Pinterest is “morally, ethically and professionally wrong”
A US lawyer has sparked a legal debate over ‘virtual pinboard’ site Pinterest, claiming it not only violates federal copyright laws, but makes users solely responsible for any infringements.
In a blog post published in February, Kristen Kowalski, a photographer and in-house counsel for a real estate company in Georgia, warned users of the legal risks attached to sharing copyrighted images and said that by using the site, she was “arguably engaging in activity that is morally, ethically and professionally wrong”.
Pinterest allows users to share images, artwork and recipes from around the web by ‘pinning’ them to a virtual scrapbook. Users are encouraged to credit the source of an image, but are discouraged from posting only their own work. “Pinterest is designed to curate and share things you love; try not to use it purely as a tool for self-promotion”, reads a section of the website entitled ‘pin etiquette’.
But regardless of whether users credit another’s work, pinning something without the rights holder’s permission could be classed as copyright infringement. And, as Kowalski discovered when she researched the
site’s terms and conditions, Pinterest places sole blame for any resulting infringement with users.
Pinterest—which had 17.8 million registered users in March—states that users “acknowledge and agree that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the entire risk arising out of your access to and use of the site ... remains with you”. Te terms and conditions also state that users will be held responsible for any legal costs, losses or damages Pinterest incurs arising from their use of the site.
Hobbit stars save pub from copyright lawsuit
Actors Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen have offered to pay a yearly licence fee to save a Lord of the Rings-themed pub accused of copyright infringement.
Te actors’ decision follows a Facebook campaign to save Te Hobbit public house in Southampton, UK, aſter Californian film company Te Saul Zaentz Company threatened landlady Stella Roberts with legal action, ordering her to change the pub’s name and remove all references to JRR Tolkien’s characters, or face closure.
Saul Zaentz, which owns UK trademarks for Te Hobbit, covering drinking establishments, food and beverages, also objected to the sale of cocktails named ‘Frodo’ and ‘Gandalf ’, and loyalty cards featuring Elijah Wood’s image. Wood played Frodo Baggins, a hobbit, in the Lord of the Rings films.
Ms Roberts, however, argued that as the pub had been trading for 20 years—including 15 years before the trademarks were registered— she should not be forced to rebrand.
“It was never our intention to steal, or profit from, work written or created by someone else,”
8 World Intellectual Property Review March/April 2012
she said in a statement. “When Te Hobbit was originally renamed, no-one ever mentioned trademarks or copy right. To rebrand would cost us thousands.”
More than 50,000 people joined the Facebook group ‘Save Te Hobbit’ and McKellen and Fry, who are both appearing in the forthcoming Te Hobbit film, criticised the film company’s actions, describing it as “unnecessary pettiness” and “self- defeating bullying”. Te Saul Zaentz Company has now offered to resolve the matter by licensing the pub to use Tolkien brands for a fee of $100 per annum, which the actors have pledged to pay.
While Te Hobbit pub is now in the clear, it seems the owners of Birmingham’s Hungry Hobbit cafe are not so lucky. Following discussions with Saul Zaentz’s legal team, owner Wendy Busst told the BBC she is thinking of changing ‘Hobbit’ to ‘Obbit’, or spelling the name with a backwards ‘b’ to avoid costly legal proceedings.
Defending the company, producer Paul Zaentz told the BBC: “If we didn’t go after these infringements, then people would say, ‘if they can use them without authorisation, why can’t we?’.” n
www.worldipreview.com
“My initial response,” wrote Kowalski on her site DDK Portraits, “is ‘why can’t I pin other photographers’ work? I’m giving them credit and it’s only creating more exposure from them’. But then I realised, I was unilaterally making the decision for those other photographers. Te bottom line is that it is not my decision to make. Not legally, and not ethically.”
In response to her blog post, Pinterest founder Ben Silbermann contacted Kowalski and assured her there would be some changes to the site. Tese have yet to be implemented. n
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76