A good read regarding Pinterest and infringement

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Pinterest Copyright Infringement: Yeah, so what?

The latest hot startup in the photo-sharing space is one that is also creating a lot of controversy about copyright infringement. Pinterest lets users create "boards" of images they find from around the Web. Users “pin up” these images, and share them with friends and strangers.

“Is this copyright infringement,” you ask?

http://danheller.blogspot.com/2012/03/pinterest-demonstrates-photo-industrys.html

I do believe his thinking is flawed in one specific area when it comes to linking:

"Literally copying content is one form of copyright infringement, but that's not what we're talking about here. The fact that the content is merely "displayed on a website not authorized by the copyright holder" is technically an infringement."

This goes back to the Perfect 10 case and if in fact it was true, Google would have been sued 1000's of times over..

[SoylentGreen]

I enjoyed your post and the linked article, Buddhapi.

I also agree with you about the "linking" issue.
I think that when a person uses "technically" when speaking of legalities, it's just a weasel word to imply that people are liable when they aren't.
My opinion is that it's way too late to change copyright laws to make "linking" an infringement.  Search engines, etc., are too valuable and ingrained into our daily lives.

I think that the author's estimation of the market "shadow economy" for stock imagery is grossly inflated.
We could evaluate the auto industry to be worth 5 to 7 times what it is, assuming that the bulk of customers purchase Acuras, Cadillacs and Lexus's.  However, the bulk of the market is buying economy cars.
The same is true for the stock image industry.  We could estimate that each infringed photo is worth $1000 to $10,000 each.
But, the people that infringed wouldn't have bought those photos at anywhere near those prices.
These days, commercial sites put up photos of their products on their valuable web real-estate for the most part.
The whole Web business has been changed from "cool sells" to "customers want value, they research carefully, and we have mere seconds to capture their interest and dollars".

The article implies that infringements have something to do with stock image companies going out of business.
While I'm sure that's true to some extent, I'm not so sure that we should lament that a company that goes out of business because there's no market for the products that they sell, or that they cannot sell their products for some reason, especially price.
To suggest otherwise would be some form of communism.

The author also states that:
"To wit, Pinterest’s own TOS stipulates that when you upload a photo to Pinterest, you are granting it a "perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license to use” your photos on its site and "application or services." While this is applicable if you own the photos you upload, you cannot grant this permission for photos that aren’t yours."
I say that the author and Pinterest are clearly incorrect.  You cannot transfer "ownership" or "rights" electronically.  An actual signed, dated agreement must be drawn up.

Furthermore, the author mentions that, "But to do so in compliance with copyright law would require a series of rights access that cannot be scaled up to serve the public at large without a centralized (and streamlined) rights clearinghouse... Without such a clearing house, the law is the law, and the courts will eventually be forced to reconcile the law with society’s desires."
My opinion is that we already  have a "clearing house" called the Copyright Office.  It's just that it's not fine-tuned and optimized for trolls.
I'm quite glad that it isn't.

Copyright trolls hide behind lies and twisted legal claims.
They even try to suppress public discussion of what they are doing.
Here's a mask made just for them:
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/9753/freehitlermask133296405.jpg

But, trust me... we know who you are.


S.G.