71–80 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying it's boilerplate doesn't make it right. It's scammy.
What do you propose instead?
It shouldn't say much more than "you give us the right to use your content to fulfill the services you ask us to provide, and you have the right to remove your content at any time."
I prefer the old ones though http://web.archive.org/web/20110619022738/http://500px.com/t...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It also should be noted that YouTube spent a great deal of money on settlements and arrangements with RIAA & MPAA members, content networks and others to survive.
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…
That is the key line everyone is skipping over. It limits the rest of the clause quite a bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just because the photographer has one image for sale, it does not mean he is selling (or giving you the rights to distribute/copy) another image.
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.
More important than the terms is the character of the founders and the company. Do you trust Pinterest to do right by you? Flickr has a similar clause, for example, but photographers still trust them.
If you don't trust Pinterest, that's fine. But in that case, do you really think changing some words on one of their pages is going to make a difference in their overall behavior?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not eccentricities, this is serious stuff. Last time I checked US law allowed for damages of up o $150 000 per violation for copyright infringement. This EULA includes an indemnification and hold harmless clause, which means that if pinterest gets sued for something you upload you get pay for their defense and for any judgments if they loose. So if this EULA holds up, it means it can easily expose you to mi…
Do you really think any other content submission service - Youtube, Flickr, etc - doesn't have a disclaimer like this? That they make themselves liable for what their users submit? And how is this abusive? Why should they be held liable for what their users do? From Youtube's ToS: To the extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless YouTube, its parent corporation, officers, dir…
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…
But the outrage, outrage, OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this clause here just tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how many times they've agreed to it in the past.
It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a month from now nobody will be talking about it.