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

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#141

Post by pbhjpbhj »

cbr wrote: post #113
js2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was making a single postcard per image, and needed a total of 30 separate images. These were going to a family member (30 postcards from 30 locations for her 30th birthday). Having to wait a week for each image, and pay $100 each, wasn't going to work. For personal use such as this it'd be nice if there were an easier way. Maybe Flickr could even be the middle man and take a 30% cut.

You can make the requests in parallel; it's one week total, not "a week for each image".

The requests are serial, the delay is parallelised. Or is there really a multi-request system?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#142

Post by Terretta »

js2 wrote: post #109
Terretta wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This may make sense for images which are to be used in a commercial context, but for personal use like how I wanted to use the images, it's way too expensive and much too much friction." That's why Flickr lets you search for Creative Commons images, for which the photographer gives you that personal use permission in advance.

There are shades of a grey between commercial use and free use which are unaddressed.

You think so? I license photos through Creative Commons, and differently depending on the shades of personal to commercial I consider inherent in the potential market for a photo.

I find it covers all the shades of commerciality I've considered. Meanwhile, for a purely commercial photographer, the getty images option is there, and those won't come up in the Creative Commons search unless licensed appropriately.

The CC search tool on Flickr is a fantastic tool for finding photos of the exact "shade" of use you're looking for.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#143

Post by Terretta »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #111
lwat wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we never complain about these things they'll never get fixed.

Do they get fixed though? If we don't pick our battles we run the risk of being seen as a bunch of whiners and being written off as such. Do these things need fixing? Is it the TOS that need fixing or is it the conditions under which such agreements are made necessary that need fixing. Maybe we're focusing our efforts in the wrong place.

Forget copyright for a moment.

When their ToS says "Pin your own content here", then says, "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," that's going too far.

That would be like Flickr claiming they (not you) had the right to sell your photos. Or Rackspace claiming they had the right to sell anything you posted on your web site.

This ToS is an extreme overreach, and your casual dismissal of that extremity is itself cautionary -- what can happen when one becomes too saturated with the 70+ hours of ToS reading a typical Internet user would have to do each year to keep up.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#144

Post by Terretta »

andrewfelix wrote: post #122
billpatrianakos wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could and I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess there's a legal reason for it in terms of liability or they're somehow making a profit through that clause. Either way, you don't have to post anything to Pinterest and you have a way to get your content taken down via DMCA. I read a lot of comments like this and I always wonder why it always sounds like someone is forcing you to put your content on their site. No one is…

I'm amazed that you managed construct that condescending diatribe around a simple question. Was there a tone of entitlement or demand in my question? Your argument boils down to 'If you don't like it, don't use it.' So I guess any more discussion on the subject is henceforth mute?

It's not "if you don't like it, don't use it." It's, "how do we, the presumably more savvy, help prevent abusive ToS where naive 'click through' users are taken by surprise when Pinterest begins selling the users' things?" How do we keep our collective marketplace safe so visitors will feel good about strolling by?

It's easy to let the user own their own things. Even free site Tumblr does this:

First, "Subscriber shall own all Subscriber Content that Subscriber contributes to the Site," which clarifies the user, not Tumblr, owns it.

Second, the user "grants ... license ... to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute," which lets Tumblr host it on their web and caching servers, "modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content", which lets them make thumbnails and posts out of it, "and to allow others to do so ('Content License')", which lets them use a CDN, "in order to provide the Services."

The key is "in order to provide the Services." Outside of providing Tumblr, you own your stuff, and they can't do anything else with it.

Tumblr's in New York and has great lawyers. Pinterest should be publicly shamed for burying their non-standard claim of the right to sell your creative works in the middle of a ToS.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#145

Post by adamc »

glimcat wrote: post #71
icebraining wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose instead?

Be explicit about what forms of (re)distribution are allowed instead of going for a blanket license. Where appropriate, also be explicit about what is not allowed. 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 like that answer, because it is clear and doesn't seem like a sneaky over-reach.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#146

Post by mdc »

seldo wrote: post #101
billpatrianakos wrote: post #98

What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written. The real deal is that Pinterest is screwed either way. These terms sound scary but so long as they are enforced sanely there should be no problem. What do you expect them to do? Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? They might as well not exist. A lot of star…

I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case…

If Pinterest was mostly music tracks instead of photos then it would be equivalent to a web-based Napster and we all know what would happen under current copyright law.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#147

Post by raimondious »

otterley wrote: post #127

I am an attorney (and as far as I can tell, the author is not one, so take his "analysis" with a pillar of salt). This is not legal advice though. With respect to the following paragraph: "So, if you snap an awesome photograph, upload it to your blog, and someone pins it, that person is either (1) claiming exclusive ownership of it; or (2) giving Pinterest your consent to reproduce it (and you just thought you were b…

This is my issue with the article. If your rights as content creator are violated by Pinterest, then that's between you and Pinterest. If Pinterest were to say "but user 4023 said it was ours to use!" my reaction would be "so what?"

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#148

Post by [deleted] »

seldo wrote: post #101
billpatrianakos wrote: post #98

What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written. The real deal is that Pinterest is screwed either way. These terms sound scary but so long as they are enforced sanely there should be no problem. What do you expect them to do? Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? They might as well not exist. A lot of star…

I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case…

[deleted]

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#149

Post by soundslikeneon »

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…

You're missing a big point though. Does Pintrest need to internalize and take ownership over all of the content on the site in order to protect themselves legally? It seems that would open them up to far greater liability. And then in the same breath they foist that liability onto their users simply for doing what they are 'supposed' to do (pin things they are interested in).

As others have said, Flickr does not have the same "we own it now" stipulation so don't suggest that this is simply the way it has to be. If Pintrest were so inclined, they could keep the indemnity boilerplate but stop taking ownership of posted content. This would move their site much closer to Fair Use territory, which would in turn help minimize the legal risk taken on by users who pin and comment on content that isn't their own. Instead, Pintrest want to make sure they don't close a potentially lucrative door and don't mind if they abuse everyone involved in making and sharing content while they explore their options.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#150

Post by jlujan »

antiterra wrote: post #74
icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As far as I know there is no industry group for still-image photographers anything like the MPAA or RIAA. All three of those sites are and were filled with substantial original content, so they can claim that illegal use is not their primary drive. I don't know if Pinterest can successfully argue the same thing. It also should be noted that YouTube spent a great deal of money on settlements and arrangements with RIAA…

"As far as I know there is no industry group for still-image photographers anything like the MPAA or RIAA."

The American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America. They do not have the deep pockets or political clout of MPAA or RIAA but they are large industry groups.

I think someone else mentioned a class action suite against Google for copyright infringement by photographers. The lawsuit started with scanning and displaying images from the Google Library Project but includes infringement claims for images.google.com, etc.

http://asmp.org/articles/asmp-qa-google-class-action.html

Post reply on HN