Pinterest and the end of copyright protection

[haven]

http://www.pinterest.com

Pinterest is a new website designed to share graphic images, videos and text notes. Recently it climbed into the top 10 most active social media sites. Account holders can "pin" an image to their workspace, creating a collage. Other Pinterest account holders can "re-pin" the image to their own workspace. It's possible to follow the trail of linked "pins", revealing a series of workspaces to draw ideas and inspiration from.

Retailers are getting on board the Pinterest bandwagon. Having an image of, say, a couch from the Pottery Barn website pinned to an interior designer's workspace is a form of viral advertising.

Sounds cool, until we get to the part about Pinterest making it extremely easy for account holders to pin any image they find online into their workspace. Copyright protection is strictly a problem between the entity that owns the photo and the account holder. Pinterest claims no responsibility.

This is the 21st century version of the Xerox machine. Is Xerox responsible when people make unauthorized copies? The courts decided Xerox is not responsible. Is Pinterest responsible when an account holder decides to pin an image the Associated Press captured? Or a photo an artist is advertising for sale? This issue is not yet decided.

 

[ywen]

Interesting... I have a pininterest account.. I thought it just does a link to the site where you create the pin.. Upon a closer look. It looks like Pinterest copies the images to their own servers and host it from there. For example the URL here http://media-cdn.pinterest.com/upload/173036810652802579_QUd8RZyB_f.jpg

What does copyright laws say about making digital copies of images that already exist on the public internet? Could it actually forbid you from making digital copies? I mean whenever you see a digital image in a browser, a copy of it already exist on your local machine as cache.

I do see sites like pinterest will make it extremely difficult for someone to manage the proliferation of their images once it has been popularized by the site.

 

[haven]

The notion of "fair use" of copyrighted material has been tested several times in the courts, but the cases have involved text rather than images. In the case of text, it's considered OK for individuals to reprint small amounts of copyrighted material, so long as the text is being used for news reporting, commentary, instruction or research. None of these rationales really apply to a site like Pinterest.

Case law for re-use of images tends to come down to a determination if the re-use is transformative, creating something new, or simply derivative, taking advantage of something created by the copyright holder. Pinterest collections of images may or may not be considered a new art form. This matter has not been raised in court. However, the simple re-use of a copyrighted photo is not allowed under current law.

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pinterest is granted some protection from liability if one of their account holders uses a digital image taken from another source. They have to respond promptly to requests by copyright holders to remove unauthorized materials. From the perspective of a copyright holder, it's virtually impossible to keep up with the potential mis-use of your online images. Hence my thread title, "the end of copyright protection"

 

[ssssnake529]

The internet and digital photography ended copyright protection for digital photography long ago. I don't think that Pinterest has done anything new here.

Anyone can capture and use any photo found on the internet without any feasible way for the copyright holder to stop it. If you have a photo, and you don't want it copied, then don't put it on the internet. If you need to put it on the internet, then only put a small one, or put an obnoxious watermark on the photo.

 

[Cody1771]

facebook does this to, its very easy to post an image, video or anything to your "wall" while removing the original authors post, making it show up on your wall as an original, mind you its not that hard to ctrl + C then ctrl + V, its just one less click of the mouse now.

if you are really that worried a good, hard to remove watermark is still your friend.

 

[HumphreyBear]

There is a perception by some (many?) Internet users and small hardcore groups of veteran 'open source advocates' that the Internet is a free-for-all and that any and all information or data should be free for anyone to use, or more accurately 'why should anyone be expected to pay for anything any more'. Hence we have rampant and flagrant abuse of copyright by people who are essentially thieving someone else's material - ripping or downloading music/movies/television programs, cracking software, plagiarising and outright stealing from published articles or journals, and, in relevance to this thread, posting others' photos without giving credit or retaining identity of authorship.

The pretense in cases like this (e.g. Pinterest) that the companies enabling this are merely brokers is to my mind a legal sham that takes advantage of the fact the law can't keep up with the rate of change of technology. I think it is immoral as at a business case level these brokers or intermediaries are all making money off of the misuse of someone else's effort ('monetising the clickstream') - I have nothing against people making money (I quite like it myself as well) but if I used all the source code for Facebook or Pinterest etc. to release my own identical but uniquely branded version of their product I could bank on getting a letter from their lawyer or a visit from a man with a baton fairly quickly.

Some of the usage will be legal and freely given or welcomed such as the retail advertising example given in the article, but I think the history of the Internet shows that lazy, disingenuous or deceitful practices will predominate. Here in Australia there was a recent court case which shows just how out of touch and open for abuse the situation is, with (potentially huge) profits to be made from it. Another recent example of how much money is able to be made by 'advocates' of such piracy is the Kim Dotcom saga in New Zealand.

