

Why I Tearfully Deleted My Pinterest Inspiration Boards - kelnos
http://ddkportraits.com/2012/02/why-i-tearfully-deleted-my-pinterest-inspiration-boards/

======
VengefulCynic
This is one of those areas where the legalese proclaims that the emperor has
clothes and all of the marketing copy indicates otherwise. The article's
follow-up clearly shows that the Pinterest founder is aware of the conflict,
and it's clear that we're at a watershed moment in terms of the legal
outcomes.

To my mind, the real question is whether Pinterest pivots like Youtube did and
turns into a service where at least a sizable percentage of the usage doesn't
violate existing copyright laws or whether it goes the direction of Napster
and the lawyers get to it. I wish Ben Silberman all the best... I just don't
see a lot of success stories in our space once the lawyers show up.

Edit: Obviously existing copyright law sucks - very few people on HN disagree
on that point. My interest is in seeing startups succeed within the context of
existing copyright law as I fear it won't be changing for the good any time
soon.

~~~
sosuke
Pinterest is under the DMCA safe harbor provision though right? Copyright
holders would have to pursue an infringer directly and issue take down
notices. Maybe image recognition and a big notice saying the copyright holder
has banned that image from Pinterest, contact them _here_.

~~~
rsingel
Pintrest is very much covered under the DMCA safe harbor. As for users, to get
real damages under copyright law, a copyright owner need to register your
copyrights with the Copyright office AND prove monetary loss. Almost no one
does the former and the latter ain't easy. 2) Any photographer who doesn't
want someone "pinning" their photos is far more likely to just use a DMCA
takedown notice.

Furthermore, there's also two controlling rulings on fair use - Perfect 10 v.
Google and Perfect 10 v. Amazon.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc).
These make it clear that there's a very fine case for Pinterest sharing to be
legal for USERS.

Let me now reiterate - pinning a copyrighted photo isn't going to get you sued
or destroy your life savings. Both the photographers whining about Pinterest
and the non-copyright lawyers penning self-agrandizing "zomg, copyright law is
crazy" blog posts need to get over themselves.

No court is going to award damages for pinning a photo, when the DMCA makes it
simple to take them down and Pinterest users aren't making money off the
photos.

Which is to say even though U.S. copyright law is dumb, it ain't that dumb and
the hysteria over Pinterest needs to stop.

~~~
aptwebapps
A lot of the hysteria is driven by their TOS, or the attention it has gotten.

In the event that one of their users got taken to the cleaners by a litigating
content owner, would Pinterest really consider trying to get their legal costs
paid too? Indemnification is one thing, not that it would stand up if they
didn't obey a take-down request, but that clause should be dropped. They'll
never use it and it's making them look bad.

The real problem, as VengefulCynic said, is the huge discrepancy between what
their TOS says and the way they seem to want people to use the site. The fact
their 'etiquette' is against posting your own content (I didn't know this
before) just drives the point home.

What percentage of users on Pinterest ask permission before posting others'
content? It may be the case that many of the content owners are happy for
their stuff to be pinned, but they aren't being asked. Throwing up this TOS
which, if followed, would turn the site into a ghost town is just dumb.

------
naner
I guess we can be happy that people are starting to notice that:

    
    
      1. Copyright law has not kept up with current social norms and technology.
    

and

    
    
      2. "Terms of Service" are often ridiculous and unreasonable.

~~~
wglb
So how is _Federal copyright laws give the author of any copyrighted work
(which includes photographs and copyright attaches automatically as soon as
the work is created) the sole and exclusive right to publish and reproduce
such work._ not keeping up with social norms and technology?

~~~
naner
Technology:

The behaviors that fall under "publish and reproduce" have drastically changed
since copyright law was drawn up. Professionally reproducing prints and
posting a photo to Facebook/Pinterest are very different actions that should
be conisdered differently.

Social Norms:

Your daughter posts a video of herself dancing and singing to Justin Bieber to
YouTube. You pin a photo from a famous photographer to your "Inspiration"
folder on Pinterest. Most people feel copyright should allow this type of
sharing.

------
sosuke
I don't get the relationship to music piracy. When people were sharing and
downloading music on a mass scale they were getting for free (illegally) what
they would have ordinarily paid for. Other than major content publishers, who
license their work, what small hobby blog pays for each they lift from a
Google image search? The majority of Pinterest users wouldn't normally buy
cute cat pictures or inspiring photos for web use. Even if you implement micro
payments I think it would kill photo sharing.

If they are suggesting they will pursue Pinterest users than the rest of the
internet better line up for prosecution right? If I upload one of these
pictures to Google+, Facebook or MySpace and share it there it's the same
situation no?

