What she found scared her so much, she shut down her Pinterest boards entirely.
Kirsten's investigation began after she saw photographers complaining about copyright violations on Facebook. She wondered why Facebook could get in trouble for copyright violation and Pinterest couldn't.
She browsed Pinterest's Terms of Use section. In it she found Pinterest's members are solely responsible for what they pin and repin. They must have explicit permission from the owner to post everything.
"I immediately thought of the ridiculously gorgeous images I had recently pinned from an outside website, and, while I gave the other photographer credit, I most certainly could not think of any way that I either owned those photos or had a license, consent or release from the photographer who owned them," Kirsten writes.
Pinterest encourages repinning community photos though, so Kirsten found it hard to believe the act was unlawful. She continued to dig.
Kirsten turned to federal copyright laws and found a section on fair use. Copyrighted work can only be used without permission when someone is criticizing it, commenting on it, reporting on it, teaching about it, or conducting research. Repinning doesn't fall under any of those categories.
The one glimmer of hope for Pinterest, Kirsten writes, is the outcome of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. In that case, a photographer sued a search engine. The search engine won because it used thumbnail images in its results, not the entire work.
Thumbnails aren't always fair use, however. They're only fair use if the necessary portion of the work is copied and nothing more. Pinterest, however, lifts the entire image from the original source which is not ok.
If that didn't scare Kirsten enough, the all caps section of Pinterest's Terms of Use did.
Pinterest writes:
“YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SITE, APPLICATION, SERVICES AND SITE CONTENT REMAINS WITH YOU.”
What's more, Pinterest places all blame and potential legal fees on its users. It writes:
"You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.”
Basically, if a photographer sues you for pinning an image illegally on Pinterest, the user must not only pay for his or her lawyer, they must also pay for Pinterest's lawyer. In addition, the defendant must pay all charges against him or herself, along with all of Pinterest's charges.
Kirsten likens Pinterest to Napster as an enabler of illegal activity. It wasn't just Napster that went down -- 12 year old girls who downloaded music were sued too.
She concludes:
"My initial response is probably the same as most of yours: 'Why [can't I pin their work]? I’m giving them credit and it’s only creating more exposure for them and I LOVE when people pin my stuff!' But then I realized, I was unilaterally making the decision FOR that other photographer...Bottom line is that it is not my decision to make. Not legally and not ethically."
For more on Kirsten's findings, head over to her post at DDK Portraits >>
For more on Pinterest check out:
these days they pull your credit report before they sue you ..
"That is why SOPA bill should be passed."
have you even read SOPA? You're mad... move to Canada. You take care of the illegal internet activities by shutting the source of the problem down. In this case, Pinterest allows it to happen. Shut Pinterest down, don't just hand the internet over to the government so they can regulate it, put restrictions on it and censor the hell out of it because a slim percentage of the population and a bunch of ignorant Congressmen and women support a bill they know nothing about on a topic, being the internet they know ZERO about.
But let's pass SOPA and follow in the footsteps of China and some Middle Eastern countries that censor the hell out of the internet. Good idea "The Truth." More people like you in this country and we'll be sure to be in a cluster in a few years supporting ideas like that.
They sue your ass as well.
:)
It's like anything ... don't invest in social media in an overdue manner. This is yet to be settled or litigated. There is a battle right now going on with big content corps on one side and the average person who wants to share content on the other.
If we let big corps win, then things like pinterest will go down.
Remember this: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [1]
Photographers got their copyright privilege in order to promote the progress of the useful arts. Using copyright to harass progressive site like Pinterest is violation of the social contract that give them the copyright privilege. If they (photographer) don't uphold their side of the contract I (the public) don't feel ethically compelled to uphold my side either and I should not be legally forced as well.
If the photographer don't like their photos to be "consumed" by the public they should keep them private.
[1] USA Constitution.
PS. I am armature photographer and keep some of my photos private. And some are published.
Because many people think about copyright as a property (it is not, but this is separate debate) let me give you example using real property.
I build a house. I sell this house to you. You rent the house to 3rd party. Am I eligible for additional payment?
Or.
I build a house. I rent this house to you. You invite guest to your home. Am I eligible for additional payment?
Yes, Why?
No, Why not?
This way a licensee has exclusive use of that image in the market they advertise in. That image doesn't show up in a competitor's ad in the same magazine.
So lets get a bit more specific here:
1. You make a photograph.
2. You 'license' this photo to a magazine. (advertisement or not)
3. Magazine prints 10000 and sells them to their clients.
4. The "specified time" expires and magazine can't reprint this photo any more
BUT
1. Is this 'license' gives you a 'right' to come to my house and take a way the magazine that contains the copy of your photo?