 

[Harald Hansen]

HumphreyBear, I think you're constructing a bit of a strawman here. Sure, there are some that argue that all information should be free, but there's a larger group that holds that the current copyright regime is too restrictive and benefits mostly corporations. The purpose of copyright was originally to promote the creation of new works by granting the author a limited exclusive right to his creation. In the US this was originally 14 years, plus a possibility of 14 more years after renewal. The current term in the US (and in Bern signatory countries for US copyrights) is life of author + 90 years. It hardly promotes the creation of new works when the author has been dead for 90 years, does it?

One should also keep in mind that copyright directly infringes on free speech, so it's a delicate balance.

It's also difficult to draft legislation that distringuishes different types of use. I.e. your browser makes a local copy of every copyrighted image and every text you see on the Net. Google makes a copy of the same, in order to index them and make the searchable. That's just how it has to work.

 

[4x4x4doors]

One should also keep in mind that copyright directly infringes on free speech, so it's a delicate balance.

I'm probably going to regret asking this but I'm not seeing how copyright infringes on free speech. Could you explain that?

 

[HumphreyBear]

Harald, my argument may be a strawman because I have not seen any reliable data on it though it is based on experience and (my) logic, but you counter it with "there's a larger group that holds .." which is just as tenuous (or more so) and incapable of being justified - an anti-strawman stawman if you like.

My point (or one of them at least) is equal and opposite yet completely in agreement with your comment on corporations being beneficiaries. I'm saying the weakening of copyright is mostly helping corporations more interested in making money than in artistic expression (Google, Facebook, Pinterest etc. etc.) make a killing whereas you are saying the strengthening of copyright enforcement favours other corporations. In an opportunistic world of low corporate integrity I'm not sure either of us are wrong. When in doubt I would always fall back on the rights of the content creator (whether corporate, government or individual) rather than the broker which is all most of these companies are - they, by the design and nature of their systems, are enabling and encouraging users to ignore valid copyright restrictions whilst simultaneously exempting themselves with their own form of strawman argument. They protect their copyright but encourage the dilution of others'.

As a content creator myself in various forms I rely on the protection of copyright to assert my rights. Not for monetary protection, I only periodically sell my 'content', but for protection from people who would prey on it and claim it as their own. I posted some photos (one form of content creation) on ExPo a few days ago, and I took my watermark off the photos because I was reflecting on the value of my privacy versus the value of the photo. In the end I decided those photos had no value apart from the sentimental as I have never sought to sell them. I have a whole raft of other photos and videos that I do not post on the Internet specifically for the protection of their copyright, or the fact that I have sold the photo, and the rights to publish it, to a third party. I also went looking for the copyright disclaimer on this web site and to my disappointment I couldn't find anything about ExPo's position on the copyright and ownership of documents/images/content uploaded to the site by members.

(As a side note here in Australia we do not have an inalienable right to 'free speech' except in very specific context. There is an implied right in our constitution, but no codified guarantee, which I think is a far better system. We table each debate and require it to stand on its own merits, sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't (and in general it works too slowly). It doesn't give carte blanch to either side and as a result equates to a more balanced presentation of facts. The exception noted above is related to political speech and as a result our political discourse is becoming more barbed, bilious and rancorous. This protection has allowed the most visible and prominent group of people in the country to also be the most infantile, odious and objectionable, focussing on sound bites and news cycles rather than good policy and governance.)

Humphrey

 

[ywen]

just don't post super high res files... there's only so much one can do with a small resolution picture with medium compression...

 

[learning]

I have been using Pinterest and twiter followers for a while and even i think they would be many Copywrite issues. Users are sharing images which they do not own. Although, i do agree with ywen. If you post low res images and give a link to its owner, then there wont be any copywriting issues.

_______________
Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today.

 

[ywen]

I noticed flickr doesn't let you pin images from their site.. I wonder how this is accomplished, perhaps you can do similar things on your site

 

[4lowdean]

As a pro-photog I can say copyright law is near and dear to my heart. However, almost anything posted onto social media sites (forums, facebook, tumblr, pinterest, etc) is considered "fair use" these days. Also, if you read the fine print of the user agreement of these types of sites, sometimes the digital media is now considered property of the hosting site.

