Don't Worry, My Bubble is Pin Proof. No Bursting Here.

So a friend of mine posted the following link, where a very intelligent and conscientious person quested the legality of the quickly becoming famous Pinterest.
They did do some legal digging and I agree with them that the law can be argued (law is great for that) and that the wording in the Pinterest contract is very concerning (though perhaps more typical than you might think).

I think the blogger makes a good point, but I also think that their worry is a little over rated. I can respect taking down the boards in order to respect the artists' right to choose as well, but I also think the artist can take messures to prevent unauthorized use of their material while still displaying themselves, and given the public penchant for copying work (from cassettes to VHS included largely), this is just a realistic part of life they'll need to deal with always, whether pinterest exists or not.

Anyway. Here is the original blog: DDKPortraits

Read that first if you like. In fact, you should. It is quite informative.

And here is my detailed response of why I concur, but will continue to pin.

I have to admit that I haven't read all of the comments above, so forgive me if any of what I'm about to say has already been addressed.

The way that I have come to understand fair use (and I will double check with my friend who actually loves copyright law) is that by using their material, you are not hurting the original creator nor are you profiting off of it yourself. This is why, as I understand it, I am allowed to make copies of chapters from books for my classes (though this would also fall under the educational purposes) and that they are able to use quotes from them in their papers, as long as they are properly cited as such.

Just because not everyone clicks through the picture to the original link (I actually do quite often), doesn't mean that it wasn't provided or that they claimed it as their own. If someone was to download a picture from a website, and then re-pin it to pinterest, that would be an issue if they didn't then cite it in the comments specifically. That would be like saying we should sue everyone who writes a research paper if their readers don't actually go and visit each original source quoted. The information was provided and that is your end of the deal.

By pinning to pinterest, I gain nothing nor do I think that many would mistake a professional photographer's work for my own - though that of course is entirely beside the point, except that by using pinterest each user knows and agrees that they are viewing non-originals, and therefore should click through the "citation" to find the original source should they seek it.

Many of the people who were sued during the Napster case (as I remember it) were sued because of the sheer amounts of music they had downloaded, shared, and re-shared. Meaning that they were getting enough music that they had to be selling it or that they were hurting the music industry just by the sheer number that they had not purchased. Music is a much stronger case, because besides taping it on cassette tape off the radio (which I'm sure many, many people are guilty of), you have to buy it to enjoy it. Often, you have to buy a whole cd to enjoy one song.

My understanding of e-readers is that you don't actually own any of the books you download, which actually teeves some people off. Of course, I'm sure that would be some interesting law to look at.

Anyway, before I get off topic, by pinning something on Pinterest, I gain nothing and I'm pretty sure it would be a hard case to argue that I was hurting the artist. How am I hurting them? If I am pinning their work, it is likely because I like enough to actually buy it or hire them OR that I wouldn't buy it anyway, I just thought it was nice. Having it pinned to my board where I can go view it, is not much different than logging into their website everyday to check it out.

NOW- This may be where you could make an argument of "hurt." If the said photographer generates ad revenue from how many people visit their site, then one could potentially make the argument that pinning the photo to pinterest alleviates the reason for people to actually go to the original website, therefore hurting ad revenue. HOWEVER, if you were going to make this argument, you'd then also take into account all of the people who never would have known that the artist even existed if not for Pinterest and then went on to visit the site or actually buy something or hire them.

As for this being the artist's personal decision, I can totally see where you are coming from. HOWEVER, the artist has already made the decision to advertise their work by posting it on their website. Furthermore, (having taken enough web design classes to know a thing or two (literally, 2 classes that were essentially the same class) you can post a picture to your website, without making it recognizable as an image. This means, you can post a picture to your website in such a way that viewers will not be able to copy and paste it or download it, and logically then also, not be able to pin it, even with the pin tool that you can download.

I have already run into such sites, and though I find it frustrating (and occasionally have pinned the picture from the google search page, yes I know that is cheating, and I have only done it with store items that are for sale) if it is a work of art, I just respect their right to make their work un-copyable.

So, I hardly see Pinterest as an attack on the unsuspecting web photographer. If they didn't want people copying their work, it has always been a simple fix. Furthermore, if they are providing those images on their webstie as downloadable items, people have already been doing it, but now pinterest not only lets them see it happening, it actually works in their favor.

Let's be clear! I am not saying "you put your work out there so it deserves to be copied," I am saying any work that is given to the public domain can be used in terms of fair use provided that it is cited properly. In the issue of online material (and yes, you can even make text un-copyable), if you really don't like the idea of knowing who is citing and referring to your work, then you have a very simple, easy, quick defense. Just make it uncopyable.

So, I am going to continue to use pinterest and I guess hope that no one sues me. People can sue you even if they have no chance of winning, and I guess that is a risk we all take in interacting with one another, but I also feel the law, fuzzy as it may be, is on my side here. And from what I understand from another friend of mine who is a lawyer, that unless it is worded exactly right putting a sign or contract saying "I provided it, but it's not my fault" don't always hold up in court.

Again, I am not disregarding the artist's personal rights or encouraging the stealing of their work. As a writer myself, I understand the paranoia that someone is going to just take my work and claim it as their own or profit off it without my consent, but a wise professor also once taught me how rare and unlikely an occurrence that is as I'm not yet famous, and when I am, it will be obvious and easily taken care of. I also understand that with photographs particularly, the point is to view it and if I can view it anywhere, then what is the point of buying it, but I also beleive there is a difference between pinning it on pinterest, clearly cited with a direct link to the original, and downloading it from the creator's site (or even from pinterest) printing it, taking it to Wal-Mart and having it enlarged and framed. i guess you could make that worse by then selling copies. But Pinterest? It's nothing more than hey look what this neat person did at their exact website. I don't even gain brownie points for other people repining my pins or even ad revenue for everyone visiting it. And if "for comment" is covered in the above law you posted, then, well, that is exactly what pinterest is: reproduction for comment.

EDIT:

Additionally, "Carla" responded to the above blogger post with the following:

Carla

Pinterest has provided a code in their Help section that disables the “Pin” button for site owners who do not want any of their material pinned.

Pinterest has also included Copyright infringement reporting for anyone who feels like their copyrights have been violated. It can be found under the “About” section at Pinterest.com.

For those who want to disable the right-click copy function, go to google and search for the “disable right-click function” for the code to add to your webpage.

Also, others suggest that with social media, this whole issues is already taken care of as it is regarded as a link and not a copy. So really, all pinterest is worried about, is people downloading things that don't belong to them, then re-uploading them as their own. That and being used as free advertising deliberately.