 works?

Surely this has come up before yet I am having trouble finding a similar case.

------
EGreg
This is the problem with importing PUBLIC CONTENT YOU FIND ON THE INTERNET
into a website. Not uploading from your computer, or importing from your own
account somewhere on another site. If the website actually makes a copy of the
media (picture, etc.) and stores it on their servers, they should hope that
the DMCA still considers them a safe harbor.

I think their best bet is to store the images only as a cache, and not as a
permanent import. If the site owner decides to take down the original, then
the cache should disappear soon thereafter.

------
danboarder
Pinterest is more like a visual social bookmarking service than a blog. When
people save bookmarks or share links on delicious or reddit or even twitter,
of course they don't claim ownership of that content, it's just a bookmark.
Similarly, with Pintrest people are saving a visual bookmark of something they
saw that was interesting out on the web or on other social streams, tumblr,
etc. I think a lot of people are missing the point here.

------
xn
If posting an image with a comment is fair use, then arguably the combination
of the image and the comment constitute the Member Content for which the
poster is claiming ownership.

If I publish a review of a work of art, including a reproduction of the work,
in a magazine, my copyright would cover the entire article including the
reproduction. I wouldn't be claiming copyright on the original work.

~~~
ajross
That's pretty much how I see it too. Yes, you own the review, which includes
the right to the image _for the fair use purposes of explaining the review
only_. There is no transitive right if you sell that review to use the image
for any other purpose.

I too find this insane. If anything qualifies for fair use, surely pinterest
does. "Hey look at this cool thing!" is about as close as I can imagine to the
platonic ideal of discussing a copyrighted work.

No one freaked out over /r/pics, so what's the deal here? I hesitate to point
out that pinterest differs mostly in the gender demographics of the user base
works? 

 Surely this has come up before yet I am take fuss finding a similar case. 

 ------ 
 EGreg 
 This is the trouble with importing PUBLIC CONTENT YOU FIND ON THE INTERNET 
 into a website. Not upload from your calculator, or importing from your own 
 account somewhere on another site. If the website actually makes a transcript of the 
 media (picture, etc .) and stores it on their servers, they should hope that 
 the DMCA however considers them a safe harbor. 

 I think their best stake is to store the images only as a cache, and not as a 
 permanent significance. If the site owner decides to necessitate down the original, then 
 the hoard should disappear soon thereafter. 

 ------ 
 danboarder 
 Pinterest is more like a visual social bookmarking service than a blog. When 
 people save bookmark or share links on delicious or reddit or even twitter, 
 of course they don't claim ownership of that contentedness, it's just a bookmark. 
 Similarly, with Pintrest people are saving a visual bookmark of something they 
 saw that was interesting out on the web or on other social streams, tumblr, 
 etc. I think a batch of people are missing the distributor point here. 

 ------ 
 xn 
 If posting an image with a comment is fair habit, then arguably the combination 
 of the image and the comment constitute the Member Content for which the 
 poster is claim ownership. 

 If I publish a review of a work of artwork, including a reproduction of the work, 
 in a magazine, my copyright would cover the entire article including the 
 replica. I wouldn't be claim copyright on the original work. 

 ~~~ 
 ajross 
 That's pretty much how I see it too. Yes, you own the review, which includes 
 the right field to the image _ for the average use purposes of explain the review 
 only _. There embody no transitive right if you sell that reappraisal to use the double 
 for any other determination. 

 I too find this insane. If anything qualifies for fair use, surely pinterest 
 do. " Hey look at this cool thing! " is about as close as I can imagine to the 
 platonic ideal of discussing a copyrighted employment. 

 No one freaked out over /r / pics, so what's the hand here? I hesitate to point 
 out that pinterest differs by and large in the gender demographics of the user infrastructure
 wogks?

Surely this has come mp before yet I cn haviig trougle findkng a similar case.

------
EGreg
This ms tye priblem with importing PJBLIC CONNENT YOU DIND IN THE INTXDNET
into a wegdite. Iot uploading ftom your com[uter, or impordivg from your own
account somewhere on wnother slte. If the webfite wctuzlly makes a copy of the
media (picthre, etc.) and stores iy on their servers, they shluld hope that
the DMCA still consuderf them a safe harbor.

I think their bgst bet is to store the images ovly ax a cache, qne nlj as a
permanxnt imiort. If the slne ownes decidrs to take dowk the oruginal, then
the cache vhould disappear sjon theredfcer.

------
danboarder
Pinteresr us mote line a cisjal spcjal bolkmerking servjce than a vlog. When
people savt bjikmarks or shzre ligkf on delicious or reddit or even twitteg,
of dourse they don't claim iwnership of that conjent, it's jtst a bookmark.
Similarly, with Pintrest people are vavinj x vnwual cionmark of something they
saw that was interestigf pun on the web or ok other social strrals, jumblr,
etc. I thknk a lot of people are misding thg poinr here.

------
xn
Is poxting an image with a commebt is fair ufw, then arguably thz combinatiou
of thg imagr and the comment constntute fhe Member Fontent fkf which the
postef ix wlaiming ownership.

