattle Times, Jeanne-Sun Hannah Ahn, recently crowned Miss Seattle, was called out for the following negative Tweets:

Tweet No. 1 that Ahn wishes she had never written: "Ew I seriously am hating Seattle right now... " Tweet No. 2 that Ahn wishes she had never written: "Take me back to az!!! Ugh can't stand cold rainy Seattle and the annoying people."

Now, being only a three-year resident of Seattle, myself, I have to admit that most residents get grumpy with the chilly rain here from time to time. And most native Seattleites seem to have a selective memory when it comes to the weather: they insist that no, really, it's sunny a lot of the time!

Personally, I've invested in a light box to keep the gloom from affecting my mood and productivity too heavily. This town has gloomy weather; there's no denying it. So why are these Tweets so offensive?

1. There is a difference between civilized venting of frustrations and insulting people. I don't believe that anyone, even those representing only their own personal brand, need to be 100% positive all the time. That's just creepy. We're human; we get grumpy. I've been known to post a grumptastic Tweet or two, and I stand by them. But there is a difference between saying "Seattle rain is driving me crazy. Where can I get some sun?" and "I can't stand cold rainy Seattle and the annoying people." It's kind of like that old therapist's trick of using "I" statements instead of directing your anger at others: instead of saying "You are annoying," you say, "I'm annoyed today." The first is an offensive Tweet; the second would be perfectly acceptable in my book.
2. You are always representing yourself. Most of us simply represent ourselves, and until last week, that was true for Ahn as well. If she hadn't been crowned Miss Seattle, her grumpy Tweets might have lost her a few followers but wouldn't have resulted in any public outcry. I'm a fan of the personable without being too personal rule of social media sharing: be your own self online, but be your best self. Don't post anything you wouldn't want your grandmother or your next employer to see. It's okay to complain a little, as long as you're taking responsibility for it and posting more positive follow-ups when you feel better.
3. You might one day represent another brand. This, I believe, is where Ahn lost insight. More troubling that a few spare disses to the hip town of Seattle is the fact that she uses the characterization "annoying" frequently in her Twitter presence; that is coming to define her own personal brand as, well, a bit of a whiner. Fine for Ahn on her own, but now she is representing Seattle, and that negativity doesn't align with the Miss Seattle brand. 

Keeping your Twitter nose clean

There are tools such as Reputation.com that will clean up your online presence for those who come suddenly into the public eye or a high-profile job. But a better strategy is to think before you post to begin with. However, for those who do find themselves in the public eye or seeking a new position, a few tips:

• Review your last year of Facebook posts. How do you come across based on your status updates and photos? Did you make any negative references to past employers or specific people? Remove them.
• Review your last six months of Tweets. How do you come across based on this information alone? What is the ratio of positive, negative and neutral Tweets? How engaged and responsive are you to others? 
• Google yourself. What is the top hit? Does it represent the aspect of you you want employers or the public to see?

Of course, the best advice is simply to be aware of your own personal brand to begin with. Post content that aligns with your own passions and those of your personal brand. Share personal tidbits, ask for advice, and keep the social media conversation going.

The visual pinboard site Pinterest has seen phenomenal growth over the last few months. But it's not all cupcakes and puppies: the site has serious issues with copyright infringement, and you've probably already broken the law with a pin.

Last month, a photographer that also happens to be a lawyer wrote a blog post detailing why she felt the need to delete her Pinterest accounts. As with most sharing sites today, the issue has to do with sharing in relation to copyrighted images and the lack of ability of most pinners to determine and honor copyright restrictions via the visual pinning process.

The photographer/lawyer, Kirsten, took a look at Pinterest's Terms of Use and was alarmed by what she saw. It turns out that while Pinterest might make sharing copyrighted works as easy as clicking, it doesn't hold any of the responsibility parallel with that act. In fact, it's all on you, the pinner, to dig up the copyright restrictions of each image that you pin or repin and bear all the legal consequences of the act if you make a mistake. From the Terms of Use:

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SITE, APPLICATION, SERVICES AND SITE CONTENT REMAINS WITH YOU.

You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.

In other words, if a photographer sues you for pinning or repinning her copyrighted work--even if you were unaware of the work's origin--you have to pay for your lawyer, the photographer's lawyer, and Pinterest's lawyer.

Yes, really. That's what you agreed to when you joined the site.

There is rising concern that the site's Terms of Use puts entirely too much responsibility on the user, who may be blissfully unaware of any one image's origins or copyright. Since 80% of Pinterest content is repinned work from other users; how many repinners are aware of the image's origin and original copyright restrictions, I wonder? My guess is very few. In fact, as I was tracking down pretty images on Pinterest for use in a Keynote deck, I was continually frustrated in my lack of ability to track down the photographer or site of origin to determine copyright status. And I was looking for it.

