Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pinterest, We Have a Problem

whatblag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 158 posts

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#11

Post by cobrien »

chrisacky wrote: post #2

There was a similar HN post/Google+ post last week. I can't remember where I read it. Something along the lines of an avid lawyer decided to kill her account because she read the ToS and drew exactly the same conclusions as what you had just wrote. While it's quite easy to regard this as been a ticking timebomb, a few things to probably note. If you are a photographer or someone who holds copyright in a work you woul…

> There was a similar HN post/Google+ post last week. I can't remember where I read it. Something along the lines of an avid lawyer decided to kill her account because she read the ToS and drew exactly the same conclusions as what you had just wrote.

The relevant article and HN discussion is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3660323

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#12

Post by mtgentry »

'The “pin” button remains inactive until the user types something. Anything. Might this count as “criticizing” or “commenting”?'

Interesting. I'd like to see a court case further define what constitutes a "comment" on the web. Other sites do this too, for example Buzzfeed.com's entire business model is based on taking content from bloggers and then hosting it on their own site, without providing any kind of insightful comment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/if-both-of-angelinas-legs-wer...

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#13

Post by cmiles74 »

Pinterest is caching these images on their servers, not their customers who are only pasting in links. I find it hard to believe that these end-users will be held liable for an implementation detail on Pinterest's end. And linking, I believe is legal.

These are images that are publicly available on the internet and have been made available, in most cases, by the owner. Is there really a case that copying these images off the internet is illegal?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#14

Post by ceol »

cmiles74 wrote: post #13

Pinterest is caching these images on their servers, not their customers who are only pasting in links. I find it hard to believe that these end-users will be held liable for an implementation detail on Pinterest's end. And linking, I believe is legal. These are images that are publicly available on the internet and have been made available, in most cases, by the owner. Is there really a case that copying these images…

It's not an issue of copying images off the Internet. It's an issue with redistributing it, which Pinterest does. Just because an image is on the Internet does not mean it's up for grabs to whoever gets it.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#15

Post by FireBeyond »

veverkap wrote: post #8

Didn't Pinterest address this to a certain degree? At least from the content creators - http://blog.pinterest.com/post/17949261591/growing-up says that you can add a meta tag marking your content as not pinnable.

"To a certain degree"... Not so much...

So I, as a Content Creator, have to a) be mindful of, and b) take action to opt out of 1) Pinterest, 2) any other of a potentially large number of sites / applications, purely in order to ensure said sites don't claim commercial rights to and derive income from my work and effort?

Not the way it works, or should work, say I.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#16

Post by pavel_lishin »

cbs wrote: post #4
chrisacky wrote: post #2

There was a similar HN post/Google+ post last week. I can't remember where I read it. Something along the lines of an avid lawyer decided to kill her account because she read the ToS and drew exactly the same conclusions as what you had just wrote. While it's quite easy to regard this as been a ticking timebomb, a few things to probably note. If you are a photographer or someone who holds copyright in a work you woul…

>You are first going to have to contact Pinterest to get the information of the user who has listed this said work. Are Pinterest goijng to give up this information so willingly? Probably not... IIRC, in this case you sue John Doe and have the court compel Pinterest to identify him.

Does pinterest require identifying information in order to register?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#17

Post by alxp »

pork wrote: post #10
Terretta wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "content" creators, these are not absurdities, these are terms that can make or break your ability to get paid for your work and put food on the table. A photographer having to go to court to defend his ownership of photos they'd exhibited through twitpic and get paid by newspapers who claimed the ToS said he'd released his rights, demonstrates this is not a "please not again" problem, this is ongoing, big corps…

Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I felt the same thing as them. Allow me to set out a hypothetical. You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and Pinterest dies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of your "pinned" content decides to go after you, and decides to sue the pants off you. So you freak out an…

This post we're discussing _is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish them good luck because the pendulum is currently far too in the direction against fairness to end-users.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#18

Post by OneBytePerGreen »

Pinterest has a market valuation of > 200 million dollars...

30%+ of its images are flickr images...

... 99%+ of which are "All Rights Reserved".

How many

... page views,

... new subscribers,

... and $$$

have the most-pinned flickr images generated for pinterest, with the author not seeing a single cent... not even having the satisfaction of seeing their popularity on pinterest reflect in their flickr stats?

And: Pinterest does not even have the decency to display the author name and license info next to the image.

Pinterest's business model is flawed; it is based on systematic violation of copyright. At some point, someone will start a class-action lawsuit and invite flickr photographers whose works got "pinned" to sign up, to reclaim part of that >$200 million pie.

In fact, this seems like a valid startup idea to me: Create a one-page website explaining to flickr users what has been going on. Do a systematic reverse image search to find out which authors have been affected and invite them to join. Arrange with an interested lawfirm to get a % of their fee in exchange for delivering the list of potential plaintiffs.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#19

Post by growingconcern »

alxp wrote: post #17
pork wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I felt the same thing as them. Allow me to set out a hypothetical. You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and Pinterest dies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of your "pinned" content decides to go after you, and decides to sue the pants off you. So you freak out an…

This post we're discussing _is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish them good luck because the pendulum is currently far too in the direction against fairness to end-users.

Exactly. Saying that this is just the way it is is ludicrous. They could under sufficient pressure change the wording so that they aren't assuming ownership or unlimited use and that it is something more akin to fair use.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#20

Post by Someone »

pork wrote: post #10
Terretta wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "content" creators, these are not absurdities, these are terms that can make or break your ability to get paid for your work and put food on the table. A photographer having to go to court to defend his ownership of photos they'd exhibited through twitpic and get paid by newspapers who claimed the ToS said he'd released his rights, demonstrates this is not a "please not again" problem, this is ongoing, big corps…

Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I felt the same thing as them. Allow me to set out a hypothetical. You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and Pinterest dies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of your "pinned" content decides to go after you, and decides to sue the pants off you. So you freak out an…

"Repeat, iterate, and before you know it -- your top-notch lawyer guarantees that you will face no more expensive liability, but you now have the onerous terms set out in practically all sites that allow user-generated content"

If that lawyer exists, the Pirate Bay should hire him/her. I do not see how what they are doing is any different from what Pinterest does. Or am I overlooking something?

Post reply on HN