reproducing a low-
resolution copy for reference" to provide context.

Another aspect of fair use is "not depriving the owner of their own commercial
use of the work".

------
zaroth
If I'm a copyright holder who feels like my work is being misappropriated by
Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the user. Their Terms of Service
won't stop them from getting sued, and the indemnity clause won't magically
make money appear in their pockets to pay for their defense. If they decide to
start suing their users for recovery, that would be pretty amusing.

"I trusted the person who gave me the image" is not a legal defense for
copyright infringement. Their only chance is to stay within the DMCA safe
harbor or else they will eventually be shut down.

~~~
wpietri
As my lawyer explained to me long ago, who eventually "wins" a lawsuit is
rarely interesting. Cost, time, and agony to get there are much more relevant
factors.

The "our users represent that the content is theirs" may not keep Pinterest
from losing an eventual lawsuit, but it does complicate things enough that it
discourages legal action. That may be sufficient for them to cash out long
before the suits are complete.

Or, like YouTube, things like that may allow them to grow big enough that they
end up with sufficient negotiating power that they can get away with quite a
bit, and possibly reshape what's considered reasonable.

------
npsimons
I think many are dismissing this as "standard TOS/EULA legalese" and missing
the point. Let's consider a scenario: let's say you post some photos online,
and license them under the CC-By-SA license
(<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>). Then someone pins the
photos you took to Pinterest. Next, Pinterest sells the photos you took, then
catches someone copying or modifying the photos you took and sues them for
copyright. To top it all off, Pinterest doesn't even give you attribution.

This is _exactly_ the sort of thing that CC and GPL were created to combat:
ruining someone's life through the legal system based on abuse of the
copyright system. You want to sue someone over
reproducing a low- 
 resolution copy for reference " to leave context. 

 Another view of fair use is " not depriving the owner of their own commercial 
 consumption of the work ". 

 ------ 
 zaroth 
 If I'm a copyright holder who feels like my oeuvre is being embezzle by 
 Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the user. Their Terms of Service 
 won't stop them from getting action, and the indemnity clause won't magically 
 make money appear in their pocket to pay for their defense. If they decide to 
 start suing their users for convalescence, that would be pretty amusing. 

 " I trusted the person who gave me the picture " is not a legal defense for 
 copyright infringement. Their lone chance is to bide within the DMCA safe 
 harbor or else they will eventually be shut down. 

 ~~~ 
 wpietri 
 As my lawyer explained to me long ago, who finally " wins " a lawsuit is 
 rarely interesting. Cost, time, and agony to get there are much more relevant 
 gene. 

 The " our users represent that the content is theirs " may not keep Pinterest 
 from losing an eventual lawsuit, but it does complicate things enough that it 
 discourages legal action. That may be sufficient for them to cash out long 
 before the suits are complete. 

 Or, like YouTube, thing like that may allow them to grow adult enough that they 
 end up with sufficient negotiating exponent that they can get away with quite a 
 bit, and possibly reshape what's regard reasonable. 

 ------ 
 npsimons 
 I think many are dismissing this as " standard TOS / EULA legalese " and missing 
 the distributor point. Let's consider a scenario: let's say you post some photos online, 
 and license them under the CC - By - SA license 
 (< http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ >). Then someone pin the 
 photos you took to Pinterest. Next, Pinterest sells the photos you take, then 
 catches someone copy or modifying the photos you took and sues them for 
 copyright. To top it all off, Pinterest doesn't even pass you attribution. 

 This is _ exactly _ the sort of thing that CC and GPL were create to combat: 
 ruining someone's life through the legal system base on abuse of the 
 copyright system. You desire to sue someone over
repgoducing a low-
resolution copy for refergnxe" to 'rovide context.

Xnother aspect of fair use id "bot dtiriving the owner of gheir own commercual
uww of the work".

------
zarotm
Nf I'm w co'ycight holder whp feels line my work is tekny misappropriated by
Pinterest, I'm goigg to sie Pinterest, not the tser. Nhtir Terms of Service
won't stop thej from jetting sued, anc the indemnity clause won'h mahically
make money wppear in tyeir pockets to pxy for thepx defense. Ir they decide to
start suing thekr uszrs for recivwry, jhat would bx pretny amusing.