2. Your 'license' is to sell this magazine in USA, but I board the plain for EU, should US Custom confiscate the magazine or I should pay more in order to read it during the flight?
3. .. or the best part.... Are we going to install memory erasing chips in our brains in order to protect your copyrights?! After all once I see your photo, I am carrying copy of your photo in my memory. This must be copyright infringement by your logic!?
There was an actual situation where Kodak sued the publishers Corel Draw who commissioned an artist to create an image that demonstrated the abilities of their drawing application. Turns out the image created by Corel Draw's artist bore a striking resemblance to an image that a Kodak photographer made of an American Indian. Kodak won.
Nobody has a right to remove your magazine but they do have a right to protect their image from commercial use such in advertising. Simple as that. The problem is that images that are posted on websites can be "lifted" and used on other sites in the form of advertising.
Example
Person A makes a photograph of an item to be listed for sale on Ebay. Person B has the same item for sale and "lifts" the photograph that person A used in his Ebay ad. Person B uses that photograph in his ad. That is an infringement on the right of person A. Even without a copyright registered for that image it is still protected by copyright laws.
Showing first 5 of 19 replies. View All
"Copyrighted work can only be used without permission when someone is criticizing it, commenting on it, reporting on it, teaching about it, or conducting research."
The key phrase in that quote is "commenting on it"
When you pin something you have the ability to comment on that item, and thus it should be covered by fair use.
Seems like a GIANT oversight by this article...
I'm not a lawyer either, but commenting = commenting.
Showing first 5 of 13 replies. View All
No people do not click through to the original site and spend money (or view adverts).
Pinterest clearly demonstrates that 'inspiration' has a value and should reimburse creators of all images shown on their site.
Pinterest says:
1) don't post your own work
2) don't post copyrighted work (everything else)
ergo the site has no legitimate use.
Pinterest has set this up as a fraudulent operation, pure and simple.
Utterly ill-informed. Pinterest is a HUGE driver of traffic.
According to Shareaholic, "Pinterest drives more referral traffic than Google Plus, LinkedIn and YouTube combined."
http://blog.shareaholic.com/2012/01/pinterest-referral-traffic/
If someone posts a video on YouTube and it goes viral without them wanting it to, aren't they to blame for posting it on a public site in the first place? This is like saying posting links is illegal. Obviously the terms are an issue and should be addressed (I don't care if I pinned something myself, I shouldn't have to pay Pinterest's legal fees - only my own). But to compare this site to Napster is ludicrous. No one is downloading anything illegally, they are linking to it. Privacy on the internet is complicated, but if you want to use it to market your business, you can't complain about people appreciating/spreading your work.
As for links being illegal, the content industry is still pushing on this. Isohunt and Pirate Bay (for example) are just links sites, but have been under threat for years. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that SOPA / PIPA and their ilk would make linking to illegal content clearly illegal (making google, wikipedia and many other major sites questionable).
Similarly, the comparison to Napster is quite legitimate. Napster was a peer-to-peer network, meaning that the Napster-owned servers were just providing a link from a person who had a song to a person who wanted it. The song was then transferred directly from person to person.
Just like on Pinterest, it pointed you to a place where you can commit infringement.
So apparently you can complain about people appreciating / spreading your work.
The best comment was when Pinterest was likened to Napster. They revolutionized the music business, many argue for the worse, but altered the playing field. Pinterest may take a lot of the flak, but rest assured post-legal fees they will still be profitable, and many imitators will follow suit in this space.
And if what you say is true about making linking illegal, I think we're in for a pretty good show.
You can read my article (if you're interested) here: http://bit.ly/zeSNr3
Fair use is a nebulous factor test that takes many things under consideration. The nature of the use for the copy is only one factor, and not determinative. More important is whether or not the use is commercial or not (but even that is not determinative).
Photographers haven't been suing each other in the time that has been out. It's made photographers nervous, but I know several members of ASMP who enjoy using the service and even recommend it.
Lots of FUD with Pinterest. They could stand to clean up their Terms of Service and be a bit more proactive in clarifying their stance on it all.
I've written two blog posts on the topic and see no reason to not use it, but its a personal decision.
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2012/02/22/pinterest-seeing-beyond-your-own-nose/
http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2012/02/27/why-my-surprising-take-on-pinterest/
I think this is a little ridiculous and honestly anyone who has time to attack Pinterest or other websites that promote the spreading of ideas needs to re-evaluate what is important to them and their life.
"If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim."
An artist who want their works seen by others should embrace pinterest instead of sending lawyers because it brings huge amount of interest & traffic to your site.
