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

81–90 of 158 posts

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#81

Post by jemfinch »

yuvadam wrote: post #3

Oh please, not again. Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service. These documents are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end users who care to read through the legalese. Their job is to create a document that will protect the product vendor in court, if and when the time comes. Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kind of redundant. If…

Please show me in Picasa's ToS where it says you'll pay Google's legal fees if Google is sued on account of a picture you uploaded.

Please show me in Flickr's ToS where it says that you're giving Flickr the right to sell and relicense any photo you post there.

Pinterest's ToS go far beyond any other service I've seen. If you have examples of terms of service just as ridiculous as Pinterest's, by all means, please share them.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#82

Post by ktizo »

jfarmer wrote: post #80
antiterra wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon given the rate they're growing. 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.

I cannot see how you can have (in reality, not legally) agreed to a clause without first knowing about it.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#83

Post by briandon »

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…

The Getty Images process doesn't sound too terrible to me.

Is the up-to-a-week wait partly a consequence of GI giving the photog a chance to approve/deny the request? That would be reasonable -- they might not want, for example, a Neo-Nazi group licensing their photo of blonde, blue-eyed kids for some sort of racist poster campaign.

Also, $100 licensing for a photo that you really love is cheap as chips.

By personal use, do you mean that you were literally going to produce one copy of each postcard and keep them all yourself? You weren't going to make multiple copies and give/send any to anyone else?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#84

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#85

Post by angryasian »

rjurney wrote: post #31

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…

don't know why im responding to obvious troll. but they are really no better than megaupload at this point. Redistributing copy righted material without permission. Its a far bigger legal matter.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#86

Post by ktizo »

yuvadam wrote: post #3

Oh please, not again. Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service. These documents are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end users who care to read through the legalese. Their job is to create a document that will protect the product vendor in court, if and when the time comes. Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kind of redundant. If…

If you are expected to be bound by terms that you cannot be bothered to read because that would take a lifetime, then you should hope that there are teams of nerds with OCD picking through them and weeding out nonsense on your behalf.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#87

Post by greendestiny »

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…

Pinterest has built a service around sharing much like Reddit but instead of using links it appropriates the content and tries to 'pin' that on the user. I fully expect Pinterest to have to change the way they operate to make it more inline with a google images style of caching, where they assume the responsibility for reproducing the images. I think Pinterest just needs some smarter lawyers.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#88

Post by jfarmer »

ktizo wrote: post #82
jfarmer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon given the rate they're growing. 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.

I cannot see how you can have (in reality, not legally) agreed to a clause without first knowing about it.

Much of it is a conceit, yes, and I'm not qualified to comment on the legal precedents surrounding such licenses.

I'm sure Pinterest makes you check a box saying you agree to the Terms of Use before they let you create an account.

Whether that's sufficient is up to a court to decide, and an attorney could tell you the likelihood of a successful suit given a specific fact pattern.

I'm not an attorney, though.

As I said below, people -- engineers, especially -- get caught up in contractual technicalities. The fundamental question is: do you trust Pinterest to do right by you?

Flickr has a similar clause that every photographer who has uploaded their photos has agreed to, but they do right by their users and so nobody believes one day Flickr is going to undo all that work. It would alienate their customers.

If you think Pinterest is untrustworthy, why do you think some text on a screen that they wrote themselves is going to impact their behavior one way or another?

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#89

Post by moe »

mlinsey wrote: post #57
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…

Flickr enables their users to mark their images as not-sharable, which now includes disabling anyone from sharing the images on Pinterest: http://venturebeat.com/2012/02/24/flickr-pinterest-pin/ Legally (IANAL but my understanding is), Pinterest only needs to comply with DMCA takedown requests. Instead they are being proactive and allow people to tag images as "nopin", vastly reducing the need for tedious or unreliab…

Legally [...] Pinterest only needs to comply with DMCA takedown requests.

That didn't work out so well for MegaUpload.

But then again, pinterest probably doesn't have a strong lobby working against it.

Re: Pinterest, We Have a Problem

#90

Post by Terretta »

jemfinch wrote: post #81
yuvadam wrote: post #3

Oh please, not again. Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service. These documents are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end users who care to read through the legalese. Their job is to create a document that will protect the product vendor in court, if and when the time comes. Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kind of redundant. If…

Please show me in Picasa's ToS where it says you'll pay Google's legal fees if Google is sued on account of a picture you uploaded. Please show me in Flickr's ToS where it says that you're giving Flickr the right to sell and relicense any photo you post there. Pinterest's ToS go far beyond any other service I've seen. If you have examples of terms of service just as ridiculous as Pinterest's, by all means, please sha…

Even Tumblr explicitly states that you own your content, and that you only license Tumblr the right to cache, republish, etc., "in order to provide the Services".
Post reply on HN