ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on April 03, 2012, 02:47:45 PM
-
Copyright violation reporting now easier: Pinterest updates terms
Pinterest, the giant pinboard-styled social photo-sharing website, updated its terms of services, as well as its acceptable use and privacy policies. The news was announced today on the Pinterest Blog by CEO and co-founder, Ben Silbermann.
With these new terms, Pinterest addresses two major issues users had had with the platform. The first one is the company's recent monetization attempts: "Our original Terms stated that by posting content to Pinterest you grant Pinterest the right for us to sell your content. Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms," says Silbermann.
http://www.examiner.com/canada-social-media-in-canada/copyright-violation-reporting-now-easier-pinterest-updates-terms
-
Didn't take long for legal problems to rear their ugly head.
Does the content actually reside on their servers, or are the images linked in the manner that Google Image Search does it?
S.G.
-
When items are pinned pinterest actually makes a copy and stores it on their servers..well actually amazons server, as that is where they are hosting the site..as I understand it, if an item is "re-pinned" that come from the one original copy..this is going to get real interesting real soon, you may want to follow along
-
Pinterest actually storing the images on their server is a big problem.
Of course, PicScout is just as guilty of that sort of thing...
S.G.
-
Pinterest actually storing the images on their server is a big problem.
Of course, PicScout is just as guilty of that sort of thing...
S.G.
Hmmm ... you really got me to thinking with this one, SG. Suppose someone had their own copyright registered images on their own website when it got snooped by Getty. Is it possible for picscout to do their comparisons without copying your copyright material . . . whether a copy to memory or to their server? Would this not be a copyright infringement commited by picscout?
Is just presenting proof that they snooped your website (web logs) enough to sue them for copyright infringement? I think it doesnt matter that they didn't display the copy ... just that they copied it. Also with registered images the fact that they did no damage to you is irrelevant (statutory damages). Even if the judge lowered it to the minimum $200 (or whatever it is) statutory damages, I would think that this would be a major blow to picscout/Getty. Multiply that $200 by every image they snoop.
Someone with enough time on their hands might be able to meticulously register hundreds of images one at a time, put them on a website, then wait for picscout to show up . . . talk about a taste of their own medicine!
just a thought.
-
This would have to be taken up in the Israel court system, not sure how they work copyright, I think it is similar to the US,but it would be very costly...I certainly curious as if Piscout actually makes a copy or if they cache the images...nonetheless it's an interesting concept.