[billpatrianakos]

What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written.

The real deal is that Pinterest is screwed either way. These terms sound scary but so long as they are enforced sanely there should be no problem. What do you expect them to do? Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? They might as well not exist. A lot of startups these days may as well not even try to get traction as long as bloggers keep getting their panties in a twist over every TOS they see.

Pinterest provides a service for free that people seem to love. So long as no one is paying them and they haven't gone public they're damn smart to have these terms. If I ran Pinterest I wouldn't want to assume liability for some asshole who leaks a top secret photo on my site that I let him use for free and as long as I'm giving that service for free I'm going to make some cash out of my users. This is nowhere near evil. It's business. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it.

Question: How do you get over writer's block? Answer: Start reading some terms of service or privacy policy docs from any popular online startup and manufacture some outrage over it. Truth is, if you read any TOS or privacy policy you're going to find something you can turn into a big deal most of the time. I've had it with the TOS/privacy policy outrage blogs.

[seldo]

I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest.

So which is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is mostly "stolen" content, or bad that we're not allowed to post similarly "stolen" content on YouTube? The former implies that Pinterest should start cracking down on people who post content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so (and therefore, copyright law should change).

[bo1024]

Good point. The reason Pinterest is worth a look from this perspective is because it's a case study in the copyright dilemma. "Everyone loves Pinterest", but it's basically built around systematic copyright violations. (The TOS debate is just a corollary.)

[kapkapkap]

>but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest.

That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see this quote: "Remarkably, more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are ... uploaded without the copyright owner’s permission but left up by the owner’s choice." [1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html

[jtheory]

Didn't read the article, but as far as I can see that doesn't disprove his assumption.

The NYT quote is talking just about the videos with ads, and then only discussing them in terms of views (not in terms of percentages of actual content uploaded, which is something like 24+ hours of content every minute).

[mdc]

If Pinterest was mostly music tracks instead of photos then it would be equivalent to a web-based Napster and we all know what would happen under current copyright law.

[billpatrianakos]

First off, YouTube's policy is very similar to Pinterest. Besides that, they have different use cases. People aren't posting photos to Pinterest because they want to look at photos or use it as an art gallery. The purpose of Pinterest is very different from that of YouTube. It's like an inspiration folder or a brain dump where you stash things you want or that inspire you so you can look at them in the future. YouTube truly is an exhibition in the fullest sense of the word. You are going there for the value of the videos themselves, not the value assigned to them by others. It's one thing for NBC to take down all videos on YouTube of SNL because the value to NBC is in the actual watching of the videos. With photos it's a little different. Users aren't exactly "using" photos. They're simply putting them in a virtual box to look at later. If you want to go out to buy a photograph you're going to buy it to use somewhere like on a postcard or a website. Of course you need to see the photo before you buy it and once it's seen it cannot be unseen. Pinterest is putting them in a different context but they aren't exactly using them per se.

Probably not the best argument but the more important point I want to make is that this is a case where you can't use semantics to argue your way through. There are a lot of variables involved that make this a very muddy issue. Things like intent and the probability that the photos will be used for profit need to be taken into account. Just because something can happen doesn't means the odds are high that it will.

Plus copyright holders still have the DMCA and it's unlikely Pinterest won't abide.

EDIT: I just realized that the way you framed the issue puts the onus on Pinterest to police the content. It's not a bad idea that they do but with video it's far easier to spot a famous movie or tv show than it is some freelance photographer's copyrighted work. The whole point of Pinterest's policy is to put the onus on the user to make sure they don't upload things they shouldn't. That's smart and combined with copyright holders' way to complain through DMCA, I see nothing wrong here.

[zerostar07]

How is it so different use cases? I think an average user would find it very similar. Think, for example, The Oscars photos or the british wedding photos, or AP photos. The only reason it hasn't yet created a stir is because photos are cheaper. Assuming it will gain enough traction, i think pinterest at some point will start some ad revenue sharing programs like youtube.

[andrewfelix]

>Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting?

Couldn't they avoid liability without claiming ownership of my own original work? I'm an illustrator, I believe there is a story here.

[billpatrianakos]

They could and I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess there's a legal reason for it in terms of liability or they're somehow making a profit through that clause. Either way, you don't have to post anything to Pinterest and you have a way to get your content taken down via DMCA.

I read a lot of comments like this and I always wonder why it always sounds like someone is forcing you to put your content on their site. No one is obligated to post anything to any website. There are a lot of ways to put your works online and not give up your ownership. If you don't like one site's policy on this then there are plenty of others. Pinterest is free. No one is entitled to tell them how to run their business just the same as they can't force you to use it. I feel like this is lost on a lot of people. I'm just 25 but I feel old, like somehow the generation just behind me and maybe my generation too see websites like Facebook and Google and Pinterest as services that we are somehow entitled to and should be able to control without ever paying a dime. Nothing in this life is free. If you get something for nothing, take a look around. You're probably paying in some form that isn't monetary.

