PDA

View Full Version : Pinterest - beware of what you do



tilt
03-01-2012, 06:35 AM
As this is a place for many artists I thought you might find this article interesting. Basicly its about how pinterest covers its ass ... with yours.

http://ddkportraits.com/2012/02/why-i-tearfully-deleted-my-pinterest-inspiration-boards/

I've posted a few maps myself but also pinned other peoples stuff and one thing I hadn't noticed was that pinterest makes a full scale copy of the image pinned. I looks like the whole idea of how pinterest works might be flawed in respect to copyright legislation.

Clercon
03-01-2012, 06:51 AM
...or is it copyright that is flawed in respect to how the world (Internet) works ;)

Redrobes
03-01-2012, 08:17 AM
Yup when a lawyer doesn't understand the law you gotta worry. What it basically means is that posting up other peoples work on the web is illegal without the permission from the copyright holder. If pinterest themselves (as opposed to other forum members) are saying that they don't like people posting up their own content (for self promotion) then they could well be in some hot water. Otherwise, yes its you the poster who is responsible for the actions of your posting.... at least that is so long as this ACTA stuff is not implemented which makes all web site owners (and possibly the ISP in some drafts) liable for the users posts. So long as the website removes copyright infringing material within a reasonable period after being notified then they are ok. This is why YouTube stuff is taken off line all the time. They do not necessarily check who is the owner of material when a report is made. Hence this week a guy walking in the woods with birdsong was taken offline from some troll who claimed copyright on the birdsong. Now if the site is posting links to the material then it ought to be alright... except when it isnt. A reference to something illegal is now being treated as illegal by the USA. This is why the pirate bay are changing links to torrent files over to another format. The links to torrent seeds are not in themselves breaking the law but they are being treated as illegal anyway by implication of being an accessory. The US are pushing ACTA globally and the UK, France and most of EU are signed up but some of the member states have woken up a little and now there has been some resistance to it. The issue of course is that with this google and most websites like this one are now illegal. ACTA breaks the whole internet and its the usual arbitrary policing of it as to whether you stay online or not or have your domain seized ala Megaupload etc.

So if you think thats bad. Its just one of a million complete screw ups in the area of copyright law. Were rapidly approaching a copyright law meltdown. Clercon has it nailed !

tilt
03-01-2012, 08:39 AM
I definitly think the copyright should be worked over and adapted to the new millenia - but as it is, we have to work within the existing rules :/

edit: didn't see redrobes post as I forgot to refresh after having some lunch ;)
As people who have me on fb and g+ knows I'm against ACTA, PIPA, SOPA and any other 'PA they throw out there. I believe that hollywood is breaking the web in their attempt to hold on to an ancient way of doing things instead of waking up and changing as the world changes. A recent post on TED said it well by starting out by talking about a bakery who no longer accepted to print cakes that people had made themselves cause they had gotten sued by Disney (or something to that effect). We also have the story of a totally personal non-commercial videoclip of some kid on youtube that "infringed" on copyright cause there was music playing in the background. Most of us who like Star Trek might also remember the lawyers hunting down fanpages in the webs early years... *shakes head*

What pinterest is doing is saying one thing while their "rules" say something else - and following up by making sure that its peoples own responsibility for getting permissions even though their whole pinning/sharing system isn't really focusing on permission but rather the ease of sharing = They are greedy and don't care who they hurt.

Redrobes
03-01-2012, 09:15 AM
The cake baking story I actually agree with Disney. There was a shop making custom cakes and they took requests from people and made the cakes to order and sold them. People often used to ask for cakes with Disney characters on them so they made them with their characters on the cakes and sold them. Basically they sold Disney IP even tho it was a mom and pop shop. But rules should apply both large and small. I don't think that there was any case for a fair use when your selling stuff like that. There is a case to say tho that copyright should not have been extended just to allow Disney to keep the very old B&W Mickey Mouse vids still in copyright when their term should have expired.

The other one was a kid who was dancing in a you tube vid with Prince track in the background and prince is very defensive about his works and employs lots of lawyers to sift the net for his songs. Now in that case there was a fair use since the song was somewhat incidental to the vid clip and it was non commercial. Prince got a lot of stick for that.