There was a notable case a few years back where a pro-photog posted a kick-but photo to an online forum. That forum turned around and used that photo in some of their market materials. The pro-photog sued the website saying it was a copyright violation. All the website did was highlight the section in their user agreement that said something to the effect of "I agree that any and all images I post on this website forum will be consider property of ______.com and I (the original owner) forfeit any copyright claims to said image(s)." Needless to say the pro-photog walked out of the courtroom with egg on his face and a pretty hefty set of court costs to pay since he not only had to pay his lawyer but also pay the court costs of the website as well.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and if you're really worried about the copyright of your material then do *not* post it anywhere online.

That said... my basic rules are #1) Shoot everything in RAW since having the raw file will trump a jpeg in a court case #2) Only share low-res low-quality images #3) Watermark everything one way or another. Chances are if someone is going to "steal" my image they are probably too cheap to buy it anyway. If they try to print from a low-res copy it will look like poo and I will just laugh at them. If they edit out my watermark and try to claim it as their own online, then then bad kharma is on them but really isn't worth my time to go after them. if they try to submit the photo somewhere and use it to make money, well, then it's game on. However, most places can't do anything with a low-res low-quality jpeg anyway so for the most part I consider myself "safe."

The real threat I face as a pro-photographer is not copyright issues but people who think they can buy a $500 Wal*Mart camera and do what I do better than I can. The sad reality is there are a lot of people out there that will settle for "good enough" because it is cheap or free rather than pay for "great" photos. I have a lifetime of experience shooting photos that can't be bought off the shelf. Sure someone can go out and buy the exact camera and lenses I use, the same computer and software I use, and shot right over my shoulder, but chances are I will still take a better picture than they will. it isn't because I am cocky; it's just I have an "eye" for it. Most people who do not have that "eye" can't tell the difference between a "good enough" and a "great" photo anyway. Needless to say, I have since back-burnered much of my photography stuff while I focus on school.

 

[Herbie]

There is a perception by some (many?) Internet users and small hardcore groups of veteran 'open source advocates' that the Internet is a free-for-all and that any and all information or data should be free for anyone to use, or more accurately 'why should anyone be expected to pay for anything any more'.

I have to object to your terminology. Your description is perfectly accurate - there is a hardcore group of people (I wouldn't even say it was a small group) who believe that anything digital should be freely copiable, shared, exchanged etc. However, the people you describe are most definitely NOT "open source advocates".

"Open source" has a very specific meaning and more importantly a very specific code of conduct and licensing, and at the core of all of it is that proper accreditation be made to the creators of EVERYTHING. Open source got it's start with stuff like the GNU Public License (GPL) and has moved forward with other systems like the Creative Commons license. They have their various flavors, but at the heart of ALL of these are a few principals: All open source stuff is for NON-COMMERCIAL use only. (Commercial use requires a separate license agreement.) Credit must be given to the original creator for any and all distributions of that material, whether it's modified or not. And so on. The key thing to ALL open source projects is that the creators themselves MUST elect to Open Source the project. If anyone reserves copyright for themselves, it isn't open source. And EVERY "open source advocate" in the world would gladly agree that any creator can reserve copyright for something that THEY have created, (as long as it isn't derived from something open source). Moreover, every open source advocate would say that reusing something without the permission of the creator is theft, outright.

I am a software creator and user of many different open source artforms. I am an open source advocate. I am not a pirate, I am not a thief.

For those interested in further research:
http://******.org
http://creativecommons.org/
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

 

[nwoods]

Okay, so I looked into Pinterest a little bit. 99% of the images seem to be from women posting wishlists of things they want to buy, and about 1% of those photos appear to be images the posters actually shot themselves. Generally, I found the organization and usability severely lacking, but what really bothered me is that the meta-data of the samples I downloaded and inspected were blank. Missing. Erased?

So I dug deeper. Have you actually read their terms of use? It's gross!: http://pinterest.com/about/terms/

By making available any Member Content through the Site [Pinterest], Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services.

I wondered more about the meta-data issue, and it seems that Pinterest does indeed purposefully strip it from your photos:
http://artists-bill-of-rights.org/news/campaign-news/pinterest--our-view-of-this-project/


As a content producer (I really wish I could claim that I sell my photos for profit!), I am deeply troubled by all this. As an interium solution, you can easily post a simple HTML tag into the header of your web gallery page (particularly easy with SmugMug Pro users), to disable people from pining your photos into Pinterest. Just add this tag about the </head> tag:
<meta name="pinterest" content="nopin" />

Also, for SmugMug users, its easy to turn off or disable "Right Click" save-as copying:
http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93274
This has the added benefit of thwarting unintended use of your images on FaceBook and elsewhere.

BTW< it appears that FaceBook also strips your metadata. Google+ does not. Score one for "Don't be evil"