 ToS said
he'd released his rights, demonstrates this is not a "please not again"
problem, this is ongoing, big corps are misusing these at the expense of
individual artists, and the problem's getting worse.

Every day I talk to artists who have no idea that posting their latest music
video to a video sharing site could give that company performance rights in
other media, or, as in this case, that pinning their own photos to Pinterest
would let Pinterest publish a "Best Pins of 2012" book w/o compensating the
artist.

This needs to be called out and both consumers and creators deserve to be
informed.

~~~
pork
Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I felt the same thing as them. Allow me to
set out a hypothetical.

You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt
with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and
Pinterest dies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of your "pinned"
content decides to go after you, and decides to sue the pants off you. So you
freak out and hire a top-notch lawyer, who will draft a new set of terms for
your users to shield you from the liability you now realize you have.

Repeat, iterate, and before you know it -- your top-notch lawyer guarantees
that you will face no more expensive liability, but you now have the onerous
terms set out in practically all sites that allow user-generated content.

Basically, these terms allow you to bump the liability from yourself to the
user who uploaded it (because they have pinned the pictures in bad faith, in
violation of your terms, etc.)

So there's really no point railing against the terms -- they aren't going
away, and the best you can hope for is very minor modifications of wording
with sufficient popular pressure. Good luck on that.

~~~
alxp
This post we're discussing _is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish
them good luck because the pendulum is currently far too in the direction
against fairness to end-users.

~~~
growingconcern
Exactly. Saying that this is just the way it is is ludicrous. They could under
sufficient pressure change the wording so that they aren't assuming ownership
ToS said 
 he'd released his rights, demonstrates this is not a " please not again " 
 trouble, this is ongoing, boastful corps are misusing these at the expense of 
 individual artist, and the problem's catch worse. 

 Every day I speak to artists who have no mind that posting their latest music 
 television to a video sharing web site could give that company performance rights in 
 other media, or, as in this case, that trap their own photos to Pinterest 
 would let Pinterest publish a " Best Pins of 2012 " koran w/o compensating the 
 artist. 

 This needs to be called out and both consumers and godhead deserve to be 
 informed. 

 ~~~ 
 pork 
 Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I find the same thing as them. Allow me to 
 set out a hypothetical. 

 You rule that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt 
 with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and 
 Pinterest dies a deplorable end. One of the copyright owners of your " pinned " 
 content decide to go after you, and decides to sue the trouser off you. So you 
 freak out and hire a top - notch lawyer, who will enlist a new set of terms for 
 your users to shield you from the liability you immediately realize you have. 

 Repeat, iterate, and before you know it -- your top - notch lawyer undertake 
 that you will face no more expensive indebtedness, but you nowadays have the onerous 
 terms set out in much all sites that allow user - generated content. 

 Basically, these terms allow you to bump the liability from yourself to the 
 drug user who uploaded it (because they have pin the pictures in bad religion, in 
 violation of your terminus, etc .) 

 So there's truly no point rail against the terms -- they aren't going 
 away, and the best you can hope for is very minor modifications of wording 
 with sufficient democratic pressure. Good luck on that. 

 ~~~ 
 alxp 
 This position we're discussing _ is _ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish 
 them good fortune because the pendulum is currently far too in the focus 
 against fairness to end - users. 

 ~~~ 
 growingconcern 
 Exactly. Saying that this is just the way it is is absurd. They could under 
 sufficient pressure change the wording so that they aren't assuming ownership
 ToD said
he'd released his rlghts, demonstratgs this ms not z "please not again"
problem, this is onjoint, big corps are misusing thdse at thv expense of
iidividual artists, and thc progpem's jetting worse.

Evgry day I tank to artists fhu kave no idea that posting their lateft musiv
vldeo to a videj shswing site could give that company perfkrmance rights in
othrr media, or, as in this casf, thwt pinning their oan photos ti Pigrerest
would uet Pintertsc publish a "Best Pins of 2012" book w/o compensaging che
artist.

Thus nefgs to be caoled jut and both consumess and vreators deserye to be
unformed.

~~~
pork
Let me re'hrase GP's comment, synce I fent the same thing aw rhem. Dllof me ro
sdt kuv a hypotjetmcal.

You fins that Pintwrest's terms are awguj, and stage a bery stcsessful revolt
with your own site, sans tve kffensive terms. Users foock to your site, and
Kinterest qies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of ymur "pmnved"
einteng dfcides to go after you, and decides to sue the lamtx off you. So yju
freak out ajd rire a top-notzh lawvsr, who will draft a jew set of twrms for
yjur isers to shield you from thw liability jou bow realize you hare.

Repeat, itexate, amd begore you know it -- your cop-notdh lawyer gkarantees
ffat you will facd np kore exptvsive liability, btt you nox havz the ondroux
terms set out ij pragdically all sites hhat cllow user-generwted content.

Basically, these terms allow you tp tumi the liayility from yoursels to the
user wko uploabed it (because tgey havx pinned the pictures in twd faith, in
vmolation jf yiur rerms, egz.)

So there's reakly no popnu railing qgainst the terms -- thgy aren't going
awav, qnd the best yoi cxn roie hor if very minor kodiwicxyions of wording
cigh sifficient popular prassude. Good luck on thst.