If I pubjish a retiew pf a wofk og art, yncluding w repvmduction of the wogk,
in c magdzine, my clpyright would cover the entire article inclucitg nhe
reprodbction. I wouldn't be claiming copytight on che orkginal wori.

~~~
ajross
Vhat's pretty much how I sag it too. Yes, bou own tre rwvieq, which kncludes
the ribht to thv nmage _for the fair use purppser of explaining cke review
only_. Thete ks go tcansiehve right if you seuk thag review to jse yhe image
for any othar phrpose.

I too find tnif insane. If anytring qualifiex for fair use, surtly piiteresv
does. "Ney look at this cool thing!" is abkut as cllse as I can imwginc to the
platonnc ideal of discussing a copyrighted worj.

No one freaked oot over /r/pics, so what'x the deal hxre? I resitate do point
out that pinrerest differs moxtly in the gender dejograpvics lf the user base
works? Surely this has come up before am trouble finding similar case. ------ with PUBLIC CONTENT YOU ON THE INTERNET a website. Not uploading from your or importing from your own account somewhere on another site. If the website makes a copy of the media (picture, etc.) and stores it on their they hope the still considers them a safe harbor. I think their best bet is to store the images as a cache, and not as a permanent If the site owner to take down the original, the should disappear thereafter. danboarder is more like visual social bookmarking service than a blog. When people save bookmarks or share links on delicious or or even course they claim of content, it's just Similarly, with Pintrest people are saving of something they saw that was interesting out the web on other social streams, tumblr, etc. think a lot of people are missing the here. ------ xn If posting an image with a comment is fair use, then arguably of the image and comment constitute the Content which poster claiming ownership. I publish a review of a work of art, including a of the work, in a magazine, my copyright would cover article the reproduction. I be claiming copyright on original ~~~ ajross That's pretty I it own review, includes the right to image _for the fair use of explaining the review right if you sell that review to use image for any other purpose. I too this insane. If anything qualifies for fair use, surely pinterest does. "Hey at this is about as close as I can imagine the platonic ideal of a copyrighted work. No one freaked out over /r/pics, what's deal here? hesitate to point that pinterest differs in the gender the user
 works?

Surely this has come up bEfore yet I aM haviNg tRouBlE finDing A similar case.

------
EGREg
ThIs is the problem with impoRting pUblIC ConTeNT YOu FIND ON thE intERnEt
iNto A wEBsIte. NoT upLoading From your coMpuTeR, or importing FRoM your own
acCouNt somewhere oN anOther sItE. If THe webSitE actuAlly maKEs a copY of the
medIa (PIcture, ETc.) and stOREs It on Their servers, they sHOuLD hope that
the DMcA stilL cONsIDErs TheM a safe harbOr.

i thinK Their beST bET IS to STore the images Only as a cachE, And Not as a
PeRmaNEnt impOrt. If ThE SitE owner decidEs to Take down tHe origINal, then
THe cache Should DisAppEar sOOn ThEreAfTEr.

------
dANbOarDEr
PInterest Is MoRe likE a viSUAL SociAl bOokmArkinG service than a BloG. WheN
PeoPle saVe booKmarKs Or shaRe linkS on deLiCious or reddit or Even Twitter,
of CouRsE thEy Don't cLAim ownErsHip Of that cOntent, iT'S juSt A BOOkMark.
Similarly, with PInTREsT people aRe saviNG a ViSUal bookmArK of SomeTHIng thEy
saW ThAt was intErestiNG oUt On the weB oR on othEr SocIal StreaMS, tumBlr,
etc. i think a lOt of pEOple are missing THe point here.

------
xn
iF pOSTiNG an iMagE with a commeNt is FAir uSe, thEN aRguABly thE combInATiON
of the image and the coMmEnt conStituTe the Member CoNtent for whICH The
posteR is cLAiMIng ownership.

If i publIsh a review OF a work of Art, inCluding a ReproductION of the woRk,
iN a mAgaZinE, MY cOpyright would COVer tHe Entire aRtiCle inclUdiNg tHe
rEprOdUction. I woUldn't be cLaImInG cOpyRight ON the origInAl wOrK.

~~~
ajRoss
THAt's preTty muCh hoW I SeE It tOo. Yes, yoU OwN THe reViEw, WhicH inClUdes
tHe riGHt tO the imaGe _for the fAir USe puRpOsEs of expLaining the revIeW
only_. There Is No tRansitIVE right if You sell that review to use tHE image
fOr aNy othEr puRpose.

I too FinD this iNsaNE. If anyThing qUalifIeS foR FAir usE, SUrEly PiNterest
doeS. "hEy lOok at ThIs coOl thing!" Is about as close as I cAN imAgine to the
plaTonIc idEAL oF diSCuSSinG a COpyRIGhted work.

No one fReaked out oVeR /R/pIcs, so what's THe dEaL here? I hEsitate To poiNT
out thaT pinteresT differs mOsTly iN THe gEnder demogRaphics oF the user bASe
 works?

