- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,874
- Reaction score
- 5,189
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
(There's a general discussion of Pinterest on the Blogging & Social Networking Forum.)
Pinterest, the image-driven sharing network, has a lot of attention right now. I'm ambivalent about it, because while it appears to be a terrific tool for the visually-minded, it also seems to actively encourage image piracy.
Our own Medievalist has an excellent description of Pinterest on her blog.
There's a good description of it from a designer's perspective by Carina Chocano in the New York Times.
For artists and designers, Pinterest looks like a really useful tool for organizing imagery. It allows juxtapostion and collections of images to serve as visual inspirations, reminders, and research.
Unfortunately, the sharing aspect of things raises copyright infringement concerns. Kirsten Kowalski, a portrait photographer who is also a lawyer explains why in excellent detail in "Why I Tearfully Deleted My Pinterest Inspiration Boards."
I'm not an expert in copyright law and I'm not an expert in social networks, but this looks troubling.
Pinterest is a public sharing site, and there's where the copyright troubles start. If you dig into the details of Pinterest's terms of service, each user "represents and warrants" that he or she either owns the copyright to the images he or she uploads and pins, or has "rights, licenses, and consent" to them.
In other words, by agreeing to use Pinterest, its users swear that they have the right and permission to use the images they pin (Not just upload. It would appear by the legalese that each person who re-pins an image is also responsible for its copyright and permissions.).
The legalese is such that any penalty for copyright violation falls squarely on the users. It lets Pinterest off the hook.
There's a further complication. Pinterest actively discourages people from posting their own work. As Carina Chocano put it, "[T]he company discourages people from posting images they have created themselves, preferring that they venture out into the wilds of the Internet looking for beautiful things to bring back to the cave." Kirsten Kowalski says "its first rule of etiquette ... is to not self promote."
But the only work a person has absolute free and clear copyright to is his or her own work. If Pinterest is encouraging people to only post other people's work, the chances for using materials to which one does not have copyright or permission increase.
Individual artists and designers may have a difficult time dealing with Pinterest image piracy, should it occur. Remember the case of Napster, which allowed users to share music files. It violated the rights of a large number of musicians who were represented by the RIAA, the trade organization which controls all rights to most recorded music in the US, a large, well-funded organization. When the RIAA sued Napster in 1999, it went with a huge budget and an army of lawyers.
If users of Pinterest violate the rights of artists and designers, those artists and designers are in large part isolated, self-employed, and without much clout. Each copyright holder is individually responsible for chasing down infringements on Pinterest and requesting that they be taken down.
I would be very interested to hear others' experiences with and opinions about Pinterest.
Pinterest, the image-driven sharing network, has a lot of attention right now. I'm ambivalent about it, because while it appears to be a terrific tool for the visually-minded, it also seems to actively encourage image piracy.
Our own Medievalist has an excellent description of Pinterest on her blog.
There's a good description of it from a designer's perspective by Carina Chocano in the New York Times.
For artists and designers, Pinterest looks like a really useful tool for organizing imagery. It allows juxtapostion and collections of images to serve as visual inspirations, reminders, and research.
Unfortunately, the sharing aspect of things raises copyright infringement concerns. Kirsten Kowalski, a portrait photographer who is also a lawyer explains why in excellent detail in "Why I Tearfully Deleted My Pinterest Inspiration Boards."
I'm not an expert in copyright law and I'm not an expert in social networks, but this looks troubling.
Pinterest is a public sharing site, and there's where the copyright troubles start. If you dig into the details of Pinterest's terms of service, each user "represents and warrants" that he or she either owns the copyright to the images he or she uploads and pins, or has "rights, licenses, and consent" to them.
In other words, by agreeing to use Pinterest, its users swear that they have the right and permission to use the images they pin (Not just upload. It would appear by the legalese that each person who re-pins an image is also responsible for its copyright and permissions.).
The legalese is such that any penalty for copyright violation falls squarely on the users. It lets Pinterest off the hook.
There's a further complication. Pinterest actively discourages people from posting their own work. As Carina Chocano put it, "[T]he company discourages people from posting images they have created themselves, preferring that they venture out into the wilds of the Internet looking for beautiful things to bring back to the cave." Kirsten Kowalski says "its first rule of etiquette ... is to not self promote."
But the only work a person has absolute free and clear copyright to is his or her own work. If Pinterest is encouraging people to only post other people's work, the chances for using materials to which one does not have copyright or permission increase.
Individual artists and designers may have a difficult time dealing with Pinterest image piracy, should it occur. Remember the case of Napster, which allowed users to share music files. It violated the rights of a large number of musicians who were represented by the RIAA, the trade organization which controls all rights to most recorded music in the US, a large, well-funded organization. When the RIAA sued Napster in 1999, it went with a huge budget and an army of lawyers.
If users of Pinterest violate the rights of artists and designers, those artists and designers are in large part isolated, self-employed, and without much clout. Each copyright holder is individually responsible for chasing down infringements on Pinterest and requesting that they be taken down.
I would be very interested to hear others' experiences with and opinions about Pinterest.
Last edited: