Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by staunch | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

staunch

It seems pretty obvious that Pinterest wouldn't qualify for safe harbor under the DMCA.

> Direct Financial Benefit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...

The entire service is reliant on the ability of users to "pin" copyrighted images from across the web.

> Knowledge of Infringing Material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_L...

Anyone with any objectivity can see that 99% of the images on Pinterest are being used without permission.

It also seems that Pinterest themselves are "uploading" all the images to their servers. Users just tell Pinterest which images to take. Technically it would be no different if YouTube were to store/serve Netflix videos after a user "pinned" them.

View on HN

I think it's a sad state of affairs when people are using a site to show other people their favorite stuff and are technically breaking the law by doing so.

But you can understand the scrapbook motivation though can't you?

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Ignoring the legalities - the motivation is that people like to collect and share things of interest.

Sites like pinterest are probably more alluring and easier to use than compiling and sharing a list of URLs with your friends.

I don't know. If we are talking about artistic work, it'd probably be fine with the proper attribution, but if it's a recipe, that's the entire content with no additional point of visiting the original page.

Then again, this is in no way different than Tumblr, which is the most egregious copyright offender, even within its own ranks because of the reblog feature. Recently, the actress Dianna Agron - known from TV show Glee - launched her own website http://youmeandcharlie.com, which does - and encourages - the same thing. And it's building a profitable business on this model, meaning that the people behind the site earn money based on this approach; it's one thing to have a random Tumblr account with no financial incentive, but this is different.

The biggest problem is that we suck at teaching people and our children the importance of proper attribution, and why it is important that we do our best to tie the author together with the work. I don't know if this requires a taboo or campaign, but with services like imgur and Tumblr, it's only going to become a bigger problem - and that's not to discuss how the majority of reporters don't get the point of sourcing either.

I think an ad-hoc approach to dealing with DMCAs - and possible blocking specific content hashes - is the only way to do it for Pinterest. Anything else hurts Pinterest as much as the content owners and shops.

It seems to me the biggest issue with these sites activity is when they replace a user's desire/need to visit the content creator's site. It's no longer collecting URLs or sharing favorite things -- it's recompiling copyrighted work into a new work and leaving out the original content creators. It seems that's the infringement (at least in my gut).

What if, instead, Pinterest were to behave more like google images and provide only thumbnails. Where to see that "12 uses for baking soda" you had to click through to the blogger's site? Could that preserve the service and the community, but protect content creators as well?

There is certainly an experience trade off here. Discussion is less likely to occur on Pinterest, the user may have no further reason to go to that blog -- they only wanted to see the list. These sites might not be able to handle the traffic...and on and on.

But it would seem you'd be closer to sharing your favorite things while not taking advantage of copyrighted material (possibly even being more legal about it), and often providing a marginally better experience. As a user I've now discovered this blog not just the uses for baking soda. For pins where the image wasn't enough, I didn't have to deal with the second click.

Trade offs trade offs trade offs...

And what about Google Images? Don't you think that 99% of the images on Google Images are being used without permission? I know I've never received a request from Google pertinent to indexing my images, automatically uploading/hosting them to their own server, etc.

You don't see the difference?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1637143363405832...

Google images has been litigated and the result is incredibly pertinent to this discussion. Check out the section on fair use...

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

And in addition, the court considered what the service was offering to the public. They seem pretty concerned about the fact google never deals with the full sized images... etc. etc.

The whole case seems pretty relevant. It includes discussions on the other types of infringement as well including material contribution.

I disagree. Pinterest would certainly qualify for safe harbor due to the "Automated upload mechanism". Meaning they have no manual or editorial review process. Users simply click and it happens through code. That's the biggest distinction.

Yep. I don't see how it's any different from someone uploading a copyrighted video to youtube...

Did you miss the part where users don't actually do the uploading? Just a minor point, but potentially important.

They're both essentially a single button click. Technically, there is a difference. Realistically, there isn't.

I personally know one company which lost a court case based on that defense. Not in US/under DMCA, though.

>The entire service is reliant on the ability of users to "pin" copyrighted images from across the web.

I'm not so sure. The service is reliant on the ability of its users to "pin" content which, from what I can tell, is represented by images. I could be wrong, though.

>Anyone with any objectivity can see that 99% of the images on Pinterest are being used without permission.

However, it was "pinned" by its users, not the site administrators, so I believe it would qualify the same way imgur qualifies despite it being a massive pool of copyright infringement. But IANAL.

Well how does facebook deal with it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com