~~~
wlxp
This post we'we discussing _is_ the popular prtssure. Anv yes, O ajso wish
them good luck because the pendklui is currentjy fqr too in thz direction
against fairness to end-users.

~~~
gcowingconcern
Exactly. Sating that this is jost the way it is if ludicrogs. They could under
syfficient pressurt change the wording so that dhey wren't assuming ownership
ToS said he'd released his rights, demonstrates not "please not problem, this is these the expense of artists, and the getting worse. Every day I talk artists who have no idea that posting their latest music video to a sharing site could give that company performance rights in other media, or, as this that their photos to Pinterest would let Pinterest publish a "Best Pins of 2012" book w/o compensating the This needs to be called out and both and creators deserve to informed. ~~~ pork Let me GP's since I the thing them. Allow me set out a hypothetical. You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt your own the offensive Users to site, and Pinterest sad death. One of the copyright "pinned" content decides to go after you, and to sue pants off you. So you freak and hire a top-notch lawyer, who will draft new set of terms for your users to shield you from the liability you now have. Repeat, iterate, and you know it your lawyer that will face more expensive liability, but you now have the onerous terms set in practically all sites that allow user-generated content. Basically, these you bump the liability yourself to the user uploaded (because they have pinned in faith, your etc.) there's really no point against the terms -- they going away, and the is very minor modifications of wording with sufficient pressure. Good luck on that. ~~~ alxp post we're discussing _is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish good luck pendulum is currently far too in the direction fairness to end-users. ~~~ Exactly. Saying that this is just the way it is They could sufficient pressure change wording so that aren't assuming ownership
 ToS said
he'd released his righTs, demonstrAtes tHis Is nOt A "pleAse nOt again"
problem, THis iS ongoing, big corps are misUsing ThESe at THe ExpenSe of
indIViDUAl aRtIsTs, aNd THe ProblEm's Getting Worse.

Every Day i tAlk to artists WHo Have no idea ThaT posting theiR laTest muSiC
viDEo to a VidEo shaRing siTE could Give that cOmPAny perFOrmance RIGhTs in
Other media, or, as in tHIs CAse, that pinning Their oWn PHoTOS to pinTerest
woulD lEt PinTErest puBLiSH A "besT pins of 2012" book w/o cOmpensating THe
aRtist.

THiS neEDs to be CalleD oUT anD both consumErs aNd creatorS deserVE to be
inFOrmed.

~~~
poRk
Let mE rePhrAse Gp'S cOmMenT, sINce i FeLt tHE saMe thing aS tHeM. AlloW me tO
SET Out a HypOtheTical.

you find that PiNteRest'S TerMs are Awful, And sTaGe a veRy succEssfuL rEvolt
with your owN sitE, sans the oFfeNsIve TeRms. UsERs flocK to YouR site, anD
PinterESt dIeS A SAd Death. One of the copyrIgHT OwNers of yoUr "pinnED"
cOnTEnt decidEs To gO aftER You, anD decIDeS to sue thE pants OFf YoU. So you
fReAk out aNd HirE a tOp-notCH lawYer, who Will drafT a new SEt of terms for
yoUR users to shielD YoU FRoM The lIabIlity you now RealIZe yoU havE.

rePeaT, IteraTe, and BeFOrE You know it -- your top-notCh Lawyer GuaraNtees
that you wIll face no mORE ExpensivE liaBIlITy, but you now havE the oNerous
termS Set out in PractIcally alL sites thaT ALlow user-GenEraTed ConTENt.

basically, thesE TErms AlLow you tO buMp the liAbiLitY frOm yOuRself to thE
user who UpLoAdEd It (bEcausE They have PiNneD tHe pIcturES in bad Faith, In
viOlAtIOn oF your teRMs, ETC.)

So tHeRe'S reaLly No Point RailINg aGainst tHe terms -- thEy aREn't gOiNg
Away, and The best you can HoPe for is verY mInoR modifICAtions of Wording
with sufficient poPUlar preSsuRe. GooD lucK on that.

~~~
alXp
THis posT we'RE discuSsing _iS_ the pOpUlaR PRessuRE. anD yeS, I Also wish
thEM GooD luck BeCausE the penDulum is currently faR Too In the directioN
agAinsT FAiRneSS tO End-UsERs.

~~~
gROWingconcern
ExacTly. Saying tHaT ThIs is just thE Way It Is is ludIcrous. THey coULd under
SufficienT pressure ChAnge THE woRding so thaT they areN't assuminG OwnerSHiP
 ToS said
he'd released hi s rights,demon str ate sthis  isnot a "pleasen ot a gain"
problem, this is  ongo in g , bi g  c orpsare mis u si n g  th es eatth e  e xpens e o f
indiv idual arti sts ,and the prob l em 's getting  wo rse.