Unless you are SELLING your photographs as something worth a certain amount...e.g. $1000 per photograph (PHYSICAL COPY) then probably you need to put all the legal watermark all over the image to prevent people from "COPY" or "PIN".
Digital images copyright should be updated in the new world of social networking to be invalid as these are not physical clones and sharing doesn't let the "pirates" earn a single cent.
Old copyright laws enforced on physical goods that some tried to sell fake designer bags illegally copying the exact designs, these are definitely enforceable but NOBODY in social media SELLS these photographs...
USA copyright laws are for corporates studios and associations to SUE & bully soccer mums because their kids press PIN or share or like or download....
QUESTION did these kids make MONEY out of those stuff they downloaded? Nope.
Now comes with can anyone make a profit with their own intellectual property by sharing in social network? DEFINITELY...
Embed URL link back, website, author name and source of where all these quality images comes from and that site will have advertisements....for the content owners to profit from.
In fact, CONTENT OWNERS WANT THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO BE VIRAL.
WHO ask these government or MPAA, RIAA or whatever Groups sue or claim ownership on BEHALF of these content owners?
Overall, Internet are not for the older generation who still sticks to the old way of owning a content property...thinking they still can sell DVDs/CDs/Posters the old way.
The new way is SHARE/PIN/TWEET and get eyeballs back to your site and PROFIT from advertisements! The more content you generate in regular fashion the more people will follow your every move.
Movies --> embed product placements, streaming with ads, link back to website.
Images ---> links back to website
Music --> end it with a ad like most podcast did, link back.
The most important thing is the more people share your work, the more you will earn.
That is your opinion, and just because you think it is valid does not give you the right to make that decision for everyone else.
Let's say maybe left with boring corporate sites that uses web 1.0 HTML & flash. that didn't update for years...due to fear of copyright infringement.
Whole economy collapsed.
Let me repeat: Those who don't like their photograph to be shared please water mark it ALL OVER the image so that people know it's owned by someone who doesn't like sharing. (That's my opinion)
This might help google from indexing them (if they program it to save their site from SOPA) or showing in their image searches so that nobody will ever see them.
This way probably will make the content owner's site pretty lonely but that's their own decision.
Why should people be forced to cater to thieves? Do you put a sign on your front door saying "Don't come in and steal my stuff?" Of course not. Do you think women should wear certain clothing so they aren't attacked? Of course not. So why do you put the onus on the photographer/artist to protect their work?
You got a lock on your front door and car, right? Thought so.
No, but you have a lock on your door and lock it, do you not? ADT anyone? Guard dogs? Firearms? People do use means to protect their house and property from thief.
"Do you think women should wear certain clothing so they aren't attacked? Of course not."
Shouldn't have to, but they do. And they also take self defense classes or martial art courses, and many also carry.
Shouldn't have to but they do because if you want your stuff protected it is up to you to protect it. And in all honesty is not the polices' duty to protect individual citizens (Warren v. District of Columbia).
Watermarking is a very good way to protect your work online. It allows for your work to be seen by possible buyers, but does cause /some/ deterrence from thief. These can be done very tastefully as well. Watermarking isn't the only way to tastefully display your work and protect it, but is one of the more easier ways.
In repinning any item, there is a required text field where one adds a comment. Does this not fall under the "commenting on it" clause?
It may come as a surprise to you, but the majority of "pins" lead nowhere useful, least of all, the photographer's site. Which is irrelevant. Credit or attribution is no defense against infringement.
http://seanlockephotography.com/2012/02/19/pinterest-and-pinning-etiquette/
"Photographers should be thanking Pinterest for generating interest in their work and driving traffic to their websites."
Again, this is your opinion, and you don't have the right to make that decision for everyone in the world. There are many legitimate reasons someone would not want Pinterest to "drive traffic" in such a way, especially when it isn't to the correct original location.
You don't think Pinterest had battalions of attorneys reviewing its business processes and practices before writing the terms and conditions?
Maybe they just all said to themselves: "Well, our entire business model is based on illegal activity; let's just hope no one notices."
Come on.
Wake me up when there's news.
While I'm sure that the people at Pinterest were thinking mostly about themselves, I can make a good guess that they factored the likelihood of their users getting sued into their business calculations.
http://ddkportraits.com/blog/
@This image belongs to Beyti Barbaros and may NOT be printed or made into any kind of hard copy neither commercially nor non-commercially without my written permission.Otherwise I`m allowing any share or repin of this photograph.If you think I may agree to a use of my photos, always PLEASE CONTACT ME AND ASK FOR PERMISSION @
Repinning is a really stupid activity and a waste of time.
Google Images people....who cares what Kristin saw and "ooohhh, you should see this!" decided to waste her time and ours by "repinning it" on a flash in a pan website.