You say we should stick within the rules but thats not possible. With a $150,000 fine per work uploaded and this site, or more precisely Arcana, being the stop buck and with no requirement for anyone to be informed about the upload, its possible for an IP rights holder to get an anonymous upload of his work and then turn around and sue this site. This is exactly what has been happening since with the data dump of IP addresses from the Megaupload case, it was noted that many of them were from the MPAA and related cronies. As one person said this week, patent litigation and copyright infringement are now just costs of doing business instead of fines. You cant avoid them any more. This is all being done to brush aside free or low cost software, art and IP so as to push out the small vendors out and leave the field free for the big guns to monopolize it.

tilt
03-01-2012, 09:28 AM
ok - I heard that it was the customers that provided the art so I'll "back down" on that cake ;)

and no, not saying that we should stick with the rules - I say that because the rules are there we have to abide by them, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to change them. In respect to pinterest I'm saying that since they protect their own asses (but don't really tell us about it) one should be carefull what one does (as goes for most of the web) so you don't end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Especially since many people thinks that "fair use" might protect them but that just isn't always the case. Copyright is strongly flawed and MPAA and the like have lots of money to spend on lawyers and they only want to change the rules to be more restrictive. In addition they lobby like there is no tomorrow :/
Especialy "concept" and "idea" copyright is damaging for development as I'm sure you, as a programmer, agree with. A lot of small businesses don't have money to check if they are infringing on some obscure patent somewhere in a box. A classic case is the one-click-buying Amazon has - which is basicly a customer database ... and the fights between cell phone developers ... oh.. you made a square black phone.. we own that... not to talk about companies trying to patent a color. *shakes head again*

Redrobes
03-01-2012, 09:42 AM
I don't think it would matter if the customer brought in the image to make the cake from. The cake maker is still part of the selling of it. Only if they made blank cakes and the customer took it away and put a disney char on it would I think that the cake maker is out of the picture.

As for the rules, I dont know what to think any more. I dont think its possible to stick to them so I think we all just say screw it and do it anyway. You and I are lucky in that we both are in countries that don't support patents on software but that's an area which is so perverse you would laugh if it didn't affect you. Yeah, I recall Hutchinson Telecom changing its name to Orange and then claiming ownership over anything electronic and orange. Or like MS using Paint and Word and Calc and other generic names and saying that these applied without the use of a prefix of Microsoft or when Microsoft starting leaning on people using the term windows for everything including sheets of clear stuff for looking through. Luckily that one was quashed. But Lindows had to change its name because of it. Then there was this only two weeks ago..

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/tim-berners-lee-patent/

I dunno where it can go from here. Everything is so completely FUBAR now. The law IMO is such a complete joke.

tilt
03-01-2012, 10:29 AM
wow... lot of head shaking and jaw dropping disbelief going on. My thoughts about this was mirrored in one of the comments - taking it to its conclusion. They win and start wanting money from webpages - webpages all move to non-US countries like europe (if they can stay away from software patents) pages get blocked by the us for not complying etc etc ... the web in the US ends up nutered.

and you're totally right we're beyond FUBAR (if you can be that... would that turn things back to recognition? *lol*) and our damn politician should do something about it instead of keep catering to the mayor industries. LIke in Denmark a few years back there were a discussion about this in the government - they called in the industry and only one representative for the "users" - which was a person from consumer rights organisation which is governmental run.... sigh

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 10:34 AM
...or is it copyright that is flawed in respect to how the world (Internet) works ;)

Eh, let's not start THAT discussion please.

But what worries me is how many people still don't get even the basics of copyright law. I can sum it up really quickly for you:

Don't use anything unless:

1) You made it yourself for your own use (not as a work-for-hire contract for someone else)
or
2) You have express, written permission by the creator to use it for that specific purpose.

There. Done. That's really all there is to it. Of course there are many exceptions, but that is the gist of it.

I am not a lawyer, this ain't legal advice.

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 10:41 AM
Post Scriptum, as this is one of my pet peeves...

COPYRIGHT covers the expression of ideas: Text, images, photos, sculptures, music yes even architecture. Pretty much everything someone creates is under copyright.
PATENTS cover ideas. Specifically, inventions. Not every idea or invention is patentable, but checks and balances don't work too well.
TRADEMARKS cover the use of words, phrases, or logos to identify a product, service or company. Trademarks have to be actively defended or the owner risks losing the mark.

Please at least get your terminology right, guys.

tilt
03-01-2012, 11:00 AM
hmmmm without wanting to bother to read it all again I believe we did get the terminology right - but the conversation slid from copyright to patents. :)

The reason I brought this to attention was that even if people know what copyright is and have some concept of what they can do or can't do - pinterest - as an effect of just existing - seems to legitimize pinning any- and everything, cause surely they wouldn't exist as a company if the actions that they encourage were questionable. :)

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 11:17 AM
Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law, and:


Especialy "concept" and "idea" copyright is damaging for development as I'm sure you, as a programmer, agree with.

