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 co

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.