Pinterest Users Need to Read the Fine Print - Page 2
And that's OK if IT IS YOUR OWN STUFF. BUT! In the age of Megaupload, Pinterest has made sure Cold Brew Labs has done due diligence with this clause:
... you represent and warrant that: (i) you either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services or you have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary to grant to Cold Brew Labs the rights in such Member Content, as contemplated under these Terms.
When you upload to Pinterest, you publish a medium-sized version of the related image to the service. Publishers of user-generated content protect Pinterest. You are not protected. Moore's point is well taken Just make sure with everything you post, you have a "worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license." And here's the rub. If you publish something, first asking for permission (and are granted it) does the permission grantor understand that if it's on Pinterest, their images have just been made available to be bought by a third party? Better read them the fine print after you've read it over a few times. There may be a few snafus.
If you are a small business owner with much deeper pockets of course, your lawyers will be sure to check this out thoroughly. If you are somewhere in between, then get some appropriate and sound legal advice.
But Pinterest, concerned about hapless, unwitting copyright violators and extremely concerned about copyright holders has made things easier for holders to protect themselves against wayward and greedy pinners. They have released code which will allow websites to prevent material from being plastered on the Pinterest social pinboard without regard.
The code, accessible through the site's help page, works this way. An unauthorized pinner will see a message stating, "This site doesn't allow pinning to Pinterest. Please contact the owner with any questions. Thanks for visiting!" The violating pinner will see this when the code has been added to the copyright holder's site.
Pinterest obviously acknowledges that its site could be used to violate copyright holders rights and it doesn't want trouble. Can you blame it? It has also received commentary from site owners who didn't want their material to be shared so it had to do something. Though some were not upset to see material shared, they were upset that attribution sometimes was lost in the pinning; it was as if their work was flying into space and no credit would ever be given that it was theirs, threatening by extension to the most absurd conclusion, the ultimate and ridiculous possibility of a courtroom Solomon's decision.(For some having to go to court to prove one's ownership is worse, especially if they have no up front fees to pay lawyers.)Continued on the next page