I'd venture to say that 90% of the content is third party content used without permission. The only saving grace is that most of it is commercial images from ezines and retailers who will benefit from the traffic and so have no incentive to sue.
YouTube was 90% third-party content when it started out, and companies had a MUCH larger incentive to sue. YT made out fine, so I wonder if those repercussions will affect Pinterest in any way.
Re:Pinterest posts new Terms of Service
by itssynecdoche on Saturday March 24, 2012 @01:01PM
(#3749877)
The content on Pinterest almost always leads you back to the source site. I doubt that comes under pirating.
Or am I missing something?
Crediting the source doesn't mean it automatically falls under fair use.
Pinterest's ToS state that you cannot pin material if you don't have copyright permission. Of course, this is probably a large percentage of what gets pinned.
You're not allowed to redistribute copyrighted material without a license. That is the entire point of copyright. And most of the content of the site is directly infringing.
The "almost always" part is a bit of a problem. Why does Pinterest allow people to remove attribution? If Pinterest cares about respecting copyright, the simplest step would be to preserve attribution (and on a practical note, the resulting referer logs would notify image creators that their stuff is being pinned).
Re:Pinterest posts new Terms of Service
by Androsynth on Saturday March 24, 2012 @05:45PM
(#3750836)
middle aged? You may be thinking of zynga. Pinterest appeals to the 18-35 female demo
On the other hand, when a sizable population of middle-aged women become the pirates, maybe our elected officials will be less inclined to set the dogs on them. Could Pinterest be a watershed moment in the copyright wars?