5 ms·

What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written. The real deal is that Pinterest

What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written. The real deal is that Pinterest is screwed either way. These terms sound scary but so long as they are enforced sanely there should be no problem. What do you expect them to do? Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? They might as well not exist. A lot of startups these days may as well not even try to get traction as long as bloggers keep getting their panties in a twist over every TOS they see. Pinterest provides a service for free that people seem to love. So long as no one is paying them and they haven't gone public they're damn smart to have these terms. If I ran Pinterest I wouldn't want to assume liability for some asshole who leaks a top secret photo on my site that I let him use for free and as long as I'm giving that service for free I'm going to make some cash out of my users. This is nowhere near evil. It's business. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it. Question: How do you get over writer's block? Answer: Start reading some terms of service or privacy policy docs from any popular online startup and manufacture some outrage over it. Truth is, if you read any TOS or privacy policy you're going to find something you can turn into a big deal most of the time. I've had it with the TOS/privacy policy outrage blogs.

lwat 15y ago
So your argument is that everyone has bad TOSes and therefore we should just ignore it?
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  It's one thing to find something truly damning in a TOS and something else entirely to nitpick standard boilerplate legalese meant to protect companies from the very same people who nitpick the TOS in the first place. I know it's cool to be contrarian around here but give me a break. Look at this like a human, not a robot, and you'll see this is a mountain made out of a mole hill. Not saying you in particular are looking at this like a robot, I was speaking in general there.
  - lwat 15y ago
    If we never complain about these things they'll never get fixed.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      Do they get fixed though? If we don't pick our battles we run the risk of being seen as a bunch of whiners and being written off as such. Do these things need fixing? Is it the TOS that need fixing or is it the conditions under which such agreements are made necessary that need fixing. Maybe we're focusing our efforts in the wrong place.
      - lwat 15y ago
        'Aait, you put your effort where you think is best, and leave us to pursue what we think is important.
        deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - Terretta 15y ago
        Forget copyright for a moment. When their ToS says "Pin your own content here", then says, "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," that's going too far. That would be like Flickr claiming they (not you) had the right to sell your photos. Or Rackspace claiming they had the right to sell anything you posted on your web site. This ToS is an extreme overreach, and your casual dismissal of that extremity is itself cautionary -- what can happen when one becomes too saturated with the 70+ hours of ToS reading a typical Internet user would have to do each year to keep up.
        jasonlotito 15y ago
        > "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," If this part (obviously this isn't the exact phrasing) was removed, then they wouldn't have the right to serve your content on their site. They couldn't use a screenshot containing your content in any advertising they did. They couldn't use your content alongside advertising. They couldn't do a lot of things they do now. Allowing someone to upload something doesn't inherently give you any rights to use that content. If you remove the parts you are complaining about, then they can't do anything that they are doing.
seldo 15y ago
I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest. So which is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is mostly "stolen" content, or bad that we're not allowed to post similarly "stolen" content on YouTube? The former implies that Pinterest should start cracking down on people who post content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so (and therefore, copyright law should change).
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  First off, YouTube's policy is very similar to Pinterest. Besides that, they have different use cases. People aren't posting photos to Pinterest because they want to look at photos or use it as an art gallery. The purpose of Pinterest is very different from that of YouTube. It's like an inspiration folder or a brain dump where you stash things you want or that inspire you so you can look at them in the future. YouTube truly is an exhibition in the fullest sense of the word. You are going there for the value of the videos themselves, not the value assigned to them by others. It's one thing for NBC to take down all videos on YouTube of SNL because the value to NBC is in the actual watching of the videos. With photos it's a little different. Users aren't exactly "using" photos. They're simply putting them in a virtual box to look at later. If you want to go out to buy a photograph you're going to buy it to use somewhere like on a postcard or a website. Of course you need to see the photo before you buy it and once it's seen it cannot be unseen. Pinterest is putting them in a different context but they aren't exactly using them per se. Probably not the best argument but the more important point I want to make is that this is a case where you can't use semantics to argue your way through. There are a lot of variables involved that make this a very muddy issue. Things like intent and the probability that the photos will be used for profit need to be taken into account. Just because something can happen doesn't means the odds are high that it will. Plus copyright holders still have the DMCA and it's unlikely Pinterest won't abide. EDIT: I just realized that the way you framed the issue puts the onus on Pinterest to police the content. It's not a bad idea that they do but with video it's far easier to spot a famous movie or tv show than it is some freelance photographer's copyrighted work. The whole point of Pinterest's policy is to put the onus on the user to make sure they don't upload things they shouldn't. That's smart and combined with copyright holders' way to complain through DMCA, I see nothing wrong here.
andrewfelix 15y ago
>Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? Couldn't they avoid liability without claiming ownership of my own original work? I'm an illustrator, I believe there is a story here.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  They could and I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess there's a legal reason for it in terms of liability or they're somehow making a profit through that clause. Either way, you don't have to post anything to Pinterest and you have a way to get your content taken down via DMCA. I read a lot of comments like this and I always wonder why it always sounds like someone is forcing you to put your content on their site. No one is obligated to post anything to any website. There are a lot of ways to put your works online and not give up your ownership. If you don't like one site's policy on this then there are plenty of others. Pinterest is free. No one is entitled to tell them how to run their business just the same as they can't force you to use it. I feel like this is lost on a lot of people. I'm just 25 but I feel old, like somehow the generation just behind me and maybe my generation too see websites like Facebook and Google and Pinterest as services that we are somehow entitled to and should be able to control without ever paying a dime. Nothing in this life is free. If you get something for nothing, take a look around. You're probably paying in some form that isn't monetary.
  - andrewfelix 15y ago
    I'm amazed that you managed construct that condescending diatribe around a simple question. Was there a tone of entitlement or demand in my question? Your argument boils down to 'If you don't like it, don't use it.' So I guess any more discussion on the subject is henceforth mute?
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      It does boil down "if you don't like it, don't use it" and that wasn't an attack on you at all. What you said reminded me very much of what I've seen others say on similar topics and those people really were acting entitled. No, there wasn't a tone of entitlement in what you said to answer your question. I wasnt singling you out, I was speaking generally and if I sound condescending it's because I'm really tired of seeing people pick on TOS agreements. It's just too easy. I might also just be in a mood tonight but I would never go after one person in particular (usually I should say) so I'm sorry if that came off like I was going after you personally.
reuser 15y ago
If Pinterest's business model is based on copyright violation, I don't expect them to do anything except dry up and blow away. It's not like I am obligated to recognize Pinterest's right to exist. Some companies are based on questionable or illegal practices, period.

