«

A woman named Kirsten decided to look into the legality of Pinterest.
After all, she's a lawyer with a passion for photography.

What she found scared her so much, she shut down her Pinterest boards
entirely.

Kirsten's investigation began after she saw photographers complaining about
copyright violations on Facebook. She wondered why Facebook could get in
trouble for copyright violation and Pinterest couldn't.

<snip>

more:

http://www.businessinsider.com/pinte...#ixzz1oYHbtrKT

"NotMe" <> wrote:

> A woman named Kirsten decided to look into the legality of Pinterest.
> After all, she's a lawyer with a passion for photography.
>
> What she found scared her so much, she shut down her Pinterest boards
> entirely.
>
> Kirsten's investigation began after she saw photographers complaining
> about copyright violations on Facebook. She wondered why Facebook
> could get in trouble for copyright violation and Pinterest couldn't.
>
> <snip>

To sumarise the article, she discovered that photographs are protected
by copyright and that reposting other people's images without permission on
a website is not "fair use" but a breach of copyright. This was news to
her? For "a lawyer with an interest in photography" she comes across as a
remarkably ignorant person.

"Gordon Freeman" <> wrote in message
news:XnsA011D5BD79D7EC9A7@127.0.0.1...
> "NotMe" <> wrote:
>
>> A woman named Kirsten decided to look into the legality of Pinterest.
>> After all, she's a lawyer with a passion for photography.
>>
>> What she found scared her so much, she shut down her Pinterest boards
>> entirely.
>>
>> Kirsten's investigation began after she saw photographers complaining
>> about copyright violations on Facebook. She wondered why Facebook
>> could get in trouble for copyright violation and Pinterest couldn't.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> To sumarise the article, she discovered that photographs are protected
> by copyright and that reposting other people's images without permission
> on
> a website is not "fair use" but a breach of copyright. This was news to
> her? For "a lawyer with an interest in photography" she comes across as a
> remarkably ignorant person.

The other side of the augment is the web site is encouraging the posting of
images and profiting from that activity while dodging the responsibility and
cost of the abuse of copyright. This is a legal action but still and all
unethical.

The limit of her ethical and legal responsibility was to stop the posting on
her side. By publishing her 'discovery' she is enlightening, pro bono,
others to the trap.