116
« on: August 27, 2013, 09:59:09 PM »
I don't think Pinterest TOS would matter all that much other than to perhaps allows Pinterest to sue the pinner for indemnification and reimbursement. But I also think that MF or Getty won't take on Pinterest for fear of going up against a large company and a large law firm that will reveal the emperor has no clothes. Do you think its a coincidence that we have not heard of Getty going after a big fish? History also has proven that these cases and issue are won when the troll goes after somebody who has enough money to fight and demand proof. Look at Imageline (and George Riddick) who terrorized companies for years with troll lawsuits over clip art. He got too big for his britches and went after Bernina. They counter-sued, proved the falsity of his claims and essentially bankrupted him and put him out of business. The "compilation registration issues" only were decided because a photographer named Bean (not Getty) sued Houghton Mifflin, the publishing giant. Alaska Stock made the same mistake. Masterfile sued none of my clients and then pushed the envelope by claiming my client Chaga International re-infringed after settling because the images involved were still allegedly left of dead pages of their website. Chaga decided to stand up and spend the money necessary to defend the case. So its not likely that Getty or MF will take on Pinterest directly. They may try to make a backroom deal with them that we will never hear about but they won't sue them. To get back to the original poster, I am not sure your use would be fair use just because it is non-commercial and educational. The use of the image is to decorate your website. You are not teaching the art of photography or even discussing what's shown in the image. It's all moot because of the "hotlink" issue and MF's reluctance to sue.
Show Posts