It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:11 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:31 PM

“You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services. Accordingly, you represent and warrant that: (i) you either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services or you have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary to grant to Cold Brew Labs the rights in such Member Content, as contemplated under these Terms; and (ii) neither the Member Content nor your posting, uploading, publication, submission or transmittal of the Member Content or Cold Brew Labs’ use of the Member Content (or any portion thereof) on, through or by means of the Site, Application and the Services will infringe, misappropriate or violate a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, moral rights or other proprietary or intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or result in the violation of any applicable law or regulation.” (From Pinterest’s Terms of Use).

and that's how the fat lady sings at the end of the show...

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by cerebralassassins

Yep, that pretty much sums it up, apart from the fact you missed the the singing lady is quite large of stature!!

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.


Post a picture up, I will like it on my facebook. And I will win any case you bring against me because of FAIR USE.

As I have been stating, the "lawyer" is not right in her assumptions. Because a commentary is ALLOWED on fair use.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Take special note of this part! It's called the law, and I know it. At least particular law.

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by adigregorio

Are you even reading your own citations?

I keep seeing the words portion, extract, excerpt etc... not whole pic I liked so I will pin it up.

That is the point. You don't know the law, you just think you do. you carry on on your merry way. And I am sure we will all live the better for it.

C ya!

posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by JakiusFogg

And you do realize that a semicolon seperates whole thoughts?

Exceprts for teaching etc.

WHOLE parts for parody etc.

(And I am the one that doesn't know how to intrepret?)

EDIT (More sources, just in case!)

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original.


If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work -- for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
•quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
•summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
•copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
•copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

edit on 3/3/2012 by adigregorio because: Pudding

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 12:44 PM
But the question becomes when you "pin" a photo and it is then duplicated in total onto another server (i.e. copied) are you actually commenting on the original or are you commenting on the duplication? The fact that the original image is available online for all to see, in my opinion, makes the act of duplicating it to another server completely unnecessary.

Also is the act of "pinning" itself really a comment or is it just an act? When someone "pins" something, what is the comment actually being made? Is it "I like this", or is it "Eww, this is disgusting", or is it "I can't believe this", etc.?

Or is this whole "pinning" just a means to distribute others' materials outside of the channels the creator intended? And if the creator did not intend it should we just say "tough luck, buddy."

All power to the artists

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by NIcon

This here is a good argument!

The act of "pinning" is labled differently than that of facebooks' "like". The like button is comment in itself, but what is a pin?

To be honest, no idea. Which is why I would just add a few lines of comments to the photo, not to mention the source
But that is how I roll, 2d20 and a +10 sword of fair use.

(Uh oh, TSR is gonna be mad at me now...)
(Edit)Err Wizards of the Coast
edit on 3/4/2012 by adigregorio because: Because I am old, okay!

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by adigregorio

Well there's questions about the "Like" button also as, by design, it doesn't necessarily mean "Like." From facebook:

"Like" is a way to give positive feedback or to connect with things you care about on Facebook.

The first part "give positive feedback" would certainly qualify. But the second part "connect with things you care about" would not. Demonstrating things you "care about" is more of a comment about yourself rather than the material "liked", is it not?

So when a person pushes a like button is it "positive feedback" or is it just them "connect(ing) with things (they) care about"?

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by NIcon

Ah but because fair use is only a defense position, all you would need a is a good defense.

AND the company that would be prosecuting, well their prosecution would have to cost less money than what your damages are causing.

Think about it, if I have a picture liked on facebook of...Ronald McDonald.

Is McDonalds going to persecute me? How much does that persecution cost them? How much am I costing them with my picture liked? If prosecution cost is > lost money the company will not prosecute. (Well, should not if they have any business sense.)

Now, let's say I made a Lixus car, charge 1/2 price of a Lexus. Prosecution will be < lost money.

All about the $$$. But that is an entirely different fair use thread

edit on 3/4/2012 by adigregorio because: persecution to prosicution (several times, yikes!)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by adigregorio

I agree. I'm just pointing out the ambiguity of the act of pressing a "like" button? To me it doesn't necessarily constitute an act of commentary on the material being "liked".

And, as far as I'm aware, Facebook doesn't actually copy the "Liked" material in total (or do they?). So I don't see any problem with that.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:41 PM
reply to post by NIcon

I don't think it copies the data, I was just following along for example sake. I did the same for most of the strawmen pages past

(Not that yours was a strawman, just was being fair to all!)

I think the others gave up, after I posted directly from the law (Which I was trying to get them to do the whole time.) You don't have to be a lawyer to read, and that law is pretty black and white. Parody anyway...

As for the pictures presented in the OPost, again pretty black and white. And regardless it will always boil down to wallets, if their wallet will be bigger after they prosecute, then you WILL be prosecuted. If there is a chance it will be smaller, then you will not. Regardless of whether or not, you will be protected under the fair use clause in copyright law.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by adigregorio

Well, from what I read, it doesn't seem to me so cut and dry. The people doing the "pinning" are only my secondary concern, but my main concern was Pinster actually duplicating the original material to their server and displaying it. They could easily just hotlink the pictures.

