3 ms·
Unfortunately, none of these reasons really holds up in my (non-professional, non-legal, non-advisory) opinion. 1) That commentary rule would hold up if someon
by nagrom 15y ago
Unfortunately, none of these reasons really holds up in my (non-professional, non-legal, non-advisory) opinion.
1) That commentary rule would hold up if someone posted entire movies and then left comments or groupings attached to them. I don't expect that to work for still pictures either.
2) That argument is null and void as a reason to continue using pinterest.
3) As long as they have sufficient funds to wage a war against me, that's all that matters. I don't have many funds, and none to get into a copyright battle over my scrapbook. And if they're an agency, who knows their resource level?
4) This is your best bet; the principle is similar to the search engine vs. photographer case mentioned in the article. However, the low-res version is still copyrighted by the photographer/agency. If pinterest created a lower-res version for pinterest, then this defence may work.
5) Why do some websites have 'terms and conditions' that forbid linking to them? Why do some people launch a bunch of crazy lawsuits seemingly as a hobby? All it takes is one self-absorbed or mistaken nutcase and your life becomes difficult. Sadly, 9 out of 10 nutcases are either self-absorbed or mistaken. The ratio gets even worse if, for example, the comments listed above say things like "OMG, what a talentless noob! This photograph is shit and the person that took it is a fucked-up idi0t!" And, by Gabe's Greater Internet Theory, this will happen somewhere.
I like pinterest and I love using the internet to discover new and exciting pictures. I've been following interesting picture soups, tumblrs and even Live Journals forever and I don't want pinterest to die. I don't see why this lawyer is so scared though; the DMCA should force the holder to contact pinterest at their abuse address and they should be able to remove the offending image directly, no? Isn't this whole thing a storm in a teacup and an over-reaction?
- Alex3917 15y ago"That commentary rule would hold up if someone posted entire movies and then left comments or groupings attached to them. I don't expect that to work for still pictures either." The fair use rules are completely different for movies, so it's not really analogous.
- petegrif 15y agoIn what way are they different in law? Because surely that's the point, isn't it?
- Alex3917 15y agoIt's a lot more difficult to claim fair use for movies. I don't know the exact laws offhand.
- nagrom 15y agoIt's re-publishing the entire creative work by a for-profit corporation and its users. If it's not possible to infringe copyright by re-publishing the entire work in this way, then copyright means nothing.
- Dylan16807 15y agoOn the one hand, yes in technical terms it is republishing. On the other hand, they could deep-link the photo. The intent is to cache the photo. Pinterest could disable caching and still work. But a standard hollywood movie is not already available online to be linked to. If you upload it you become primary hosting, not a caching layer.
- rprasad 15y agoThere are substantial differences between movies and other forms of art (i.e,. photos, books, music, etc.), such that what applies to one form may not (and usually, does not) apply to the others.