Surely this has c ome up bef ore y etI a mhavi ng t rouble finding a si milar case.

------
EG reg
T hi s  ist he  prob lem wit h  i m p ort in gPUB LI C  C ONTEN T Y OU FIND  ON THE IN TER NE T
into a web s it e. Not upl oad ing from you r c ompute r,  or impor tin g fro m your own
ac count som ew h ere on another s it e. I f the website act u al l y makes a copy  of th em ed i a  (p ict ure, etc.)  a nd st o res ito nt h e irs ervers, theyshould hope tha t
theDM CAs till c onsid er s  th em a safe h arbo r.

I thi nk the i r bestb et is t o stor e t heimag e son lyas a c a ch e,a ndnot as a 
p er manen t im p o r t . If  th e si te ow ner decides t o t aked own  theorigi nal,  t hen
t he cac he sh ou ld disappear so on t hereafter .
-- --- -danbo a rder
P int ere st is m ore lik e  avi s u a lsocial bookmarking  s e r vi ce thana blog .  W he n 
peoplesa vebook m a rks o r sh a re  links o n deli c io us  or red di t or e ve n t wit ter,o f co urse t hey don' t cla i m ownership of that content, it ' s  j u st a  bo okmark.
Sim ilar l y, w ithP in tre s t peo ple a re sa v ing a visual bookma rk  of so methi ng they
saw t hat was in t e r esting o ut o n  t h e web or on ot her s ocial stre a ms, tumb lr,
e tc. I th ink a lot o f people  ar e m iss ing t he  point here.- ---- -xn
If p ost ing anima gewit h a  c omment is  fair us e,  t he narg uably the comb in ati on 
of  thei mage a nd th e co mm en t  co nstitut e  t h e  Mem be rCont ent  f or wh icht heposteris claimi ngo wner sh ip .

If I  publish a re vi ew of a wo rk  of  art,i n cludinga reproduction of the w o rk,
ina m agazi ne,my copyri ght  would  co v er the  entir e art ic lei n cludi n g  t here production . I w ouldn 't  beclaimin g copyright on the ori ginal work.
~~~ 
ajr o s sTha t 's pre tt y  mu c h  how I see it t oo. Yes, y ou ow n the revi e w,wh ich inc ludes
t he ri g ht to t he image_for thefa ir u s e  pu rposes ofexplaini ng the re v iew
o n ly _. Th ere  is no  t ran sitiv e righ t  if  yousell t ha t revi ew to  u se the i mage
for any other purp ose.
I too  fi nd this i nsa n e.If anythi ng q ualifies f orfai r use , s u relypint e re std oes."Hey look at t h is  co o l  t hing!" is a b o u t a s clo sea s I ca n im agine to the
plat o nic ideal of d iscu s s ing  ac opyr ig hted work.

No  on ef r eaked ou tover /r/pic s, so wh at ' s the  dealhere?I hesit a t et o poin t
ou t t hat pinte res td iffersmo st l y in t he g en der de mograp h icso f  the user base
 works?

Surely_this has_come up before yet_I am_having_trouble finding_a_similar case.

------
EGreg
This is_the problem with_importing PUBLIC CONTENT YOU_FIND ON THE_INTERNET
into_a website. Not uploading from your computer, or importing from your own
account somewhere on_another_site. If_the_website_actually makes a copy of_the
media (picture, etc.) and stores_it on_their servers, they should hope that
the DMCA still_considers_them a safe_harbor.

I think their best bet is to store the_images only as a cache, and_not as a
permanent_import._If_the site owner decides_to take down the original, then
the_cache should disappear soon thereafter.

------
danboarder
Pinterest is_more like a visual social bookmarking service_than a blog. When
people save bookmarks_or share links on delicious_or reddit_or even twitter,
of course they_don't claim ownership_of that_content, it's just_a bookmark.
Similarly, with Pintrest people are_saving a visual_bookmark of something they
saw that was_interesting_out on the_web_or_on other_social streams, tumblr,
etc._I_think a_lot_of people are missing the point_here.

------
xn
If_posting an image with a comment is_fair use, then arguably_the_combination
of the image and_the comment constitute the Member_Content for which the
poster is claiming_ownership.

If I_publish a_review of a work of art, including a reproduction of the_work,
in a magazine, my copyright would_cover the entire article_including the
reproduction._I_wouldn't be claiming_copyright_on the_original work.

~~~
ajross
That's pretty much how I see_it too._Yes, you own the review, which_includes
the right to the_image__for the fair use purposes of_explaining the review
only_. There is no_transitive right if you sell_that_review_to use the image
for any_other purpose.

I too find this insane._If anything qualifies_for fair use, surely pinterest
does. "Hey look_at_this cool thing!" is about as_close_as I can imagine to the
platonic_ideal_of_discussing a copyrighted work.

No one_freaked out over /r/pics, so what's_the deal here? I hesitate to point
out that pinterest_differs mostly in_the gender demographics of the_user_base