Pinterest - The Wonderful World of Pinning and Infringement
We’ve
had a bit of a frenzy here at the studio over the past 24-hours. It
came just after we announced the addition of the Pin It button on our
website. Initially, we were excited about the new endeavour as I saw
great potentiality in Pinterest and the ability to create visual
inspiration boards in just a click of a button. However, it was no
sooner that we announced it on Twitter and Facebook that we received
some rather eyebrow raising information that has made us take a second
look at Pinterest and how it effects the rights of creatives.
To
begin with, Pinterest was of great intrigue to me. I loved the easy,
seamless way you could create inspiration and mood boards; using it
myself for photographic, design and food ideas. I mean, how often do you
see something on the Internet and think - “Yes, that!” - but have no
physical way of saving that inspiration for future inspection? In the
old days, one would have torn the page from a magazine or newspaper to
store in a folder or scrapbook, but how do you really scrap digitally?
Enter,
Pinterest. In it’s initial form, yes, it’s a great platform and stellar
idea. As David Pogue of the New York Times said in his recent Review of
the site, Pinterest is “refreshing,” in its ad-free, “pure,
uncluttered, non-blinky” layout. It has a steady, non-self-promoting
vibe of “Wouldn’t this be great?” that is a new concept for public
platforms.
However
nearly immediately after the “Pin It” Tweets were posted, I heard from
UK-based photographer, Jeff Ascough. He made me aware of some fine
details that have caused him and others great concern. Add a simple Google search and you will see that Pinterest has brought about more
than a stir amongst several leading photographers and other creatives.
It’s that very item that we have been frightened of since the dawn of
Facebook, Flickr, Google Images and the untamed Internet landscape at
large. Namely; violation of copyrights.
Now,
I appreciate the way the Internet works. You post an image, you make it
public and it’s not difficult to cut and paste that image to a blog,
website or Facebook. Of course, with this in mind, we have instilled the
Watermark that I discussed just a couple weeks ago (see post here). It’s my way of
embracing the brevity of the Internet, but at the same time saving that
precious credit of my colleague’s and my own work. As a matter of fact,
watermarking and publishing low-res files is the only way I know of to
protect your work on the Internet and I strongly encourage it.
When
one of my photos is posted on a blog, it is generally always done with
my specific permission, watermark and is appropriately credited and
linked back to my site. Clearly the blogger does not own the rights to
the image, and are not able to resell the image, they are simply able to
use the photographs for their site. This is where the red flags begin
to go up around Pinterest.
In
the first instance, the site is based around users who are able to pin
whatever images they see fit. In the Terms portion, it is stated that
the User is solely responsible to contact the artist to obtain the right
to post their images. Of course, the actuality of this happening is
less than a regular occurrence and as of now there is no real way of
this being monitored, causing more and more images to be used without
any permission whatsoever. There is neither a screening process in
place, nor a viable way of ensuring work is credited or linked. However
these images can be pinned and repinned to the several million user’s
own satisfaction. This is creating an entire network of photographers,
designers, and other creatives who are seeing their work displayed
without their knowledge or consent. Additionally, Pinterest’s statement
of Ownership and Copyrights, as outlined here, causes much concern as to
the sudden change of hand that takes place when your image is used
(without any permission) on their site.
There
is also much issue around other aspects of their Terms. One in which
states that among other facets, by posting content as a member onto
their site, you are giving them non-exclusive rights to use, copy,
adapt, license, distribute and most worryingly, to sell on the site
(click here to read in depth information). With the use of that one word “sell (not to
mention license, distribute, adapt and copy),” the whole concept of
creating a place for free-content and community inspiration boards is
now not only tarred, but the very line of artist’s rights is severely
threatened. It is a confusing statement at best, but it is certainly
something to be questioned as to the intention of the site and its
owners.
The
argument continues in the corner of the artists, as Pinterest very
clearly states that they themselves are not held responsible for
liability due to copyright infringement, yet have created a platform in
which they encourage it. Some people are likening it to the former music
file share site, Napster.
And
just as Napster ended in a massive landslide of lawsuits, there is some
serious talk about the possibilities of lawsuits in the very case of
Pinterest and the thousands of copyright violators. Even with their
longstanding “hands washed” approach to the responsibility of
copyrights, there is still a large potential that they would fall under
the scrutiny due to their promotion of using images willy-nilly and
their non-existent monitoring process.
But
then this raises a resounding question in my mind, when and where will
all this end? If the Internet itself has changed the very face of the
copyright, can we really afford to object to all web-based facilities?
What if, instead of boycotting all sites that cross the boundaries that
have been laid out to protect us, we encouraged a public movement where
respect was at the helm?
Of
course, the part of the mutually respected artist lies in the hands of
the artists themselves. Very specifically, although boycotting is
usually a grand way to get your point across, there should be a communal
effort to prevent such things from happening. There should not be cases
of artists misrepresenting other artist’s work as their own as in the
famous case of photographer, Dina Douglass vs. Shepard Fairey. We
should, in essence set a strong example to the layperson on how to
appropriately give credit where credit is due on any and all public
online forums - from blogs to Facebook and everywhere in between.
For
this reason, and very unfortunately, until Pinterest makes changes in
the favor of the artists on their website, I will not be participating
as a member or be utilizing the Pin It option on my website. Pinterest
has the potential to establish a place where people can not only
continue to interact and inspire, but also respect that the very work
that is doing the inspiring is something special, unique and
quantitative of a person’s intrinsic creativity. As an initial fan of
Pinterest and the possibilities it invokes, I truly hope that changes
can be made so that this public platform can be used appropriately among
the masses.
UPDATE MARCH 1:
We have received a great response from all of our readers and colleagues in the creative industry and are happy to be apart of this topic. There has been a very informative article with further information written by the lovely, Rachel Lacour. You can see it here.