As I said, it's just a pet peeve, I've seen much worse than this thread. ;-)

Clercon
03-01-2012, 11:43 AM
Eh, let's not start THAT discussion please.

But what worries me is how many people still don't get even the basics of copyright law. I can sum it up really quickly for you:

Don't use anything unless:

1) You made it yourself for your own use (not as a work-for-hire contract for someone else)
or
2) You have express, written permission by the creator to use it for that specific purpose.

There. Done. That's really all there is to it. Of course there are many exceptions, but that is the gist of it.

I am not a lawyer, this ain't legal advice.

I see it this way when it come to the problems with copyright. When I grew up people brought magazines, pictures, music (on tapes) or whatever they wanted to show each other, or show off with. It was part of being friends sharing stuff with each other. Today people want to do that online and now they break copyrights when they do it (or at least a lot of companies lawyers claim they do). Part of the problem is that with Internet the sharing culture went global and out of control by those who used to control it (the big companies) and they want the control back whatever the cost.

Gamerprinter
03-01-2012, 11:46 AM
I also make vinyl signs in my graphics shop, and often from non-professional customers, I get constant requests to provide art from Disney, NFL, NBA, NBL, Calvin and Hobbes, etc. I always refuse to do such work, as copyright infringement is a serious offense. Some companies especially Disney and the NFL are strict about copyright enforcement and will sue someone for doing such a thing. Besides, I'm a professional, and I create work that has it's own copyright. In the desire to protect my own work, I respect copyright law, as it's currently written, and will not breach it for someone else.

Redrobes
03-01-2012, 11:58 AM
Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law
It wasn't an illustration of patents, it was a reference to the previous post about the trademarking of a basic colour for a whole market sector.

anyway...

With your statement about making stuff yourself. I would quite agree. Except that if you make a cake yourself in the shape of a Disney character or film your kid with some music in the background then its not acceptable. The problem is that lets say you switched off the music player so that now your kid is dancing without any music. Then there is still the designer of his clothes and the pattern on the carpet not to mention anything else in the background like pictures, vases, furniture shapes etc.

Here is a public domain photo site with a pic of a modern building. As you say, architecture is covered, so is this picture legit to be public domain now ?
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2242&picture=modern-building

Say I went to the Oscars and took a photo of a celeb. Given that dress/suit is probably covered with a design copyright is it my photo. Could I post it. Any by extension and some case law that I recall, any photo you have taken yourself with a car in it. That has occurred. Or a photo which has a bill board poster advert, or a printed company lorry. Can you record yourself if your stood outside of a cafe with music playing or say you live next door to a concert stadium. If you sketch that building is it still ok. Theres a slew of problems sketching in a museum even for old pictures.

Where all of these things used to be 'obviously' ok they are now not necessarily ok. If the fines for putting a photo with some lorry advert in the background was at most a mild telling off with possibly taking the photo down or modifying it then ok but with fines that make assault or vandalism look mild, the situation is well out of control. This is where things have gotten stupid.

tilt
03-01-2012, 01:13 PM
in Denmark we have always "laughed" at the lawsuits that were possible in the US. A lot of those cases would never had made it in front of a judge here. But the danish record labels also have their attorneys who is clearly looking to the US and trying to impose the same "rules" here, they are also lobbying a lot for stricter inforcement of copyright (not patent or trademark ;) ).
I do think that people shouldn't be able to just plagerise everything that is created - but "fair use" is slowly turning into "no use at all". In an ACTA discussion the other day somebody noted that singing a famous danish birthday song (think happy birthday) in a public place actually violates copyright - even though its now 69 years after the author passed away.

Almost all of copyright legislation was made in analog days - and all the changes since have been proposed by the big companies trying to protect their assets. And to any that asks - nope - I don't want somebody to rip of my upcoming book or map packs - I DO want to get paid for my work - but I'm pretty open for alternatives to the existing legislation.

And concerning patents I'd never expect that the software I made to run a trucking business would be the only type of said software - rather I expect competitors would look at what I've done and copy it if I did it well. :)

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 02:51 PM
I see it this way when it come to the problems with copyright. When I grew up people brought magazines, pictures, music (on tapes) or whatever they wanted to show each other, or show off with. It was part of being friends sharing stuff with each other. Today people want to do that online and now they break copyrights when they do it (or at least a lot of companies lawyers claim they do). Part of the problem is that with Internet the sharing culture went global and out of control by those who used to control it (the big companies) and they want the control back whatever the cost.