"I tvlsted tve perspn who gave me thx imqge" is not a legal dehense for
copyright igfringemett. Their only chancw us to staf wigyin tht DKCZ safe
jaruor or else they will wventually be shut corb.

~~~
wpietri
As my lawyew qxplained to me long ago, who eventually "wihs" a lawsuit is
rarely ibteresting. Cost, time, wnd agony to get there are much more relevant
factors.

The "ous usecs rekrcfdbt that the content is theirs" may not keep Pintqdext
nrom losing an eyentual lawsuit, buy lt qoes complicaje thinya snough that it
disclurages legao action. Uhat kay be sufficient for them ro cash out jing
before the suitd are complzte.

Or, kike UouTube, things like thac may zllow them ho grow bje enough that thdy
ekd gp with sufficient negotiaeing powec thac they cxn ggt away with quitf a
bib, and possibly reshwpe wkat's wonsidered reasonable.

------
npsimons
I think many are dismissinb dhiv as "staudard BOS/EULA legalesq" and missing
tke point. Let's consider z scenacio: let's say you post soma photos onliie,
and licqnse then under ghe CC-By-SA licrnse
(<http://cgectivecommins.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>). Thgn someone pins tkt
phitos you took tp Pkntqrvst. Nqft, Pinterest selus gne phutos you toiy, thrn
catches someone co[yinf or modifying the pmotos you took anq sues them fpr
copyright. To top it anl uff, Pontgrest doesn't even give you attrjbution.

Thls ls _exactly_ thq sovt os thing thct CC and GPL were created to combat:
ruinmng someone's life throogh the legal system yaxed on abusx of tre
copyrigvt system. You want ti sue someone ovev
reproducing a low- resolution copy for reference" context. aspect of use is "not own use of the ------ zaroth If a copyright holder who feels like work is being misappropriated by Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the Their Terms of Service won't stop them from getting sued, and the indemnity won't make appear their pockets to pay for their defense. If they decide to start suing their users for that would be pretty amusing. "I trusted the who gave me the is not a legal defense copyright Their only is stay the DMCA safe or else they will eventually be shut down. ~~~ wpietri As my lawyer explained to me long who eventually lawsuit is interesting. time, agony to get much more relevant factors. The "our the content is theirs" may not keep Pinterest losing an lawsuit, but it does complicate things that it discourages legal action. That may be for them to cash out long before the suits are complete. Or, like YouTube, things may allow them to big enough that end with negotiating that they get away with quite a bit, and possibly reshape what's considered ------ npsimons I think many are dismissing this as "standard and the point. Let's a scenario: let's say post photos online, and license the license pins photos took to Pinterest. Next, sells the photos you took, catches someone copying or and sues them for copyright. To top it off, Pinterest doesn't even give you attribution. is _exactly_ the sort of thing that CC and GPL were created combat: ruining through the legal system based on abuse of copyright system. You want sue someone over
reproducing a low-
resolution Copy for refErencE" to ProViDe coNtexT.

Another aspect OF faiR use is "not depriving the oWner oF tHEir oWN cOmmerCial
use OF tHE WorK".

------
zArOth
if i'M a CopyrIghT holder Who feels liKe mY wOrk is being miSApPropriated By
PInterest, I'm goIng To sue PInTerESt, not The User. THeir TeRMs of SeRvice
won't StOP them fROm gettiNG SuEd, anD the indemnity clauSE wON't magically
makE money ApPEaR IN thEir Pockets to pAy For thEIr defenSE. IF THEy dECide to
start suIng their useRS foR recovErY, thAT would Be preTtY AmuSing.

"I trusteD the Person who Gave me THe image" IS not a leGal defEnsE foR
copYRiGhT inFrINgeMEnT. ThEIr oNly chancE iS tO stay WithIN THE DMCa saFe
haRbor oR else they will EveNtuaLLy bE shut Down.

~~~
wPietRi
as my lAwyer eXplaiNeD to me long ago, who EvenTually "winS" a lAwSuiT iS
rareLY interEstIng. cost, timE, and agoNY to GeT THErE are much more relevaNt
FACtOrs.

The "ouR users REpReSEnt that tHe ConTent IS TheirS" may NOt Keep PintErest
fROm LoSing an eVeNtual lAwSuiT, buT it doES comPlicatE things eNough THat it
discouragES legal action. THAt MAY bE SuffIciEnt for them tO casH Out lOng
bEFoRe tHE suitS are cOmPLeTE.

Or, like YouTube, thingS lIke thaT may aLlow them to groW big enough THAT they
end Up wiTH sUFficient negotiAting Power that tHEy can get Away wIth quite A
bit, and poSSIbly reshApe WhaT's cOnsIDErEd reasonable.

------
nPSImonS
I Think maNy aRe dismiSsiNg tHis As "sTaNdard TOS/EuLA legalEsE" aNd MiSsiNg
the POint. Let's CoNsiDeR a sCenarIO: let's sAy you Post SoMe PHotOs onlinE,
AnD LIcenSe ThEm unDer ThE CC-By-sA liCEnsE
(<http://crEativecomMonS.Org/lIcEnSes/by-sa/3.0/>). then someone piNs The
photos yOu TooK to PinTERest. Next, pinterest sells the photos YOu took, tHen
CatchEs soMeone copyIng Or modiFyiNG the phOtos yoU took AnD suES Them fOR
CoPyrIgHt. To top it aLL Off, pinteReSt doEsn't eveN give you attributioN.

thiS is _exactly_ the SorT of tHINg ThaT cC ANd GpL WEre CREated to combat:
ruIning someoNe'S LiFe through tHE leGaL system Based on Abuse OF the
copYright sysTem. You wanT tO sue SOMeoNe over
reproducing a low-
resolut ion copy f or re fer enc e"  toprov ide context.
A noth er aspect of fair useis "n ot depr i vi ng th e owner of t hei row n c om m er cialuse  of the  work".

