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

31–40 of 158 posts

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#31

Post by rjurney »

I am SO fucking sick of douchebag angst driven attacks by sniveling failure-driven wannabees on legalese in terms of service that are essential to make any and every successful consumer Internet site, application or platform work.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Go back to the pre-social web with your mom and grandmother. If you are going to criticize it or upvote it, think for a moment about the reasoning behind it. Yesterday Path. Today Pinterest. Let's hope someone else makes something great for you to kick in the teeth tomorrow.

Shut the fuck up already.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#32

Post by xn »

If posting an image with a comment is fair use, then arguably the combination of the image and the comment constitute the Member Content for which the poster is claiming ownership.

If I publish a review of a work of art, including a reproduction of the work, in a magazine, my copyright would cover the entire article including the reproduction. I wouldn't be claiming copyright on the original work.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#33

Post by viraptor »

brador wrote: post #6

Could this argument also apply to sites like Readability? Since it removes advertising (hence income for the writers) from articles.

I don't think so, unless readability grants itself rights to reproduce and sell every article that passes through its engine. Does it?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#34

Post by elithrar »

maqr wrote: post #29

Maybe all the buzz about Pinterest is because so many people think that finding an image online makes it publicly redistributable. "Pinning" is just another way of sharing. I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing (pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

> I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing (pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

Anecdotally, it's because photographs and images are seen as "easier to reproduce" (whether this is true or not is another matter), and therefore possibly easier to justify by those doing the sharing.

That, and there's far less friction to sharing photos/images than video and software.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#35

Post by girlvinyl »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #16
cbs wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

It requires a facebook or twitter login. Plus it should have some kind of IP log somewhere. Pinterest won't have the entire identity, but this is how e-discovery works. You keep sending subpoenas up the hierarchy until you get to the ISP. The ISP provides the subscriber information.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#36

Post by icebraining »

zaroth wrote: post #25

Speaking of the DMCA Safe Harbor... Images on Pinterest, in some cases, were not even uploaded from a user's hard drive; they were pulled in via a the 'Pin It' button ( http://pinterest.com/about/goodies/ ) In this case, Pinterest even acknowledges that the images are not the property of the user, "When you pin from a website, we automatically grab the source link so we can credit the original creator." I'll bet the…

In this case, Pinterest even acknowledges that the images are not the property of the user, "When you pin from a website, we automatically grab the source link so we can credit the original creator."

And that's fine - their ToS says you need to be either the copyright holder or have consent from the copyright holder. For example, if I "pin" a CC licensed image, I have such consent.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#37

Post by anothermachine »

js2 wrote: post #27
OneBytePerGreen wrote: post #18

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: Pin…

Recently, I wanted to make some picture postcards of various locations around the US for personal use, so I went looking for images. I found many on Flickr. I wanted to compensate the original photographer. There is no easy way to do this. At best, some photographs have a "request to license" link that bounces you to a third party (typically Getty Images) which offers to "Review the photo to determine if it's a good…

Just print the pictures and send the photog a tip via Paypal or buy something (anything) the photog is selling.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#38

Post by [deleted] »

zaroth wrote: post #24

If I'm a copyright holder who feels like my work is being misappropriated by Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the user. Their Terms of Service won't stop them from getting sued, and the indemnity clause won't magically make money appear in their pockets to pay for their defense. If they decide to start suing their users for recovery, that would be pretty amusing. "I trusted the person who gave me the image"…

[deleted]

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#39

Post by anothermachine »

zaroth wrote: post #24

If I'm a copyright holder who feels like my work is being misappropriated by Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the user. Their Terms of Service won't stop them from getting sued, and the indemnity clause won't magically make money appear in their pockets to pay for their defense. If they decide to start suing their users for recovery, that would be pretty amusing. "I trusted the person who gave me the image"…

BTW, you mean "I trust the person who told me to take the image from a third party."

Imagine calling AAA to tow "your" car, and they show up and tow it, only to find out later that it wasn't your car at all.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#40

Post by patrickaljord »

Alex3917 wrote: post #23

So you're claiming that pinterest should pay your legal bills for you? That's ridiculous. If you upload a photo that's copyrighted by someone else and get sued, why should pinterest foot the bill for that? There is no way the service would ever be viable under those conditions, because it would create an enormous moral hazard.

The thing is that pinterest makes most of its money on copyrighted material uploaded without the content of the original owner, so it encourages and makes money on copyrights infringement for the main part. Just like the Pirate Bay...
Post reply on HN