5 ms·

It seems pretty obvious that Pinterest wouldn't qualify for safe harbor under the DMCA. > Direct Financial Benefit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyrig

by staunch 15y ago

It seems pretty obvious that Pinterest wouldn't qualify for safe harbor under the DMCA. > Direct Financial Benefit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Direct_Financial_Benefit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L... The entire service is reliant on the ability of users to "pin" copyrighted images from across the web. > Knowledge of Infringing Material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Knowledge_of_Infringing_Material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L... Anyone with any objectivity can see that 99% of the images on Pinterest are being used without permission. It also seems that Pinterest themselves are "uploading" all the images to their servers. Users just tell Pinterest which images to take. Technically it would be no different if YouTube were to store/serve Netflix videos after a user "pinned" them.

girlvinyl 15y ago
I disagree. Pinterest would certainly qualify for safe harbor due to the "Automated upload mechanism". Meaning they have no manual or editorial review process. Users simply click and it happens through code. That's the biggest distinction.
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  Yep. I don't see how it's any different from someone uploading a copyrighted video to youtube...
  - staunch 15y ago
    Did you miss the part where users don't actually do the uploading? Just a minor point, but potentially important.
    - oldstrangers 15y ago
      They're both essentially a single button click. Technically, there is a difference. Realistically, there isn't.
- antrix 15y ago
  I personally know one company which lost a court case based on that defense. Not in US/under DMCA, though.
marknutter 15y ago
I think it's a sad state of affairs when people are using a site to show other people their favorite stuff and are technically breaking the law by doing so.
- downx3 15y ago
  But you can understand the scrapbook motivation though can't you?
  - downx3 15y ago
    Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Ignoring the legalities - the motivation is that people like to collect and share things of interest. Sites like pinterest are probably more alluring and easier to use than compiling and sharing a list of URLs with your friends.
- kmfrk 15y ago
  I don't know. If we are talking about artistic work, it'd probably be fine with the proper attribution, but if it's a recipe, that's the entire content with no additional point of visiting the original page. Then again, this is in no way different than Tumblr, which is the most egregious copyright offender, even within its own ranks because of the reblog feature. Recently, the actress Dianna Agron - known from TV show Glee - launched her own website http://youmeandcharlie.com http://youmeandcharlie.com, which does - and encourages - the same thing. And it's building a profitable business on this model, meaning that the people behind the site earn money based on this approach; it's one thing to have a random Tumblr account with no financial incentive, but this is different. The biggest problem is that we suck at teaching people and our children the importance of proper attribution, and why it is important that we do our best to tie the author together with the work. I don't know if this requires a taboo or campaign, but with services like imgur and Tumblr, it's only going to become a bigger problem - and that's not to discuss how the majority of reporters don't get the point of sourcing either. I think an ad-hoc approach to dealing with DMCAs - and possible blocking specific content hashes - is the only way to do it for Pinterest. Anything else hurts Pinterest as much as the content owners and shops.
- 15y ago
ceol 15y ago
>The entire service is reliant on the ability of users to "pin" copyrighted images from across the web. I'm not so sure. The service is reliant on the ability of its users to "pin" content which, from what I can tell, is represented by images. I could be wrong, though. >Anyone with any objectivity can see that 99% of the images on Pinterest are being used without permission. However, it was "pinned" by its users, not the site administrators, so I believe it would qualify the same way imgur qualifies despite it being a massive pool of copyright infringement. But IANAL.
chrischen 15y ago
Well how does facebook deal with it?
cookiecaper 15y ago
And what about Google Images? Don't you think that 99% of the images on Google Images are being used without permission? I know I've never received a request from Google pertinent to indexing my images, automatically uploading/hosting them to their own server, etc.
- sigzero 15y ago
  You don't see the difference?
- tissarah 15y ago
  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16371433634058326226&q=perfect+10&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1637143363405832... Google images has been litigated and the result is incredibly pertinent to this discussion. Check out the section on fair use... "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." And in addition, the court considered what the service was offering to the public. They seem pretty concerned about the fact google never deals with the full sized images... etc. etc. The whole case seems pretty relevant. It includes discussions on the other types of infringement as well including material contribution.

by staunch 15y ago

girlvinyl 15y ago

I disagree. Pinterest would certainly qualify for safe harbor due to the "Automated upload mechanism". Meaning they have no manual or editorial review process. Users simply click and it happens through code. That's the biggest distinction.

oldstrangers 15y ago
Yep. I don't see how it's any different from someone uploading a copyrighted video to youtube...
- staunch 15y ago
  Did you miss the part where users don't actually do the uploading? Just a minor point, but potentially important.
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    They're both essentially a single button click. Technically, there is a difference. Realistically, there isn't.
antrix 15y ago
I personally know one company which lost a court case based on that defense. Not in US/under DMCA, though.

marknutter 15y ago

I think it's a sad state of affairs when people are using a site to show other people their favorite stuff and are technically breaking the law by doing so.

downx3 15y ago
But you can understand the scrapbook motivation though can't you?
- downx3 15y ago
  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Ignoring the legalities - the motivation is that people like to collect and share things of interest. Sites like pinterest are probably more alluring and easier to use than compiling and sharing a list of URLs with your friends.
kmfrk 15y ago
I don't know. If we are talking about artistic work, it'd probably be fine with the proper attribution, but if it's a recipe, that's the entire content with no additional point of visiting the original page. Then again, this is in no way different than Tumblr, which is the most egregious copyright offender, even within its own ranks because of the reblog feature. Recently, the actress Dianna Agron - known from TV show Glee - launched her own website http://youmeandcharlie.com http://youmeandcharlie.com, which does - and encourages - the same thing. And it's building a profitable business on this model, meaning that the people behind the site earn money based on this approach; it's one thing to have a random Tumblr account with no financial incentive, but this is different. The biggest problem is that we suck at teaching people and our children the importance of proper attribution, and why it is important that we do our best to tie the author together with the work. I don't know if this requires a taboo or campaign, but with services like imgur and Tumblr, it's only going to become a bigger problem - and that's not to discuss how the majority of reporters don't get the point of sourcing either. I think an ad-hoc approach to dealing with DMCAs - and possible blocking specific content hashes - is the only way to do it for Pinterest. Anything else hurts Pinterest as much as the content owners and shops.
15y ago

ceol 15y ago

>The entire service is reliant on the ability of users to "pin" copyrighted images from across the web. I'm not so sure. The service is reliant on the ability of its users to "pin" content which, from what I can tell, is represented by images. I could be wrong, though. >Anyone with any objectivity can see that 99% of the images on Pinterest are being used without permission. However, it was "pinned" by its users, not the site administrators, so I believe it would qualify the same way imgur qualifies despite it being a massive pool of copyright infringement. But IANAL.

chrischen 15y ago

Well how does facebook deal with it?

cookiecaper 15y ago

And what about Google Images? Don't you think that 99% of the images on Google Images are being used without permission? I know I've never received a request from Google pertinent to indexing my images, automatically uploading/hosting them to their own server, etc.

sigzero 15y ago
You don't see the difference?
tissarah 15y ago
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16371433634058326226&q=perfect+10&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1637143363405832... Google images has been litigated and the result is incredibly pertinent to this discussion. Check out the section on fair use... "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." And in addition, the court considered what the service was offering to the public. They seem pretty concerned about the fact google never deals with the full sized images... etc. etc. The whole case seems pretty relevant. It includes discussions on the other types of infringement as well including material contribution.