[mattmiller]

This is getting absurd. Many sites cache images. Maybe somebody should come up with an images/content cache agreement that content owners can opt into. Not opting in means no love from Facebook, Google images, Pintrest, and the thousands of other traffic sources.

[jinushaun]

I also don't buy the copyright infringement argument. Pinterest is a bookmarking service much like Delicious. It no more infringes than the thumbnail previews in Google Images or Facebook posts.

[DanBC]

Pinterest doesn't just keep thumbnails, it keeps large versions of images on their servers. There are two clicks to get to the page where the pinner found the image.

I can imagine content creators being unhappy that their image is posted to some blog, and then pinned without their name. People seeing the pin may (but probably don't[1]) click twice to get to the blog, but how many of those people then click again to get to the creator of the content?

To me, the artistic pinboards are gently problematic. The product pinboards are less troubling, because I guess they drive some traffic to the selling sites.

[1] I have no data for this. I realise I might be wrong.

[tomg]

I wonder how Tumblr handles this. Pretty much every Tumblr blog I've stumbled on to contains full size copyrighted images re-hosted by Tumblr.

[natrius]

I don't use Tumblr, but my understanding is that a user has to upload an image for Tumblr to host it. The DMCA safe harbor provisions apply in such cases. Pinterest itself downloads images from pinned items, which probably makes them liable for the infringement.

[tomg]

Interesting... I was unaware that a relatively minor technical difference (browser POST vs. server side GET) mattered so much.

[wcchandler]

While absurd it does bring to light the other proclamations of "Copyright Violation." If those were true arguments then this should also be applicable. If they weren't true then those who cried foul should be forced to reimburse any dues while confessing to greed.