- Journal Archives
- Volume 18
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
For the social networking crowd, Pinterest is an explosive (and admittedly addictive) new fad. The wildly popular website panders to the millennial generation’s fascination with online soul-baring by replacing traditional social networking profiles with more aesthetically pleasing user pinboards. These boards allow Pinterest members to flaunt their favorite recipes, vacation destinations, home decor, and anything else imaginable by pinning images to pinboards, then sharing the boards with friends. Essentially, Pinterest is scrapbooking for the 21st century.
To create personalized pinboards, users are able to upload their own content directly or, as encouraged by Pinterest, post content from other websites with a simple 2-click method. Pinterest does provide a terms of service section explaining that users are forbidden from pinning material they do not own or have explicit permission to use. However, it doesn’t take a copyright expert to realize that most of the popular images featured on Pinterest are posted and repinned without requisite ownership or permission. In fact, social media commentator Josh Davis suggests that nearly 99% of the images featured on Pinterest boards are posted in violation of Pinterest’s explicit terms of service.
What does this mean for Pinterest? The website maintains that it sufficiently warns users that they must obtain permission from content creators before posting material they do not own. In fact, Pinterest explicitly states that users are responsible for all content they share and solely accountable for legal violations arising from their use of the site. Additionally, Pinterest contends that it acts in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to “respond expeditiously to claims of copyright infringement committed using the Pinterest website.” In February, the website even introduced a “nopin” tag option for content owners. Once added to an online image, the “nopin” tag prevents the image from being posted on Pinterest.
Unfortunately, Pinterest’s attempts to wash its hands of liability for copyright law violations are not stopping bloggers from dubbing Pinterest the “new Napster.” Like Napster, Pinterest serves as a platform that arguably facilitates users in sharing content in violation of federal copyright law, which prohibits reproducing, publicly displaying, or distributing copyrighted material without ownership or permission (with the exception of “fair use”). However, an important difference between Pinterest and Napster is that Pinterest purports to operate under DMCA safe harbor protection, while Napster was not eligible for such protection. In Pinterest’s own words: “Pinterest provides a service platform through which people share images, videos, commentary and links with friends or others. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides safe harbors for exactly this type of platform. If a copyright holder objects to any of the postings—and so far very few have objected—Pinterest will follow the safe harbor procedures set forth in the DMCA.”
Additionally, unlike content featured on Napster, much of the material posted on Pinterest displays the original source link and, with or without this original source link, is unlikely to damage any party enough to generate the formal and informal pressure that obliterated Napster. Specifically, reposting copyrighted images on Pinterest is not likely to usurp the market for those images in the way that sharing copyrighted music on Napster led to a significant decrease in the purchase of CDs. Pinterest even maintains that numerous companies have voiced appreciation for the publicity generated from company images being posted on the Pinterest website, as many of the images serve as advertisements for particular products.
For the above-listed reasons, much of the legal community speculates that Pinterest will not have a fate akin to that of Napster. However, even if Pinterest is not quite as sinister as Napster, shouldn’t it do a bit more front-end gatekeeping to prevent users from wrongfully posting copyrighted material? If so, what?
- Julie Latsko
Recent Blog Posts
- Former Cardinals Executive Pleads Guilty to Hacking, But Will the Cardinals Pay the Price?
- Making a Murder – Technology in Forensic Evidence Questioned
- Is “smart gun” technology the future of gun safety?
- Why High-Profile Athletes’ Defamation Lawsuits Against Al Jazeera Are Nothing More Than a Hail Mary
- Executives of a Chinese Online Video-Sharing Service Provider Stood Trial for Internet Pornography
- The Rise of ‘Swatting’
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution