

Is Pinterest the next Napster? - mfaustman
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450004577279632967289676.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEFTTopNews
Copyright issues brewing for the company.
======
mindslight
Is someone running a negative PR campaign against Pinterest? Or is this really
_all_ an organic result of the uncriticalthinking media echo chamber?

~~~
qq66
That was my initial thought. Whose interest is it to run a negative PR
campaign against Pinterest?

~~~
mindslight
Somebody who's been pinned one too many times? Somebody who's not been pinned
and feels left out? Somebody who's normally used to being the only one doing
any kind of forceful pinning in this town? The male-dominated Silicon Valley
insiders looking to repress the fledgling feminine curation site? The Paypal
Mafia?

    
    
        !!!!!!!!  STORY AT 11  !!!!!!!!
    

My personal bet would be just the media echo chamber ("They have a story about
X? We need a story about X!") combined with a persistent lawyer who's stuck in
the uncanny valley of abstraction - well past common sense but still not
knowing when you're suffering from Gödel's curse, but who knows.

~~~
qq66
The last time I thought this, though, the stories were being planted by
Facebook PR to slam Google+.

~~~
mindslight
Sorry, I wasn't really trying to strongly disagree. I just started writing and
it became more of a commentary on the media and people who think they're
righting the world, but are really trapped in Blub.

It could actually totally could be Facebook again, especially given how the
narrative is all about individual users being at risk. It seems like
interaction on Pinterest would diminish a segment of mass-market Facebook
usage. Spread some FUD to make people think using new 'untested' social sites
could possibly subject one to liabilities, meanwhile attempt to fill the
demand for Pinterest-style interaction with new features.

Actually, now that I think about it more, isn't Pinterest _directly
monetizing_ what Facebook has always claimed to be able to monetize sometime
in the future?

------
mattmiller
This is getting absurd. Many sites cache images. Maybe somebody should come up
with an images/content cache agreement that content owners can opt into. Not
opting in means no love from Facebook, Google images, Pintrest, and the
thousands of other traffic sources.

~~~
jinushaun
I also don't buy the copyright infringement argument. Pinterest is a
bookmarking service much like Delicious. It no more infringes than the
thumbnail previews in Google Images or Facebook posts.

~~~
DanBC
Pinterest doesn't just keep thumbnails, it keeps large versions of images on
their servers. There are two clicks to get to the page where the pinner found
the image.

I can imagine content creators being unhappy that their image is posted to
some blog, and then pinned without their name. People seeing the pin may (but
probably don't[1]) click twice to get to the blog, but how many of those
people then click again to get to the creator of the content?

To me, the artistic pinboards are gently problematic. The product pinboards
are less troubling, because I guess they drive some traffic to the selling
sites.

[1] I have no data for this. I realise I might be wrong.

~~~
tomg
I wonder how Tumblr handles this. Pretty much every Tumblr blog I've stumbled
on to contains full size copyrighted images re-hosted by Tumblr.

~~~
natrius
I don't use Tumblr, but my understanding is that a user has to upload an image
for Tumblr to host it. The DMCA safe harbor provisions apply in such cases.
Pinterest itself downloads images from pinned items, which probably makes them
liable for the infringement.

~~~
tomg
Interesting... I was unaware that a relatively minor technical difference
(browser POST vs. server side GET) mattered so much.

------
phillco
If that's the case, then Imgur/Reddit is like the new pirate bay. They've been
rehosting images (often without attribution, although not maliciously --
someone usually provides it) for years.

~~~
shingen
That would of course be the tip of the iceberg.

Since Imgur and Reddit represent a fraction of a fraction of the total
reposting / rehosting / et al.

Extrapolated to its natural conclusion, you might as well shut down the Web
and all that it was designed for.

------
nikcub
probably not. see Perfect 10 vs Google:

<https://www.eff.org/cases/perfect-10-v-google>

~~~
jlujan
Again, Google won this on appeal. It was very narrow victory and isn't a good
case for precedent. See
[http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/05/summary_of_perf...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/05/summary_of_perf.htm)

EDIT: Note the last part "affirmed the district court's finding that Perfect
10 was unlikely to prevail on its vicarious infringement claim, because
Perfect 10 was unlikely to be able to show that Google had a right and ability
to stop or limit the infringing conduct of third-party websites." Pinterest
clearly has control over their content and arguably promotes infringement by
providing a nifty browser toolbar to do it.

There is also the ASMP, et al vs. Google case that is still pending. See
<http://asmp.org/articles/asmp-qa-google-class-action.html>

The issue with pinterest is the presentation of the original image. Using an
image with out explicit consent is illegal even with attribution. Perfect 10
vs. Google revolved around the use of low quality thumbnail representations in
search results. Pinterest is not a search engine and does not use low quality
thumbnails.

In comparison to Tumblr, it can be argued that Tumblr has a clear purpose as a
blog platform above the ability to simply re-blog content from other sites. I
am sure Tumblr is inundated with DMCA takedowns as well.

Theoretical lawsuits against Pinterest are more likely to have success because
the sole purpose of the platform is to repost third-party content (to what
ever means their business model is based on). It will also be interesting to
see how well they implement DMCA take-down procedures. Even if the purpose of
the site is validated as fair-use, the DMCA procedures will need to be
sufficiently vetted to insure they do not lose protection. The recent articles
seriously calls into question Pinterest's knowledge and ability regarding
handling of DMCA requirements.

------
jes5199
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines>

------
snambi
pinterest enables people to express themselves using images found on the web.
The images are hosted by someone, so that others can look at them. Now,
pinterest enables someone to do something with these images, other than just
looking at them.

------
EREFUNDO
I'm joining Pinterest after reading.....

------
joering2
on the other note, it just shows how crucial to the success of your startup is
timing. Have Youtube founders set it up today, they would have rotten in jail
next to DotCom and most likely Rick O'Dwyer. Instead, they got $1.6B buyout
offer.

------
shingen
The mass of content owners that could pursue Pinterest aren't organized into
an effective cartel. So no, it's not likely Pinterest is going to get
assaulted the same way Napster did.

That doesn't stop one or two larger content owners from hitting them hard of
course. Most likely by the time any of this comes to legal blows Pinterest
will have figured out a means to dance around the technicalities of it all.
Worst case scenario for Pinterest is that they see a YouTube-like run-in with
a media company.

The media monsters (eg WSJ, Murdoch) smell that someone out there might, just
maybe, be making some money off something they own somewhere, maybe, kinda
sorta, possibly. A hint of it is all those animals need. So they're sending
out trial balloons for whether there's anything to sue about to grab some cash
with no effort.

You have to understand, the first thing these guys think when they see
something new like a Twitter or Facebook or Pinterest or Tumblr is (do I):
partner with it, ignore it, sue it, buy it. You're going to fall into one of
those categories.