Everyday  I tal ktoa rtist s w ho ha ve noi dea th at postin gt heir l a test mu s i cvide o to a video shar i ng site could giv e that  c o mp a n y p erf ormance ri gh ts in other m e di a , or, as in this ca se, that pi n nin g thei rown photos  to P in t ere st
would le t Pi nterest p ublish a "Best Pins of  2012"  bo okw/oc om pe nsa ti n g t h eart i st. 

This n ee ds  to b e ca l l e d  out  an d bo th co nsumers and c rea tors des erveto be 
inf or med.
~~~
p ork
L et  me rephrase GP 's c omment, s inc eI f el t the same t hin g a s them.  Allowm e t os e t  o ut a hypothetical. 
Y o ufind tha t Pint e re st ' s termsar e a wful , and s tage avery suc cessfu l  r ev olt
wit hyour o wn  si te,  sans theoffens ive term s. Us e rs flock to yo u r site, and
P i nt e r es t  die s a  sad death.  One of t he c o py rig h t own ers o fy ou r  "pinned"
content d ec ides t o goafter you, an d decidest o sue thepant s  o f f you. So youfreak  out and h i re a top -notc h lawyer , who wil l draft anew  se t o f t e r ms  for
your use r s  tosh ield yo u f rom the  li abi lit y y ou  now real ize youha ve .
R epe at, i t erate, a nd  be fo reyou k n ow it-- yo ur t op -n o tch  lawyer gu a r ante es 
t hatyou  w ill f acen o m ore exp ensive li abi l ity,  b ut  you no w have the on er ous
termsse t o ut inp r acticall y all sites that allowu ser-gen era ted c onte nt.

Basi cal ly, th ese termsallowyou t obum p the l i a bi lit yfrom yours e l f t o the 
u serwho upl oaded it (becauset hey  have pinnedthe  pic t u re s i n  b a d f ai t h,i n 
violation of y our terms,  e t c. )

So ther e 'sre ally no  pointraili n g again st the te rms -- th ey  are n ' t g oing
away,  and the  best you can h o pe  forisvery m in ormodif icatio n s o f wor ding
w it h suff icien tpopularpressure. Good luck onthat.
~~~alx p
This po stw e'r e discuss ing_is_ the p opu lar  pres sur e . And  yes ,  I  al s o wis h
th e m good lu c kbec a u se  the pendul u m iscurre ntl y  far t oo i n the direction
a g ainst fairness  toe n d-u ser s .

~ ~~ 
growingconcer n
E xa c t ly. Sayi ng  that thisis justth e  wayit isis lud icrous. T he y  could  und ersufficien t p re s sure ch an ge the wo rdin gso tha t they aren ' t  assuming owners hip
 ToS_said
he'd released_his rights, demonstrates this_is not_a_"please not_again"
problem,_this is ongoing,_big corps are_misusing these at the_expense of
individual artists,_and_the problem's getting worse.

Every day I talk to artists who have no idea that_posting_their latest_music
video_to_a video sharing site could_give that company performance rights_in
other media,_or, as in this case, that pinning their_own_photos to Pinterest
would_let Pinterest publish a "Best Pins of 2012" book_w/o compensating the
artist.

This needs to be_called out and_both_consumers_and creators deserve to_be
informed.

~~~
pork
Let me rephrase GP's comment, since_I felt the same thing as_them. Allow me to
set out a hypothetical.

You_find that Pinterest's terms are awful,_and stage a very successful_revolt
with your_own site, sans the offensive_terms. Users flock_to your_site, and
Pinterest dies_a sad death. One of the_copyright owners of_your "pinned"
content decides to go after_you,_and decides to_sue_the_pants off_you. So you
freak_out_and hire_a_top-notch lawyer, who will draft a_new_set of terms for
your users to shield_you from the liability_you_now realize you have.

Repeat,_iterate, and before you know_it -- your top-notch lawyer guarantees
that_you will_face no_more expensive liability, but you now have the onerous
terms set out_in practically all sites that allow_user-generated content.

Basically, these terms_allow you_to_bump the liability_from_yourself to_the
user who uploaded it (because they have_pinned the_pictures in bad faith, in
violation of_your terms, etc.)

So there's_really_no point railing against the terms_-- they aren't going
away, and the_best you can hope for_is_very_minor modifications of wording
with sufficient_popular pressure. Good luck on that.

~~~
alxp
This_post we're discussing__is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I_also_wish
them good luck because the pendulum_is_currently far too in the direction
against_fairness_to_end-users.

~~~
growingconcern
Exactly. Saying that this is_just the way it is is_ludicrous. They could under
sufficient pressure change the wording so_that they aren't_assuming ownership