For those who are wondering, a Social Times post covers a brief run-down of the Fair Use Act and how it doesn't apply to most of what you'd see on Pinterest:

The Fair Use Act specifies that copyrighted works may be reproduced depending on:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Since Pinterest users pin and repin the entire photo, #3 would be violated. However, the post indicates that the real test of legality will apply to rules #1 and 4. For example, if Pinterest derives ad revenue from the overall site, could photographers sue using the fourth provision? The legality becomes very sticky.

And what about brands that are using Pinterest to promote their organization, drive traffic and even promote sales? If they host pinboards of photos other than those taken by their own photographers, and those boards drive traffic to the organizations' site and generates sales, there may be a lawsuit in the offing.

The internet is exploding with advice for photographers on techniques for protecting their images from being pinned and therefore propagated over Pinterest without credit. The easiest technique is a bit of code provided by Pinterest itself:

<meta name=”pinterest” content=”nopin” />

When you add the code to the top of your webpage and a person tries to pin an image from your website they’ll receive a message of: “”This site doesn’t allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!”

However, the issue with this and watermarking and disabling the ability to right-click and download is that it puts all the burden of protecting copyright on the photographer, and many photographers have hundreds or thousands of images available online. A watermark isn't enough to protect copyright anymore, and is it fair to expect photographers to bear all the responsibility of honoring copyright?

Will Pinterest go the way of Napster? If this issue isn't addressed, that may well be the future of Pinterest. I suspect what we will see next will be the first big court case testing Pinterest and the Fair Use Act, and that case will determine whether easy pinning and repinning is worth constant copyright violation or whether Pinterest will find a way to help its users abide by copyright while still sharing prolifically.

Thanks to everyone who came out to the amazing NW Women's Conference Social Day! And big thanks to Mike Whitmore of Fresh Consulting for offering me the opportunity to speak in front of such a vibrant group.

The slide deck on Why Go Social is below. It seems that SlideShare didn't like some of the funky fades and transitions, so this is a rough approximation of the deck rather than a mirror image.

This is the best slide deck yet I've seen on what Pinterest is and how and why brands use it. Plus, it's a beautiful presentation!

Gregory Pouy shares his breakdown of Pinterest; I love this slide deck! His key takeaways include five things you can do with Pinterest:

1. Promote a lifestyle
2. Use as a focus group
3. Drive sales
4. Crowdsource
5. Run contests

Think there are no tangbile results?

• The website ideeli.com saw a 446% rise in web traffic from their Pinterest presence. 
• Biscuit by Lamchop, a site that produces gluten-free dog biscuits, reports that Pinterest represents 20% of their referral traffic.
• Even GE, a non-visual product, has an inspirational Pinterest site. "It's not about your products; it's about your spirit."

Today's infographic is courtesy of Mashable and focuses on content marketing strategy and results

It's Saturday, and that means fewer words and pretty pictures. If you're as much of hoarder of infographics as I am, check out my Social Media Infographics board on Pinterest for all the goodies.

For today, though, here's my fave infographic of the week on content marketing. My favorite stats from it:

• Top goal for content marketing: brand awarenes (69%)
• Top tactic is article posting (79%)
• Only 44% of marketers are happy with their current agency

In the most recent Pew Internet survey, 69% of teens reported that their peers were mostly kind on social networking sites. Of adults, 85% said users on SNS were mostly kind.

In that I consider to be a heartening bit of research, Pew has discoverd that both adults and teens believe that the interactions on social networking sites are by and large kind, with just 20% of teens and 5% of adults reporting that they found SNS interactions to be unkind or mean.

The study reports that 95% of all teens ages 12-17 are now online and 80% of those online teens are users of social media sites.

What is interesting is the disparity between the teen results versus the adult results.

I took the difference as indicative of insight reflecting the maturity level of the participant. To quote Anaïs Nin:

We do not see others as they are; we see them as we are.

Warning: psychobabble alert

Teens are still growing and developing their own self-identity. They are often insecure and trying to find the balance between self-actualization and testing boundaries within their developing lives. When teens report a lack of kindness, I take that as a reflection of their own insecurities and fears as they develop their sense of self and other.

With the exception of a few attention-seeking trolls here and there, adults by and large are civil on social networking sites. They are more likely to know who they are, and absent of a tremendous amount of provocation, will react publicly in a kind and civil manner. This is good news to allay the fears of brands who might face criticism on SNS: take heart; most people will be nice to you. And if they criticize, they'll do it in a civil manner 85% of the time.

Responding to mean behavior

And in even better news, teens report that they do the wise thing and 95% of the time ignore the mean behavior. As one who has seen flame wars to end all flame wars, I long ago became convinced that nothing productive ever comes from responding to an online troll, and it's great to see teens modeling this behavior. But the community isn't helpless in the face of mean attacks: 84% of teens have seen people defend the person being harassed, with 27% seeing this frequently. While responding directly isn't always the best option, helping out your fellow community members often is.