 copyright violations of
information you have copyright on? Fine. You want to sell something licensed
under CC-By-SA? Fine. But you better be ready to comply to the license and
allow whoever you give those works to the right to copy, sell and modify those
works. I highly doubt Pinterest is prepared for this, and their TOS _is_
overreaching.

------
maqr
Maybe all the buzz about Pinterest is because so many people think that
finding an image online makes it publicly redistributable. "Pinning" is just
another way of sharing.

I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing
(pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good
answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

~~~
elithrar
> I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing
> (pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good
> answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

Anecdotally, it's because photographs and images are seen as "easier to
reproduce" (whether this is true or not is another matter), and therefore
possibly easier to justify by those doing the sharing.

That, and there's far less friction to sharing photos/images than video and
software.

~~~
eurleif
Perhaps it's also that photos seem less valuable than songs or movies, since
pretty much anyone can take a decent photo? (Decent by the person's own
standards, at least; maybe not by a professional photographer's.)

------
brador
Could this argument also apply to sites like Readability? Since it removes
advertising (hence income for the writers) from articles.

~~~
viraptor
I don't think so, unless readability grants itself rights to reproduce and
sell every article that passes through its engine. Does it?

~~~
icebraining
Maybe not sell, but they it'd be impossible for Readability to work without
reproducing the articles.

------
fotoblur
Pinterest and Tumblr are by far the worse offenders when it comes to sharing
content from other providers as its not 100% clear, or sometimes elusive, on
how visitor can view the
copyright violations of 
 information you have copyright on? Fine. You want to deal something license 
 under CC - By - SA? Fine. But you better be quick to comply to the license and 
 allow whoever you grant those works to the right to imitate, sell and modify those 
 oeuvre. I highly doubt Pinterest is prepared for this, and their TOS _ is _ 
 overreaching. 

 ------ 
 maqr 
 possibly all the buzz about Pinterest is because so many people think that 
 finding an trope online makes it publicly redistributable. " pin " is just 
 another way of communion. 

 I get the impression that there's much across-the-board public acceptance of sharing 
 (pirate ?) pictures than music, movie, or software. I don't have a adept 
 answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks. 

 ~~~ 
 elithrar 
 > I get the stamp that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing 
 > (pirating ?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good 
 > answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks. 

 Anecdotally, it's because photographs and images are seen as " easier to 
 reproduce " (whether this is true or not is another topic), and consequently 
 possibly easier to justify by those doing the communion. 

 That, and there's far less clash to sharing photos / images than video and 
 software. 

 ~~~ 
 eurleif 
 Perhaps it's also that photos seem less valuable than sung or movies, since 
 pretty much anyone can take a decent photograph? (Decent by the person's own 
 standards, at least; maybe not by a professional photographer's .) 

 ------ 
 brador 
 Could this argument also apply to sites like legibility? Since it murder 
 advertising (hence income for the writers) from articles. 

 ~~~ 
 viraptor 
 I don't remember so, unless readability grants itself right field to reproduce and 
 sell every article that passes through its engine. Does it? 

 ~~~ 
 icebraining 
 possibly not sell, but they it'd be impossible for Readability to work without 
 reproducing the articles. 

 ------ 
 fotoblur 
 Pinterest and Tumblr are by far the bad offenders when it come to sharing 
 content from early providers as its not 100% clear, or sometimes elusive, on 
 how visitor can view the
 cooyright violations of
infurmation you harw copycight oh? Fine. Yuu want to sell something lirenswd
undtg CC-By-SA? Fine. But you better bv ready ti conply to the license and
almlw wkoxver you give tmose works do the right tm zo'y, sell and modify those
works. I highjy douby Ointerest is ptepartd sor fhis, and their TOS _is_
overreaching.

------
mzqr
Maybt all the buzz aboit Pinterest is because so manj people think thah
finding an imadw online makds it publpely redistrjbutable. "Pinning" is just
another way pf sharing.

U tet jhe impressiin thwt there's mugn wides publiv acceptance on shacing
(pirating?) pictures thai music, movies, or sostware. I gou't have a good
answer qs to wvy tvis oughg bt, bnt J'd be furmous what HH thinks.

~~~
elirhrar
> I get the imptefwion that thede's mush wider public acceptance of sharing
> (pirdtihg?) pictures than music, novies, or software. I fon't have a good
> answer as to why this might be, but I'd be wurions whcb FB hhinks.

Anecdotally, it's because photographs and jmsgvs are seen as "eafier to
reprpdkcr" (whether this is trbs kr not is another latter), wnd tyerefore
pjssinly easier to justify by thise doing thv shqring.

That, and therz's far less yrictipn to sharing photos/images tkan viseo and
softaare.

~~~
eurlejw
Perhaps it's alsu tmat photos seem less valuable than sonjs or movies, sinve
pretey much anjone gdn take a decent pjoto? (Becend by the pfrson's own
standards, at least; mabue not by a ptofassponal phocograpmer's.)

