It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Lawyer Who Is Also A Photographer Just Deleted All Her Pinterest Boards Out Of Fear

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   

A Lawyer Who Is Also A Photographer Just Deleted All Her Pinterest Boards Out Of Fear


articles.businessinsider.com

A woman named Kirsten decided to look into the legality of Pinterest. After all, she's a lawyer with a passion for photography.

What she found scared her so much, she shut down her Pinterest boards entirely.

Kirsten's investigation began after she saw photographers complaining about copyright violations on Facebook. She wondered why Facebook could get in trouble for copyright violation and Pinterest couldn't.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Please Please read the article, it is vital that you don't skip to the thread and remark, please read how quickly your life can turn into hell on earth.

As person (me) who is extremely active within the online scene i again stress that you all read the article and take her words into account.

As i too am member of Pinterest but the difference in my case is that what ever i upload has been pre-signed by publishers therefore this doesn't apply to me. Now you all can remember how ats had posted an article regarding copyright material if you cant remember or cant find the said article then simply post up a and i am sure a moderator will pass by and reply to what ever your needs might be.

Point is, if a lawyer who obviously is more than qualified than the majority of us here went to that length then perhaps we all should sit back and ponder her actions.

articles.businessinsider.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 1-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: majority



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Can't say I agree with her assesment.

Pinning/Repinning a picture would constitute a discussion on said picture. A disscussion includes a commentary on said picture, and from your own link commentaries are an exception to copyright issues.

Also, she should have read the rules BEFORE clicking "okay".



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
The difference between 2000 and 2012 is that they really could get all the IP addresses from millions of Pinterest users and sue all you guys.... Than again photography is one thing.. As long as its not bootlegged movies no big companies will press charges... Really its not that big of deal.. Considering all the other "pirating" going on

There is no benefit in suing 200000 people for no real reason...
edit on 3/1/2012 by truthinfact because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I have doubts she's a lawyer.
First off, pinning something is an act of criticism, as with facebook's like, its you saying I like this.
Secondly what made me most think she's not a lawyer is defamation nobody who practices law would make a public post like that.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
The difference between 2000 and 2012 is that they really could get all the IP addresses from millions of Pinterest users and sue all you guys.... Than again photography is one thing.. As long as its not bootlegged movies no big companies will press charges... Really its not that big of deal.. Considering all the other "pirating" going on

There is no benefit in suing 200000 people for no real reason...
edit on 3/1/2012 by truthinfact because: (no reason given)



Here is prime example,

If had uploaded a picture say four years ago and today its one of those that has been re-branded with some "fail" tag slogan or manipulated in any way other than original photo then that can allow me to go after the initial re-uploaded said person and what ever site allows its hosting and download of the said picutre. Sounds wild, and cannot be done, well lets take a step back and look at Megaupload and BTJunkie. This is the new age of internet and anything that goes viral will have a price tag behind it, although if someone decides to move forward in a legal way then that is entirely different situation, but the risk of a person being served with a legal paper or email is very much real and is happening on a daily basis, regardless if it isn't being made public via the internet and on a dominate scale. What this boils down to is, if your active within the online scene and your profession orientates around the online scene then this person words and actions should make you sit back and consider the implications that could follow.
edit on 1-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: picture



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Adding a "fail" tag (etc) to a picture would constitute a parody, and is again free from copyright woes.

Seriously, it looks like she is not a very good lawyer. I mean, I can see this crap and I only have my armchair degree.

EDIT (Here is some info, in a fun to digest way!)

edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Video killed the texting star



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
Can't say I agree with her assesment.

Pinning/Repinning a picture would constitute a discussion on said picture. A disscussion includes a commentary on said picture, and from your own link commentaries are an exception to copyright issues.

Also, she should have read the rules BEFORE clicking "okay".


That is correct, if people scroll down there are comments, what the averge person isn't aware of is when you have a company that obviously has a fleet of lawyers to safe guard itself and binds you to all and any legal issues then you surely need to think twice about how and in what manner one is held accountable.

We could also include the fact that when one downloads a youtube video that has millions of hits then that original uploaded person or creator of the video can infact request legal due fees and credit from advertising regardless of what you click " I agree " . The point again is, are you able to take on a fleet of lawyers from a billion dollar company or do you simply sigh and kneel in defeat.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Kirsten turned to federal copyright laws and found a section on fair use. Copyrighted work can only be used without permission when someone is criticizing it, commenting on it, reporting on it, teaching about it, or conducting research. Repinning doesn't fall under any of those categories. Read more: www.businessinsider.com...#ixzz1nsNotd6h


Emphasis mine... So it would seem that commenting on your pins and repins elliminates the legal risk. I only just learned of pinterest a few weeks ago and love it.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by adigregorio
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


Adding a "fail" tag (etc) to a picture would constitute a parody, and is again free from copyright woes.

Seriously, it looks like she is not a very good lawyer. I mean, I can see this crap and I only have my armchair degree.

EDIT (Here is some info, in a fun to digest way!)

edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Video killed the texting star


Hypothetical Scenario.

I upload a photo of myself, in a particular section of the internet and place a comment such as " a simple relaxing day at home " and that photo becomes a fail or altered image of me, then i can legally sue and take action as it isn't classified as a parody. It infact has altered my image and thus hindered my professional online career and in closing, yes i am within the law to ask for damages resulting in the alteration or said digital print alteration of the original image. Once again, how many are upto taking on a fleet of lawyers and i wont even approach the cost of going to court with such corporations.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


I watched my video right after posting, you must have a super fast player!

Anyway, your senarios are moot. There is no breaking of copyright in the real senario, so the strawmen aren't needed.

