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

61–70 of 158 posts

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#61

Post by icebraining »

why-el wrote: post #43
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.

There is no moral hazard when they are claiming the right to sell material that might be copyrighted.

(Almost) all material is copyrighted. The question is who owns such copyright (or a sublicensable license to it).

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#62

Post by jfarmer »

aiscott wrote: post #55

I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I read that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them rights to sell my work. I don't like that very much. By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sub…

Again, this is 100% boilerplate. YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, etc. will all have similar clauses.

See for example section 6.C in YouTube's ToS. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms

Why? Because without this blanket waiver it opens them up to all kinds of legal issues since a core mechanic of their site is re-pinning.

If you upload a photo to their site and someone else re-pins it, did that person just violate your copyright?

If Pinterest implements a "most popular pins" page and features one of your photos on that page, did they just violate your copyright?

Yes, you can come up with legalese for each potential scenario, but it really does complicate things. It's easier for them to just have a blanket clause and act in good faith, than open themselves up to the possibility of accidentally using someone's work in a way their ToS didn't whitelist.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#63

Post by Alex3917 »

why-el wrote: post #43
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.

There is no moral hazard when they are claiming the right to sell material that might be copyrighted.

That isn't an issue because you are co-assigning your copyright to them, assuming you own the copyright. And if you don't own the copyright then it's not a valid contract, so it doesn't matter. It's not like you're legally able to sign away someone else's copyright. Which is exactly why the indemnity clause is there, to prevent pinterest from being responsible if people are dumb enough to do that.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#64

Post by [deleted] »

waitwhat wrote: post #54
icebraining wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

their ToS says you need to be either the copyright holder or have consent from the copyright holder. I've seen warez sites with exactly the same disclaimer. It didn't work for them either.

[deleted]

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#65

Post by adamc »

jfarmer wrote: post #62
aiscott wrote: post #55

I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I read that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them rights to sell my work. I don't like that very much. By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sub…

Again, this is 100% boilerplate. YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, etc. will all have similar clauses. See for example section 6.C in YouTube's ToS. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms Why? Because without this blanket waiver it opens them up to all kinds of legal issues since a core mechanic of their site is re-pinning. If you upload a photo to their site and someone else re-pins it, did that person just vio…

Saying it's boilerplate doesn't make it right. It's scammy.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#66

Post by icebraining »

waitwhat wrote: post #54
icebraining wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

their ToS says you need to be either the copyright holder or have consent from the copyright holder. I've seen warez sites with exactly the same disclaimer. It didn't work for them either.

But Youtube, Flickr, DeviantArt and thousands of other user submitted content sites are still online.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#67

Post by icebraining »

adamc wrote: post #65
jfarmer wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is 100% boilerplate. YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, etc. will all have similar clauses. See for example section 6.C in YouTube's ToS. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms Why? Because without this blanket waiver it opens them up to all kinds of legal issues since a core mechanic of their site is re-pinning. If you upload a photo to their site and someone else re-pins it, did that person just vio…

Saying it's boilerplate doesn't make it right. It's scammy.

What do you propose instead?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#68

Post by aiscott »

jfarmer wrote: post #62
aiscott wrote: post #55

I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I read that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them rights to sell my work. I don't like that very much. By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sub…

Again, this is 100% boilerplate. YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, etc. will all have similar clauses. See for example section 6.C in YouTube's ToS. http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms Why? Because without this blanket waiver it opens them up to all kinds of legal issues since a core mechanic of their site is re-pinning. If you upload a photo to their site and someone else re-pins it, did that person just vio…

Yes, I see you are right. I guess it seems like I'm more likely to run afoul of the clause with Pinterest. Youtube is like "Funniest Home Videos," Pinterest has gallery like qualities.

Your examples after the link don't seem to have much to do with selling the works though. In Youtube's case, it's to allow them to advertise with overlays. Maybe that is where Pinterest is going as well.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#69

Post by wpietri »

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"…

As my lawyer explained to me long ago, who eventually "wins" a lawsuit is rarely interesting. Cost, time, and agony to get there are much more relevant factors.

The "our users represent that the content is theirs" may not keep Pinterest from losing an eventual lawsuit, but it does complicate things enough that it discourages legal action. That may be sufficient for them to cash out long before the suits are complete.

Or, like YouTube, things like that may allow them to grow big enough that they end up with sufficient negotiating power that they can get away with quite a bit, and possibly reshape what's considered reasonable.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#70

Post by antiterra »

jfarmer wrote: post #51

I have one direct comment and one meta-comment about the issue of Pinteret and copyright. First, I see no issue with their Terms of Service. That language is 100% cover-your-ass boilerplate, and any site that allows people to upload content will have a similar clause in their ToS. Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc. all do. See, e.g., section 6.C of YouTube's ToS: http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms If…

The indemnification clause is definitely 100% boilerplate and used in most any site that allows user-generated content. Facebook contains it near verbatim in item 15.2 of their terms. The license grant is a bit different, since Facebook allows you to terminate the license, though under particular conditions.

The significant issue here is the idea that the intended primary use for Pinterest may infringe on the rights of others. This is what took down Napster, and, to me, indemnifying Pintereist is too risky at this point.

It's my understanding that Pinterest is attempting to move to licensed and sponsored pins and they haven't annoyed any large industry groups and might even fare better legally than YouTube did. Who knows.

Post reply on HN