lwat 15y ago

So your argument is that everyone has bad TOSes and therefore we should just ignore it?

billpatrianakos 15y ago
It's one thing to find something truly damning in a TOS and something else entirely to nitpick standard boilerplate legalese meant to protect companies from the very same people who nitpick the TOS in the first place. I know it's cool to be contrarian around here but give me a break. Look at this like a human, not a robot, and you'll see this is a mountain made out of a mole hill. Not saying you in particular are looking at this like a robot, I was speaking in general there.
- lwat 15y ago
  If we never complain about these things they'll never get fixed.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Do they get fixed though? If we don't pick our battles we run the risk of being seen as a bunch of whiners and being written off as such. Do these things need fixing? Is it the TOS that need fixing or is it the conditions under which such agreements are made necessary that need fixing. Maybe we're focusing our efforts in the wrong place.
    - lwat 15y ago
      'Aait, you put your effort where you think is best, and leave us to pursue what we think is important.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
    - Terretta 15y ago
      Forget copyright for a moment. When their ToS says "Pin your own content here", then says, "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," that's going too far. That would be like Flickr claiming they (not you) had the right to sell your photos. Or Rackspace claiming they had the right to sell anything you posted on your web site. This ToS is an extreme overreach, and your casual dismissal of that extremity is itself cautionary -- what can happen when one becomes too saturated with the 70+ hours of ToS reading a typical Internet user would have to do each year to keep up.
      - jasonlotito 15y ago
        > "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," If this part (obviously this isn't the exact phrasing) was removed, then they wouldn't have the right to serve your content on their site. They couldn't use a screenshot containing your content in any advertising they did. They couldn't use your content alongside advertising. They couldn't do a lot of things they do now. Allowing someone to upload something doesn't inherently give you any rights to use that content. If you remove the parts you are complaining about, then they can't do anything that they are doing.

