Pinterest: New darling of social media users

Pinterest is illegal !!

Pinterest is the new darling of social networks. This is an online bulletin board to which it is possible to pin pretty pictures. The problem is that the pictures belong to someone or something else!

Pinterest is one of the fastest expanding in the pages of history. They love it and the users of media, professing the beauty and design. It's interesting. about Pinterest, however, it’s been many new similar sites, It's all about copyright, which never bode well. I have said about the Project-Pinterest in a blogpost earlier.

While the numbers and media attention towards Pinterest doing great, there are doubters who claim that the online notice-board that is wrong in terms of copyright. Only Facebook and Tumblr are in the average time spent by one person, every month, more than 10 million people visits Pinterest. And that's the reason to wonder whether everything is on the right in order! Companies and people consider Pinterest a great marketing tool because in Pinterest, each image can be accessed clicking on the original source material. From this perspective, everything should be fine, Pinterest generates traffic and the term "theft", which in this case is occasionally used, seems to be too strong. 

Pinterest: you have the right to pin this photo first.

Insider Business Server delivers opinion, that Pinterest is the largest illegal pike on the Internet and compares it to Napster in its time. The problem is that, users have uploaded photos to be found on the Internet, but amateur and professionals? they do not care who owns the right of the pictures. How it looks to a lawyer? Pinterest allows users to insert photos of other people with this problem, isn’t it? No, Pinterest do not allow a user to insert the photo, to which they have no rights. It is quite absurd, just look at a few boards and it will be clear that this rule does not comply. On the other hand, it should be noted that each user by clicking on the photo will land in a place where this photo comes (if it is loaded from the internet and not from disk). It's like YouTube, if the owner of the rights found that someone used his video illegally, may ask the operator to withdraw material. We know from experience that this approach does not solve much and illegal content on YouTube just flows.

Pinterest lawyer should fall under the so-called ‘Fair Use territory Right’, this allows users to relate content they have no rights, whether it is a fair use or not, should be decided by the four characters.

·  What is the nature of use, whether it is commercial in nature or non-profit or educational.

·  The nature of the work, whether fictional or factual.

·  The proportion used of the total work.

·  Effect on potential market or value of copyrighted work.

It’s said to be an important first point, if the photos reflected something new, it may be classified as Fair Use. The second point plays against Pinterest clearly: photos are not facts, thus in this case, we cannot think of Fair Use. The third point is disputed, the works are published Pinterest whole, not just their fragments.

The key point is the fourth. If Pinterest publishes whole and complete picture, so the user does not need to click to get to the original material, which is actually the same as that shown in Pinterest; It follows that the argument as Pinterest helping authors and visitors to their sites is a bit built on water. It seems that if anyone would be used in connection with the theft, Pinterest may not be so far from the truth as you think.

So why marketers are so eager to throw its contents into the clutches of Pinterest? They would have been aware of this problem? Not likely, I know too well, venturing into what is and what it brings. New people who see their products. When these products they will like and click, visit, and perhaps will continue to share, or purchase. Anyway, anything on Pinterest can be shared, so photos(products) are also given to people outside the circle of "friends" a user who publishes.

While helping the fact that Pinterest earn money, or in other words - the operators of the content that does not belong to enrich, comes up with a model to raise money, definitely indicating the pressures on Pinterest for illegal intensify. After that you cannot rely on arguments belonging to Fair Use. Pinterest could argue that it is a reference medium. To be able to wield it, they would show the work incomplete, diminished, blurred, and so forth. Most of the original presents a complete picture of the scale and quality, which can be eyesore for site operators. So people see the issue differently and love Pinterest. As the "ideal" solution seems to be downloading pictures that mark their owner. But we know from other projects, it is mainly formic and endless work which would waste time looking for, whether the Pinterest is not something that belongs to us and we do not want to be there, right?

Already it is clear that in case of problems to download some photos from Pinterest, if you hear there is an owner. So far, it does not happen but, the question is whether the requirements are ignored or that nobody wanted to raise; nor is it to hear actions, while the spores are carried in more speculation and theory.

Pinterest is doing like Tumblr and many other services. Appears to have content that users do not have rights. If it begins to struggle for Pinterest, Tumblr and also affect other services that are based on a similar principle to publishing content. This is the content itself and how it rights owners listening service. Some people do not use mind and others will threaten to sue.

To reduce complaints came on Pinterest the possibility of avoiding the process of inserting photos on the wall. Web site operators can insert the META tag code that causes the inability to pin the image on Pinterest. After you click "Pin It"; message appears: 

"This site does not allow pinning it Pinterest. Please contact the owner with Any Questions. Thanks for visiting!"

This may be seen as a positive step, but requires action by the content owners, which may not work well. This is a classic step Opt-Out for disabling from pinning something needs to be done. Who does not, their pages can be pinned merrily on Pinterest.  

The final question to the lawyer and the response from the Business Insider article reads (in the original version to avoid distortion of the translation) as follows:

So, is Pinterest illegal?

Quite possible. Until there's a legal challenge against the site, It'll Be Hard to know. Could have some Pinterest Legitimate arguments in Favor of Itself: claiming it's a search tool, Saying it drives traffic elsewhere , arguing That way it shows the pictures is transformative.

But the big problem is That it grabs Entire copyrighted works that re-post. This Could Be Hard to Overcome, Especially as Pinterest starts growing and Becomes more of a destination for a Greater Audience. The more time users spend on Pinterest, one assumes, the less Likely They Are to click out to other sites. And why click Out When You can see the whole picture right there?