~~~
Someone
IANAL, but the "but everyone is doing it" defense may have value if you can
prove that the party sueing you knows of, but does not prosecute, other cases,
but it will not automatically get you of the hook.

On the other hand, law is there for the people, not the other way around. So,
if you can argue that _the_people_ will not want to see these things punished,
you may see the law changed. However, I do not see that happening soon. At the
least there will have to be some provisions disallowing large scale copying.
For example, I doubt that the National Geographic or Playboy magazine would be
happy if it became legal to republish, as a hobby, their photo series.

------
natep
I think it's important to note that this is from a month ago, and there have
been a number of follow-ups:

1\. My Date with Ben Silberman [founder] [http://ddkportraits.com/2012/02/my-
date-with-ben-silbermann-...](http://ddkportraits.com/2012/02/my-date-with-
ben-silbermann-following-up-and-drying-my-tears/)

2\. Responses to Questions [http://ddkportraits.com/2012/03/my-
top-50-responses-to-your-...](http://ddkportraits.com/2012/03/my-
top-50-responses-to-your-questions-alpharetta-photographer-responds-to-issues-
regarding-pinterest-blogs/)

3\. Passion for Pinterest and Call for
Input[http://ddkportraits.com/2012/03/passion-for-pinterest-
and-a-...](http://ddkportraits.com/2012/03/passion-for-pinterest-and-a-call-
for-input-from-photogs/)

But as VengefulCynic said, I think it's good that Pinterest is bringing this
IP discussion more into the mainstream.

------
shubber
I read from this that one of the core tenants of Web 2.0 was "content
generation is for suckers" - Pinterest has in common with lots of other boom
sites that they provide a venue for users to share the fruits of their own
labors with others, and benefit from that fact, while the users rarely get
anything out of the deal.

In Pinterest's case (like YouTube) it's possible, in fact, that their users
might get really screwed, actually.

~~~
NoPiece
The Pinterest backlash reminds me more of the google news backlash. Old school
businesses lording over their content, not realizing that there is more to
gain by sharing. The terms need improvement, but their service is a boon to
sites with content to share.

~~~
aptwebapps
Well, the terms are certainly ridiculous, but the Google News comparison
doesn't quite work for me. Google News provides the headline, the byline, a
brief snippet, and maybe a thumbnail. And a link, of course. If you want more
than the headline, you need to click the link. The fact that publishers often
allow you to bypass their paywall if the referrer is Google News shows that
this traffic is valuable. But with Pinterest users are much less likely to
visit the original site.

That doesn't mean there's no value for the owners of the content, e.g. if it's
a pic of some sort of product there's probably quite a lot of upside.

But Youtube is still a much more valid comparison - it's user-uploaded
content, not necessarily user-generated, whereas Google News is scraped.

Also, this is less substantive, but "lording over their content ... " ... you
make it sound like it's not theirs or something.

~~~
NoPiece
I would guess over 90% of photos pinned on Pinterest are from pages that
contain text and other photos. A single pinned photo is a lot like a news
excerpt.

When I say "lording over their content" (which I agree is theirs), what I mean
is that they are lording over their business model, or the perceived value of
the content. They are thinking it is a zero sum game and that if you view
their photo somewhere else, they lost something.

What are the real world scenarios where Pinterest isn't helping the content
owner of a piece of pinned content? My experience is that it is a massive
traffic driver; that users do indeed visit the original site, a lot. Even if
many don't, that doesn't mean that is lost traffic.

------
softbuilder
If I were to seriously analyze every EULA or ToS I've agreed to, I would never
use anything.

Like the legal system in a third-world country, we're expected to intuit the
right and wrong ways to act and hope for the best.

