3 ms·
No, I'm not "joking". The default license for content without an explicit license is that it is copyrighted. There are existing tags for looser licensing (e.g.
by huggyface 15y ago
No, I'm not "joking". The default license for content without an explicit license is that it is copyrighted. There are existing tags for looser licensing (e.g. creative commons). This is an obnoxious demand, and the "we decide whether it benefits you, and thus determine how we violate your rights" is a garbage way to proceed. No kidding it serves pinterest, though.
- eurleif 15y agoDo you think Google Image Search is bad, too? If not, what's the relevant difference?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- franze 15y agoever heard of "fair use"?
- pbhjpbhj 15y agoSo you're saying Pinterest only copy US created content to their servers?
- ubernostrum 15y agoYup, I have. And saying "fair use" makes about as much sense as saying "abracadabra" -- it's an incredibly narrow set of criteria that you can use if you're actually in court, not a magic word you can utter to make things work to your advantage. Meanwhile, the assumed default status of anything created in a Berne Convention country in the past 90 years or so is still "all rights reserved".
- dannyr 15y agoIt's like saying being indexed by Google should be opt-in.
- huggyface 15y agoA relatively tiny site is demanding a site-specific meta tag for them to not commercial benefit by violating your copyright. Google, in contrast, observes long existing, cross-industry tags and behaviors. And Google is hardly the example counterpoint: Many of its activities do border on very questionable. In Google's ideal world you never leave Google.com as they're filtered everyone else's content down to everything you need.