[andrewfelix]

I'm amazed that you managed construct that condescending diatribe around a simple question. Was there a tone of entitlement or demand in my question?

Your argument boils down to 'If you don't like it, don't use it.' So I guess any more discussion on the subject is henceforth mute?

[Terretta]

It's not "if you don't like it, don't use it." It's, "how do we, the presumably more savvy, help prevent abusive ToS where naive 'click through' users are taken by surprise when Pinterest begins selling the users' things?" How do we keep our collective marketplace safe so visitors will feel good about strolling by?

It's easy to let the user own their own things. Even free site Tumblr does this:

First, "Subscriber shall own all Subscriber Content that Subscriber contributes to the Site," which clarifies the user, not Tumblr, owns it.

Second, the user "grants ... license ... to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute," which lets Tumblr host it on their web and caching servers, "modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content", which lets them make thumbnails and posts out of it, "and to allow others to do so ('Content License')", which lets them use a CDN, "in order to provide the Services."

The key is "in order to provide the Services." Outside of providing Tumblr, you own your stuff, and they can't do anything else with it.

Tumblr's in New York and has great lawyers. Pinterest should be publicly shamed for burying their non-standard claim of the right to sell your creative works in the middle of a ToS.

[billpatrianakos]

It does boil down "if you don't like it, don't use it" and that wasn't an attack on you at all. What you said reminded me very much of what I've seen others say on similar topics and those people really were acting entitled. No, there wasn't a tone of entitlement in what you said to answer your question. I wasnt singling you out, I was speaking generally and if I sound condescending it's because I'm really tired of seeing people pick on TOS agreements. It's just too easy. I might also just be in a mood tonight but I would never go after one person in particular (usually I should say) so I'm sorry if that came off like I was going after you personally.

[reuser]

If Pinterest's business model is based on copyright violation, I don't expect them to do anything except dry up and blow away.

It's not like I am obligated to recognize Pinterest's right to exist. Some companies are based on questionable or illegal practices, period.

[lwat]

So your argument is that everyone has bad TOSes and therefore we should just ignore it?

[billpatrianakos]

It's one thing to find something truly damning in a TOS and something else entirely to nitpick standard boilerplate legalese meant to protect companies from the very same people who nitpick the TOS in the first place.

I know it's cool to be contrarian around here but give me a break. Look at this like a human, not a robot, and you'll see this is a mountain made out of a mole hill. Not saying you in particular are looking at this like a robot, I was speaking in general there.

[__alexs]

> It's one thing to find something truly damning in a TOS and something else entirely to nitpick standard boilerplate legalese meant to protect companies from the very same people who nitpick the TOS in the first place.

If "we have non-exclusive rights to use and sell everything you post on our site and you take all responsibility if infringement does occur" is now "standard boilerplate legalese" then actually yes I do think people should be complaining, and not just at Pinterest.

I suppose ultimately they could be going for the YouTube style model of stimulating large amounts of infringement, and then making DMCA compliance easy, but also offering content owners the ability to profit from advertising along side that originally infringing content.

I don't think that model is inherently a bad thing, but it can make life very tedious for users and for smaller content producers so people should know what they are getting into. The history of YouTube monetization has been a total mess for a lot of people, and it seems to regularly go through new rounds of turmoil as they tweak their algorithms or more aggressive content owners join the market.

[lwat]

If we never complain about these things they'll never get fixed.

[billpatrianakos]

Do they get fixed though? If we don't pick our battles we run the risk of being seen as a bunch of whiners and being written off as such. Do these things need fixing? Is it the TOS that need fixing or is it the conditions under which such agreements are made necessary that need fixing. Maybe we're focusing our efforts in the wrong place.

[Terretta]

Forget copyright for a moment.

When their ToS says "Pin your own content here", then says, "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it," that's going too far.

That would be like Flickr claiming they (not you) had the right to sell your photos. Or Rackspace claiming they had the right to sell anything you posted on your web site.

This ToS is an extreme overreach, and your casual dismissal of that extremity is itself cautionary -- what can happen when one becomes too saturated with the 70+ hours of ToS reading a typical Internet user would have to do each year to keep up.

[jasonlotito]

> "Thank you, now we can do anything we want to with it, including sell it,"

If this part (obviously this isn't the exact phrasing) was removed, then they wouldn't have the right to serve your content on their site. They couldn't use a screenshot containing your content in any advertising they did. They couldn't use your content alongside advertising. They couldn't do a lot of things they do now.

Allowing someone to upload something doesn't inherently give you any rights to use that content. If you remove the parts you are complaining about, then they can't do anything that they are doing.

[lwat]

'Aait, you put your effort where you think is best, and leave us to pursue what we think is important.