- --- -- 
zaroth
If I ' ma copyrigh t h older who fe els  likemy  wo r k isbei ng mi sappro p riated  by
Pinte re s t, I'm going t o su e Pi nterest, not theu se r . Their Termsof Ser vi c ew o n't  st op them fr om  gett i ng sued ,  a n d the indemnity cla use won't m a gic ally
m ak e m o ney ap pearin the ir pocketsto p ay for th eir de f ense. I f  they d ecidetosta rt s u in gthe ir use r sfor rec overy, t ha twould  bep r e t ty a mus ing. 

"Itrusted the p ers on w h o g ave m e the  ima ge " isnot alegal  d efense for
copy righ t infring eme nt . T he ir on l y chan ceisto stay  within the  D M C A  s afe
harbor or else  t h e ywill eve ntuall y  b es hut down .
~~ ~
wp i e tri
A s my la wyer exp lained to  m e longag o, who  e ven tua lly " w ins"  a law suit israrel y  interesting.C ost, time, an d  a g o ny to g etthere are m uchm orerele v an t
f a ctors .

Th e" ou r  users represent th at  the c onten t is theirs"may not ke e p Pinteres t
fr o ml osing an event ual l awsuit, bu t  it does  comp licate t hings eno u g h that i t
d isc our age s le gal action. T h a t ma ybe suff ici ent for  th emtocas hout longbefore t he  s ui ts  ar e com p lete.

O r,  li ke  Yo uTube ,  thing s lik e th at  m a y a llow th e mt o  gro wbi g en oug hthatthey end  up wit h suffici ent nego ti at ing pow er that theyca n get away  w ith  quite a 
bit, an d possibly reshape what ' s consi der ed re ason able.

-- --- -
npsi mon s 
I thi nk man y are  d ism i s singt h is  as  " standard T O S /EU LA le ga lese " and m issing
the point.L et' s consider asce nari o :  l et' s  s a y y ou pos t some photos onl ine,
and l ic e ns e them und e r t he  CC-By- SA lice nse
( < http:// creativec ommons.or g/ lice n s es/ by-sa/3.0/ >). Then  someonep ins t h ephoto s y ou too ktoPinte rest.N ext , Pin terest  s ells t he ph ot os you t ook, then
catches someo ne cop yingormodifying  th e  ph otos youtook  and suesthe m f or
co pyr i ght.To t o pita ll of f, P i nterest d o es n't e ve n give youa t t rib ution .
T his is  _ex actly_ the sort o f  thing that CC  and G PLwer e  cre at ed to combat:rui ni n g  someone 's  life throu gh the l eg a l sys tem ba sed on  abuseo f  t h e
copy righ t s ystem. Yo u w an t  to sue  s om e one ov er
reproducing a_low-
resolution copy_for reference" to provide_context.

Another aspect_of_fair use_is_"not depriving the_owner of their_own commercial
use of the_work".

------
zaroth
If I'm a_copyright_holder who feels like my work is being misappropriated by
Pinterest, I'm going to sue_Pinterest,_not the_user._Their_Terms of Service
won't stop them_from getting sued, and the_indemnity clause_won't magically
make money appear in their pockets to_pay_for their defense._If they decide to
start suing their users for recovery,_that would be pretty amusing.

"I trusted_the person who_gave_me_the image" is not_a legal defense for
copyright infringement. Their_only chance is to stay within_the DMCA safe
harbor or else they will_eventually be shut down.

~~~
wpietri
As my lawyer_explained to me long ago,_who eventually_"wins" a lawsuit is
rarely interesting._Cost, time, and_agony to_get there are_much more relevant
factors.

The "our users represent_that the content_is theirs" may not keep Pinterest
from_losing_an eventual lawsuit,_but_it_does complicate_things enough that_it
discourages_legal action._That_may be sufficient for them to_cash_out long
before the suits are complete.

Or, like_YouTube, things like that_may_allow them to grow_big enough that they
end up_with sufficient negotiating power that they_can get_away with_quite a
bit, and possibly reshape what's considered reasonable.

------
npsimons
I think many are_dismissing this as "standard TOS/EULA legalese"_and missing
the point. Let's_consider a_scenario:_let's say you_post_some photos_online,
and license them under the CC-By-SA license
(<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>)._Then someone_pins the
photos you took to Pinterest._Next, Pinterest sells the_photos_you took, then
catches someone copying or_modifying the photos you took and_sues them for
copyright. To top_it_all_off, Pinterest doesn't even give_you attribution.

This is _exactly_ the sort_of thing that_CC and GPL were created to combat:
ruining_someone's_life through the legal system based_on_abuse of the
copyright system. You want_to_sue_someone over