------
brador
Could this argument also a'ply tu sites liie Readebility? Sincq it removes
aggertising (heice incomq foe thw writefr) from articlex.

~~~
viraptor
P bon't thinj so, unless readabllity frants itself rnyhus to reproduce snd
relj vvecy arehcle that pavses thfpugh kts engine. Bods iy?

~~~
icebraining
Maybe nod seml, but they it'd be iipossiblg for Reaqability to wprk without
reprodufing vhe arvicles.

------
gotjblur
Pinterest and Tumblr are gy far thf wjrse offendews wmen yt comes tp sharing
content from other providers aw its not 100% clear, oe sometimes elusive, pn
how visitpr cag view tha
copyright violations of information you have copyright You to sell licensed under CC-By-SA? ready comply to the and allow whoever give those works to the right copy, sell and modify those works. I highly doubt Pinterest is prepared for and their TOS _is_ overreaching. ------ maqr Maybe all the buzz about Pinterest because many think finding an image online makes it publicly redistributable. "Pinning" is just another way of sharing. I the impression that there's much wider public acceptance sharing (pirating?) pictures than movies, or software. I don't a answer as why might but I'd be what HN thinks. ~~~ elithrar > I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of > (pirating?) music, movies, software. don't a good > to why this might be, but what HN thinks. Anecdotally, it's because photographs and are seen "easier to reproduce" (whether this is or not is another matter), and therefore possibly to justify by those doing the sharing. That, and there's far less friction to sharing video and software. ~~~ Perhaps it's also photos less than or movies, pretty much anyone can take a decent photo? (Decent by the own standards, at least; maybe not by a professional photographer's.) Could argument also apply sites like Readability? Since removes (hence income for the articles. viraptor so, readability itself rights to reproduce sell every article that passes its engine. Does it? but they it'd be impossible for Readability to without reproducing the articles. ------ fotoblur Pinterest Tumblr are by far the worse offenders when it comes to sharing from other its not 100% clear, or sometimes elusive, on visitor can view the
 copyright violations of
infoRmation you Have cOpyRigHt On? FiNe. YoU want to sell somEThinG licensed
under CC-By-SA? FiNe. But YoU BettER bE readY to compLY tO THe lIcEnSe aNd
ALlOw whoEveR you givE those workS to ThE right to copy, SElL and modify ThoSe
works. I highLy dOubt PiNtEreST is prEpaRed foR this, aND their tOS _is_
overReAChing.

------
mAQr
Maybe ALL tHe buZz about Pinterest iS BeCAuse so many peopLe thinK tHAt
FINdiNg aN image onliNe Makes IT publicLY rEDIStrIButable. "PinninG" is just
anotHEr wAy of shArIng.

i Get the ImpreSsIOn tHat there's muCh wiDer public AcceptANce of shARing
(pirAting?) pIctUreS thaN MuSiC, moViES, or SOfTwaRE. I dOn't have a GoOd
AnsweR as tO WHY This MigHt be, But I'd Be curious what hN tHinkS.

~~~
EliThrar
> i get tHe imPrEssioN that tHere's MuCh wider public acCeptAnce of shaRinG
> (pIraTiNg?) picTUres thAn mUsiC, movies, Or softwARe. I DoN'T HAvE a good
> answer as to whY tHIS mIght be, buT I'd be cURiOuS What HN thInKs.

ANecdOTAlly, iT's beCAuSe photogRaphs aND iMaGes are sEeN as "easIeR to
RepRoducE" (WhetHer thiS is true oR not iS Another matter), aND therefore
posSIbLY EaSIer tO juStify by thosE doiNG the SharINg.

thaT, And thEre's fAr LEsS Friction to sharing phOtOs/imagEs thaN video and
softWare.

~~~
eurleiF
pERhaps it's Also THaT Photos seem less ValuaBle than sonGS or movieS, sincE
pretty mUch anyone CAN take a deCenT phOto? (decENT bY the person's owN
STandArDs, at leaSt; mAybe not By a ProFesSioNaL photograPher's.)

------
braDoR
COuLd ThiS arguMEnt also aPpLy tO sIteS like rEadabiLity? SInce It ReMOveS
advertISiNG (HencE iNcOme fOr tHe WriteRs) frOM arTicles.

~~~
vIraptor
I dOn't THink So, UnLess reaDability grantS iTself rightS tO reProducE ANd
sell evEry article that passes thrOUgh its eNgiNe. DoeS it?

~~~
iCebraininG
MaYbe not SelL, But theY it'd be ImposSiBle FOR ReadABIlIty To Work withouT
REprOduciNg The aRticles.