The whole idea of "pinning" is a comment, you are saying "Check this out Holmes!" If she truly is a lawyer, she must be one of those public defenders...

Copyright was/is not broken by pinning/re-pinning of pictures. Even moreso if you use the pinning to further conversation beyond "Check this out"

And implied consent is a defendable position So "Like" and "pinning" are implying that you "like" the photo in question.

EDIT

par·o·dy [par-uh-dee], plural -dies, verb, -died, -dy·ing.
noun

1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet's soliloquy.

2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.

3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.

4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

5. the use in the 16th century of borrowed material in a musical setting of the Mass (parody Mass).


6. a poor or feeble imitation or semblance; travesty: His acting is a parody of his past greatness.

dictionary.reference.com...
(For the most recent strawman)
edit on 3/1/2012 by adigregorio because: Hay Hay Hay!



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


This is not true. I could do whatever I liked to an image of you. Now if I chose to publish my picture of you dressed as a little schoolgirl, unless you made prior legally binding requests this is ok for me to use.
it is a parody of your life.
now if you believed this results in decline of business you could try take me to court for defamation.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


This is why we have lawyers and until one enters the court room nothing or no-one can be held accountable or be excluded from the law.

As i previously stated, the same or similar points were brought up in the case of megaupload and btjunkie, apparently they too were using the law but eventually kneeled in defeat. All i am saying is that unless you have the weight to defend yourself against anyone then i and again stress urge people to alert and ready for anything.

The internet has changed and laws that were once obvious and rational are changing and changing fast as the online industry is pouring hundreds of billions into that market. A prime example is companies that are falling behind in the mobile social network scene have turned to file suit against larger corporations in an attempt to gain capitol, the rational or irrational side of that market is that several no name companies have actually received a settlement out of court in favor of them. So its not always black and white print and click i agree that will exempt you from future outcomes.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


MegaUpload and btJunkie were nothing like the site mentioned in the article. Other than they all had pictures...

If those two sites did not have copyrighted material on them, they most likely would still be in operation. Posting a picture of the Lion King, with the intention of sharing your feelings/thoughts in regards to the film is ENTIRELY different than posting the entire film.

Regardless of all that, the picture site isn't breaking copyright. And this "lawyers" opinion seems to be far from fact...



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xertious
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


This is not true. I could do whatever I liked to an image of you. Now if I chose to publish my picture of you dressed as a little schoolgirl, unless you made prior legally binding requests this is ok for me to use.
it is a parody of your life.
now if you believed this results in decline of business you could try take me to court for defamation.


You can alter my image of me on your personal computer, but the moment that is uploaded into the internet or who ever uploads it, he or she can and i am within my legal rights to take legal action.

For example, if i manipulate a picture of coca cola and altered its ingredients section within the photo with some ridiculous ingredients and that photo begins to go viral and reaches the head office, then i can be legally dragged into court regardless of what site i used to publicly display that image. Form there on end, it will be me and my single lawyer against a global fleet of coca cola lawyers who eat individuals like me with a single stroke of a pen.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


I think this is bull. As a photographer myself I love seeing my work “Pinned” by other people. As long as when I click on the picture it directs you to my website or facebook.. and even if it didn’t I would Sue someone (as all of my images are watermarked… so my name is still all over it).

Today’s society is so “Sue Happy” that they look for every option to sue someone. The same photographer should also jump on and Sue Google as well, since they are “stealing her work” also…


*Note, I am working on finding her Blog post on why she deleted it. It all started when a photographer sued a pinner for pinning her work. That is when this woman looked into the legality of it all.



ETA: This is Kristens Blog, Here is the entry she made RE: the whole pinterest biz.

Here

edit on 1/3/2012 by Britx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cerebralassassins
 


This is FALSE

Parody is protected under FAIR USE. If you would have watched that video I posted you would have understood.

Please, look into the law before making unfounded claims like this. A parody is NOT breaking copyright, in fact it is expressly allowed under copyright law. I will be posting direct links soon, just sayin' I have the sources. Though they are not hard to hunt down.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
What about in Germany?

You must have a persons explicit permission too own or take their photograph.... NO PAPARAZZI.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Although a parody can be considered a derivative work under United States Copyright Law, it can be protected from claims by the copyright owner of the original work under the fair use doctrine, which is codified in 17 U.S.C. § 107. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody "is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works". That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.



In 2007, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a fair use defense in the Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books case. Citing the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose decision, they found that a satire of the O.J. Simpson murder trial and parody of The Cat in the Hat had infringed upon the children's book because it did not provide a commentary function upon that work.[22][23]

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, upheld the right of Alice Randall to publish a parody of Gone with the Wind called The Wind Done Gone, which told the same story from the point of view of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves, who were glad to be rid of her.

en.wikipedia.org...

(US law referenced only, more references in pedia)


Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is what allows/defines parody.


Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies (using a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself) and satires (using a work to poke fun at or comment on something else). Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.

en.wikipedia.org...

1: Purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial or non-profit nature
2: Nature of copyrighted work
3: Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4: Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

There you have it, not so super simple. But some sources to my claims. Parody is allowed or people like Weird Al would have a damn hard time making albums.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Maybe she's a law student who just wanted her 5 mins of fame.
Also, the bit about facebook, I don't see how they can be criticised about copyright, everything you uplosd you take legal responsibility for it.
the difference in regards to megaupload is that it was a haven for people who sharwd material over http (rather than torents). Whether megaupload didn't do enough to prevent them or what amount of blame the creators get depends on the case outcome. He isn't in the wrong yet, he hasn't been tried for anything, hell he hasn't even been exradited yet.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join