Not really, it's a problem of scale. If your friends Back Then made 10000 copies of a magazine to give to other people for free, it'd be the same problem. You can still show your friends something in private and I am pretty sure it's not a copyright violation. (I am not a lawyer.)

Copyright is important and it is necessary. Only people who never created anything of value can really be fundamentally against copyright. Of course, the current limitations are a bit ... unrealistic, especially the length of copyright protection.

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 03:02 PM
With your statement about making stuff yourself. I would quite agree. Except that if you make a cake yourself in the shape of a Disney character or film your kid with some music in the background then its not acceptable.


Well, obviously you have not created the music or those characters yourself, now did you?



The problem is that lets say you switched off the music player so that now your kid is dancing without any music. Then there is still the designer of his clothes and the pattern on the carpet not to mention anything else in the background like pictures, vases, furniture shapes etc.


The music is an obvious part of the new work, so you could say the video is derivative of the music. Just play music you wrote yourself, or use cc-licensed or public domain music. Lots of that around if you look.

As for the carpet patterns or pictures in the background - You are very welcome to cite cases where this has been an actual problem. I have the feeling you're making that up.




Here is a public domain photo site with a pic of a modern building. As you say, architecture is covered, so is this picture legit to be public domain now ?
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2242&picture=modern-building


Yeah building designs CAN be copyrightable. But I believe this varies by country. Ask your attorney.



Say I went to the Oscars and took a photo of a celeb. Given that dress/suit is probably covered with a design copyright is it my photo. Could I post it. Any by extension and some case law that I recall, any photo you have taken yourself with a car in it. That has occurred. Or a photo which has a bill board poster advert, or a printed company lorry. Can you record yourself if your stood outside of a cafe with music playing or say you live next door to a concert stadium. If you sketch that building is it still ok. Theres a slew of problems sketching in a museum even for old pictures.


Again, ask your attorney. Much of this is probably very, very dependent on specific cases.




Where all of these things used to be 'obviously' ok they are now not necessarily ok. If the fines for putting a photo with some lorry advert in the background was at most a mild telling off with possibly taking the photo down or modifying it then ok but with fines that make assault or vandalism look mild, the situation is well out of control. This is where things have gotten stupid.

I am not convinced those things "were okay". But feel free to cite specific cases, I still think you are making stuff up to give yourself an argument. ;)

bartmoss
03-01-2012, 03:09 PM
but "fair use" is slowly turning into "no use at all".

I don't see fair use abolished. - Just so you are clear on this, "Fair Use" doesn't mean "I think it's fair to use so I can".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Common_misunderstandings

Enjoy.



(And I am still not a lawyer.)

tilt
03-01-2012, 03:33 PM
bartmoss - I know what fair use is (as much as one can) :) ... and to me (and this is subjective) it seems like its getting undermined by big corps that are going after smaller and smaller fish. At least real fishermen knows when to throw them back out ;)

Copyright needs to be updated and not by the companies.

And again - this whole thread was created to warn about possible problems concerning copyright issues that might not be transparent for all. Especially since there are so many artists in this forum.

lostatsea
03-01-2012, 07:58 PM
Two observations from an old man;) #1 :The people with power make the rules and the rules are made give them that power. #2:There is no end to which a "POOR" Billionaire won't go to get another Dollar ! Everyone has a right to protect that which is theirs. Not what they believe should be theirs. and you better believe if they think they can make a buck off you every-time the word Fart comes out of your mouth they rewrite the laws to allow that to happen.
I can't quote case numbers. But examples are made of unintentional cases all the time. If you win a local photography contest with your 5year old Sporting a "MILK MUSTACHE" and holding an "OREO"tm you shouldn't be subject to a million dollar lawsuit. Call Me provincial. Disclaimer : Not an actual case to my knowledge. Used as a scenario only. Doesn't represent the opinions of the owners or operators of the guild or the hosting server or the software developers but maybe the guy who developed the internet and clearly didn't have the common sense to reserve all rights to it so he could sue me for posting this !!! Ah I feel better :) Point don't ever "ASSUME" you have the "RIGHT" to breath without permission. Any of you who have downloaded or will ever download any of my work from here it is cash and carry send Me the Money order first !! ;P

Redrobes
03-14-2012, 10:15 PM
What with this weeks signing of extradition of a man for copyright issues from a country (yes, mine) where what he did was, at this point in time, legal, I present this next most interesting little snippet that's occurred this week as part of the EU copyright reforms and affects us all since its dealing with orphaned works. This... is classic.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/14/european-parliament-blocks-copyright-reform-with-113-voter-turnout/

Every week it just gets more and more absurd.