To me, when a person puts a photograph on their website, all I can infer is their intention for the photograph to be displayed only within that page. Unless otherwise stated. I can not infer anything else.

I don't agree that Pinster should be able to copy the work verbatim and display it on their site. As I said they could just hotlink it, which would still be showing the original work.

But what if the creator doesn't like the hotlinking? Well, it's still in their power to take it off their site, or use one of many scripts or Apache directives to prevent the hotlinking.

But if the image was duplicated and then displayed on another server, they have lost control of their work.

All power to the artists.

But that's my opinion of how it should be.

I think we should all think about this as I really think this needs to be worked out better than what we've got. People may think it's no problem, that it wouldn't be worth it for anyone to sue them. But what if a business' whole model was just that? The courts knocked this company down this time, but they may not the next:

I believe some other money hungry bozo will come along and learn from this company's experience and modify their model to setup shop and "shake down" more unsuspecting people. I know my measly paycheck would never stand up to a bunch of venture capitalists and speculators.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by NIcon

Do what you wish, I just offer the law and why you don't need to have a fear over this.

If you feel less fearful by just avoiding the whole thing, then by all means do so.

As for me, I will carry on as I always have.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:04 PM
Well, from what I do there is no avoiding it. But it's really not up to me. It's up to everyone that uses the internet.

My point comes from the point of view of the creator, which, from reading Kristen's original blog post, this whole thread comes from "some other photographers were complaining about people posting their work on Facebook pages without the photographers’ permission."

Is it ethically right to copy someone else's work and display it, even if it's just on Facebook, though the creator of the work does not want it there?

I can see the fair use aspect, but what if they post the person's work as their avatar?

Is the court system the only way to resolve this?

Are emerging artists and creators supposed to have a "war chest" to go after everyone? Or should they just "suck it up and take it like a man"? Or not post their work at all?

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:12 PM
Or here's another way to look at it:

Why is it that now a creator needs to monitor billions of web sites and if they find their work on another site, it's up to them to contact the site and prove they hold the copyright and have it taken down, rather than a site like Pinterest assuring that one of their subscribers (their little "money makers") actually holds the copyright before posting it and storing it on Pinterest's server?

Is it just for convenience? Or because verifying their subscribers' copyrights would be too high of an overhead to make some "real money"?

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:30 AM
I doubt anyone even read this thread apart form a handfull so if you have jumped through to the last page, do take the time to read page the page and you will see a chronological line of how things such as negative advertising actually work for a company but with a price tag.

As for how rapid one can move within the digital world, feast your brain cells on this. I must say, only three weeks and several strategic online maneuvers and you have the basis of what at some point will be called cyber protest.

Pinterest terms worry users

A movement is growing to put pressure on Pinterest to change its terms of service, as some users have even gone so far as to delete their pinboards on the new social sharing site.

A campaign, started by The Window Seat blog, encourages Pinterest users to re-pin a graphic that appeals to the site's creators to change its terms of service. The graphic states: “Dear Pinterest, please change your terms or I'm leaving.” According to the blog, since its initial posting last week, the pin has already been shared by over 45 000 people.

The clause in the site's terms of service that is causing the fuss concerns the indemnity of Pinterest and its creators. The clause states that Pinterest users are solely responsible for all content they post to the site, and any potentially negative implications


Pinterest's hidden threat to its users

The threat comes from an often overlooked clause which has potentially severe implications considering the copyright issues facing Pinterest users:


You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.


In closing i would like to add that i do use pinterest but i have written permission that was handled by lawyers for this specific reason.
edit on 13-3-2012 by cerebralassassins because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 11:00 PM
If one uploads a photo that is not one's own, the might certainly constitute a violation (i am not going to get into the nuances of copyright violation, such as credit/commentary/etc).

However, from my limited pinterest experience, pinning from outside sources (web sources other than pinterest) involves this: when you pin from an outside source, the users are simply providing the link to the original; this is similar to thumbnail creation while pasting links on facebook, even though thumbnails are protected and pinterest is a duplicate--or representation. Pinterest is actually duplicating it, not the user, but, according to the TOS, seems to pin responsibility for the re-creation back to the user, since it does so on behalf of the user. So pinterest is covering its behind, and shifting all blame. This is NOT right, IMO.

Maybe it is similar to napster, providing the means for infringement, but there is no stealing in pinning (even though some might argue that digital duplication is stealing, in which case see point above)...

This does not speak to re-pinning from within pinterest. If an artist pins something on pinterest, how can that artist not expect it to be re-pinned, so what is the point in uploading original content to pinterest, except for commentary?

I am sure this "lawyer" would delete her facebook account, or whatever else, if she read the TOS and realized that practically anything in the TOS can be applied to anything as far as some means of violation. But she decided to go after Pinterest. Why?

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in