seldo 15y ago

I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest. So which is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is mostly "stolen" content, or bad that we're not allowed to post similarly "stolen" content on YouTube? The former implies that Pinterest should start cracking down on people who post content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so (and therefore, copyright law should change).

billpatrianakos 15y ago
First off, YouTube's policy is very similar to Pinterest. Besides that, they have different use cases. People aren't posting photos to Pinterest because they want to look at photos or use it as an art gallery. The purpose of Pinterest is very different from that of YouTube. It's like an inspiration folder or a brain dump where you stash things you want or that inspire you so you can look at them in the future. YouTube truly is an exhibition in the fullest sense of the word. You are going there for the value of the videos themselves, not the value assigned to them by others. It's one thing for NBC to take down all videos on YouTube of SNL because the value to NBC is in the actual watching of the videos. With photos it's a little different. Users aren't exactly "using" photos. They're simply putting them in a virtual box to look at later. If you want to go out to buy a photograph you're going to buy it to use somewhere like on a postcard or a website. Of course you need to see the photo before you buy it and once it's seen it cannot be unseen. Pinterest is putting them in a different context but they aren't exactly using them per se. Probably not the best argument but the more important point I want to make is that this is a case where you can't use semantics to argue your way through. There are a lot of variables involved that make this a very muddy issue. Things like intent and the probability that the photos will be used for profit need to be taken into account. Just because something can happen doesn't means the odds are high that it will. Plus copyright holders still have the DMCA and it's unlikely Pinterest won't abide. EDIT: I just realized that the way you framed the issue puts the onus on Pinterest to police the content. It's not a bad idea that they do but with video it's far easier to spot a famous movie or tv show than it is some freelance photographer's copyrighted work. The whole point of Pinterest's policy is to put the onus on the user to make sure they don't upload things they shouldn't. That's smart and combined with copyright holders' way to complain through DMCA, I see nothing wrong here.

andrewfelix 15y ago

>Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? Couldn't they avoid liability without claiming ownership of my own original work? I'm an illustrator, I believe there is a story here.

billpatrianakos 15y ago
They could and I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess there's a legal reason for it in terms of liability or they're somehow making a profit through that clause. Either way, you don't have to post anything to Pinterest and you have a way to get your content taken down via DMCA. I read a lot of comments like this and I always wonder why it always sounds like someone is forcing you to put your content on their site. No one is obligated to post anything to any website. There are a lot of ways to put your works online and not give up your ownership. If you don't like one site's policy on this then there are plenty of others. Pinterest is free. No one is entitled to tell them how to run their business just the same as they can't force you to use it. I feel like this is lost on a lot of people. I'm just 25 but I feel old, like somehow the generation just behind me and maybe my generation too see websites like Facebook and Google and Pinterest as services that we are somehow entitled to and should be able to control without ever paying a dime. Nothing in this life is free. If you get something for nothing, take a look around. You're probably paying in some form that isn't monetary.
- andrewfelix 15y ago
  I'm amazed that you managed construct that condescending diatribe around a simple question. Was there a tone of entitlement or demand in my question? Your argument boils down to 'If you don't like it, don't use it.' So I guess any more discussion on the subject is henceforth mute?
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    It does boil down "if you don't like it, don't use it" and that wasn't an attack on you at all. What you said reminded me very much of what I've seen others say on similar topics and those people really were acting entitled. No, there wasn't a tone of entitlement in what you said to answer your question. I wasnt singling you out, I was speaking generally and if I sound condescending it's because I'm really tired of seeing people pick on TOS agreements. It's just too easy. I might also just be in a mood tonight but I would never go after one person in particular (usually I should say) so I'm sorry if that came off like I was going after you personally.

reuser 15y ago

If Pinterest's business model is based on copyright violation, I don't expect them to do anything except dry up and blow away. It's not like I am obligated to recognize Pinterest's right to exist. Some companies are based on questionable or illegal practices, period.