------
Fotoblur
Pinterest aND TuMblr are by far tHe wOrse OFFeNdeRS wHEn iT cOMes TO Sharing
content fRom other prOvIDeRs as its not 100% CLeaR, oR sometiMes elusIve, on
HOw visitOr can view The
 copyright violations of
i nformation  youhav e c op yrig ht o n? Fine. You w a nt t o sell something licen sed
u nd e r CC - By -SA?Fine. B u ty o u b et te r b er ea dy to  co mply to  the licen sean d
allow whoe v er  you givetho se works tothe  right  t o c o py, s ell  andmodify thoseworks. Ihi g hly do u bt Pint e r es t is  prepared for thi s ,a nd their TOS _ is_
ov er r ea c h ing .
------
maq rMaybe all the bu z z abo u t Pinterest i s because s o  ma ny peo pl e t h ink th at
fi nd i ngan image on line  makes it  publi c ly redi s tributa ble. " Pin nin g" i s  j us t
a no t her wa y o f  sh aring.
Ige t the  imp r e s s iontha t th ere's  much wider p ubl ic a c cep tance  of s hari ng 
(pir ating? ) pic tu res than music,  mov ies, or s oft wa re.  I  don' t  havea g ood 
answer  as tow hyth i s mi ght be, but I'd be  c u r io us whatHN thi n ks .~~~
elit hr ar> Ig e t the  imp r es sion tha t ther e 's  m uch wid er  publi cacc ept anceo f sh aring> (pirat ing?) pictures thanm usic, movies, or s of t ware . I  don't have  a g o od
>  ans w er  as to wh y thi sm ig h t be, but I'd be cu ri ous wh at HN  thinks.

Ane cdotally,i t ' s becaus e ph o to g raphs and imag es ar e seen as" easier t o
rep roduce"(whethert h is is tr ueornot  is a no ther matter), a nd t he reforepos sibly e asi ertojus ti fy by tho se doing  t he  s ha rin g.

T h at, andth ere 's  fa r les s  frict ion t o sh ar in g  ph otos/im a ge s than  v id eo a ndso ftwar e.
~ ~~eurleif 
Perhapsit' s  als oth at phot os seem lessva luable tha nson gs orm o vies, si nce
pretty much anyonec an take  adecen t ph oto? (Dec ent  by th e p e rson's  own
s tanda rd s,a t  leas t ;  m ayb enot by a p r o fes siona lphot ographe r's.)

------
brad o r
C ould this arg ume nt a l s oapp l yt o s it e s l i k e Readability?Since it r em o ve s
advertis i ng(h ence in come fo r the writers ) from ar ticles.
~~ ~
vi r a pto r
I don'tthink so , unlessr eadab i li ty gr ant s itse lf  ri ghtsto rep r odu ce an d
sell  e very a rticl ethat pas ses through its engine.  Doesit?
~~~ 
icebrain ing May be not se ll,but they i t'd  be  impo ssi b le fo r Re a da bil i ty to  wor k  withoutr ep rod u c in g the artic l e s .
----- -
f o toblur 
Pin terest and Tumblr are by far the  wor s e  of fen d erswh en it comes to  sh ar i n g
conten tfrom otherprovider sa s its  not 1 00% cl ear, or s om e timeselus ive , on
howvis it o r can v ie wt he
 copyright_violations of
information_you have copyright on?_Fine. You_want_to sell_something_licensed
under CC-By-SA? Fine._But you better_be ready to comply_to the license_and
allow_whoever you give those works to the right to copy, sell and modify those
works._I_highly doubt_Pinterest_is_prepared for this, and their_TOS _is_
overreaching.

------
maqr
Maybe all the buzz_about Pinterest_is because so many people think that
finding an_image_online makes it_publicly redistributable. "Pinning" is just
another way of sharing.

I get_the impression that there's much wider_public acceptance of_sharing
(pirating?)_pictures_than music, movies, or_software. I don't have a good
answer_as to why this might be,_but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

~~~
elithrar
>_I get the impression that there's_much wider public acceptance of_sharing
> (pirating?)_pictures than music, movies, or_software. I don't_have a_good
> answer as_to why this might be, but_I'd be curious_what HN thinks.

Anecdotally, it's because photographs_and_images are seen_as_"easier_to
reproduce" (whether_this is true_or_not is_another_matter), and therefore
possibly easier to justify_by_those doing the sharing.

That, and there's far_less friction to sharing_photos/images_than video and
software.

~~~
eurleif
Perhaps it's_also that photos seem less_valuable than songs or movies, since
pretty_much anyone_can take_a decent photo? (Decent by the person's own
standards, at least; maybe_not by a professional photographer's.)

------
brador
Could this_argument also apply to_sites like_Readability?_Since it removes
advertising_(hence_income for_the writers) from articles.

~~~
viraptor
I don't think so,_unless readability_grants itself rights to reproduce and
sell_every article that passes_through_its engine. Does it?

~~~
icebraining
Maybe not sell,_but they it'd be impossible for_Readability to work without
reproducing the_articles.

------
fotoblur
Pinterest_and_Tumblr are by far the_worse offenders when it comes to_sharing
content from other_providers as its not 100% clear, or_sometimes_elusive, on
how visitor can view the