3 ms·

This is one of those areas where the legalese proclaims that the emperor has clothes and all of the marketing copy indicates otherwise. The article's follow-up

This is one of those areas where the legalese proclaims that the emperor has clothes and all of the marketing copy indicates otherwise. The article's follow-up clearly shows that the Pinterest founder is aware of the conflict, and it's clear that we're at a watershed moment in terms of the legal outcomes. To my mind, the real question is whether Pinterest pivots like Youtube did and turns into a service where at least a sizable percentage of the usage doesn't violate existing copyright laws or whether it goes the direction of Napster and the lawyers get to it. I wish Ben Silberman all the best... I just don't see a lot of success stories in our space once the lawyers show up. Edit: Obviously existing copyright law sucks - very few people on HN disagree on that point. My interest is in seeing startups succeed within the context of existing copyright law as I fear it won't be changing for the good any time soon.

sosuke 15y ago
Pinterest is under the DMCA safe harbor provision though right? Copyright holders would have to pursue an infringer directly and issue take down notices. Maybe image recognition and a big notice saying the copyright holder has banned that image from Pinterest, contact them here.
- rsingel 15y ago
  Pintrest is very much covered under the DMCA safe harbor. As for users, to get real damages under copyright law, a copyright owner need to register your copyrights with the Copyright office AND prove monetary loss. Almost no one does the former and the latter ain't easy. 2) Any photographer who doesn't want someone "pinning" their photos is far more likely to just use a DMCA takedown notice. Furthermore, there's also two controlling rulings on fair use - Perfect 10 v. Google and Perfect 10 v. Amazon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,.... These make it clear that there's a very fine case for Pinterest sharing to be legal for USERS. Let me now reiterate - pinning a copyrighted photo isn't going to get you sued or destroy your life savings. Both the photographers whining about Pinterest and the non-copyright lawyers penning self-agrandizing "zomg, copyright law is crazy" blog posts need to get over themselves. No court is going to award damages for pinning a photo, when the DMCA makes it simple to take them down and Pinterest users aren't making money off the photos. Which is to say even though U.S. copyright law is dumb, it ain't that dumb and the hysteria over Pinterest needs to stop.
  - rprasad 15y ago
    Those cases do not stand for the proposition you claim they stand for. The Perfect 10 cases stand for the proposition that a website using thumbnails of copyrighted works may be protected by the fair use doctrine if the creation and distribution of the thumbnails are incidental to a non-infringing purpose (in both Perfect 10 cases, some form of search.) Pinning images in Pinterest is not transformative in any way. Users upload the original copyrighted photos, which are then distributed by Pinterest. In this regard, Pinterest is protected by the DCMA safe harbor, but the users are not. Note that this means that Pinterest would be protected by both the Perfect 10 case law and the statutory DCMA safe harbor, but that users are generally not protected by either. Pinning a copyright photo probably won't get you sued, because lawsuits are expensive. But if you do get sued, the court can impose statutory damages, of at least $750 but up to $150,000 for wilful infringement. Statutory damages are in lieu of actual damages, so the copyright owner does not have to prove economic harm. See 17 USC 504.
  - aptwebapps 15y ago
    A lot of the hysteria is driven by their TOS, or the attention it has gotten. In the event that one of their users got taken to the cleaners by a litigating content owner, would Pinterest really consider trying to get their legal costs paid too? Indemnification is one thing, not that it would stand up if they didn't obey a take-down request, but that clause should be dropped. They'll never use it and it's making them look bad. The real problem, as VengefulCynic said, is the huge discrepancy between what their TOS says and the way they seem to want people to use the site. The fact their 'etiquette' is against posting your own content (I didn't know this before) just drives the point home. What percentage of users on Pinterest ask permission before posting others' content? It may be the case that many of the content owners are happy for their stuff to be pinned, but they aren't being asked. Throwing up this TOS which, if followed, would turn the site into a ghost town is just dumb.

sosuke 15y ago

Pinterest is under the DMCA safe harbor provision though right? Copyright holders would have to pursue an infringer directly and issue take down notices. Maybe image recognition and a big notice saying the copyright holder has banned that image from Pinterest, contact them here.

rsingel 15y ago
Pintrest is very much covered under the DMCA safe harbor. As for users, to get real damages under copyright law, a copyright owner need to register your copyrights with the Copyright office AND prove monetary loss. Almost no one does the former and the latter ain't easy. 2) Any photographer who doesn't want someone "pinning" their photos is far more likely to just use a DMCA takedown notice. Furthermore, there's also two controlling rulings on fair use - Perfect 10 v. Google and Perfect 10 v. Amazon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,.... These make it clear that there's a very fine case for Pinterest sharing to be legal for USERS. Let me now reiterate - pinning a copyrighted photo isn't going to get you sued or destroy your life savings. Both the photographers whining about Pinterest and the non-copyright lawyers penning self-agrandizing "zomg, copyright law is crazy" blog posts need to get over themselves. No court is going to award damages for pinning a photo, when the DMCA makes it simple to take them down and Pinterest users aren't making money off the photos. Which is to say even though U.S. copyright law is dumb, it ain't that dumb and the hysteria over Pinterest needs to stop.
- rprasad 15y ago
  Those cases do not stand for the proposition you claim they stand for. The Perfect 10 cases stand for the proposition that a website using thumbnails of copyrighted works may be protected by the fair use doctrine if the creation and distribution of the thumbnails are incidental to a non-infringing purpose (in both Perfect 10 cases, some form of search.) Pinning images in Pinterest is not transformative in any way. Users upload the original copyrighted photos, which are then distributed by Pinterest. In this regard, Pinterest is protected by the DCMA safe harbor, but the users are not. Note that this means that Pinterest would be protected by both the Perfect 10 case law and the statutory DCMA safe harbor, but that users are generally not protected by either. Pinning a copyright photo probably won't get you sued, because lawsuits are expensive. But if you do get sued, the court can impose statutory damages, of at least $750 but up to $150,000 for wilful infringement. Statutory damages are in lieu of actual damages, so the copyright owner does not have to prove economic harm. See 17 USC 504.
- aptwebapps 15y ago
  A lot of the hysteria is driven by their TOS, or the attention it has gotten. In the event that one of their users got taken to the cleaners by a litigating content owner, would Pinterest really consider trying to get their legal costs paid too? Indemnification is one thing, not that it would stand up if they didn't obey a take-down request, but that clause should be dropped. They'll never use it and it's making them look bad. The real problem, as VengefulCynic said, is the huge discrepancy between what their TOS says and the way they seem to want people to use the site. The fact their 'etiquette' is against posting your own content (I didn't know this before) just drives the point home. What percentage of users on Pinterest ask permission before posting others' content? It may be the case that many of the content owners are happy for their stuff to be pinned, but they aren't being asked. Throwing up this TOS which, if followed, would turn the site into a ghost town is just dumb.