• http://www.resg.info Anton Stetner

    You could see this had to be coming or they were going to get sued.

  • http://mitchlabuda.com Mitch Labuda

    There’;s more to the TOS than what is mentioned.

    “How long we keep your content: Following termination or deactivation of your account, or if you remove any User Content from your account or your boards, Pinterest may retain your User Content for a commercially reasonable period of time for backup, archival, or audit purposes. Furthermore, Pinterest and other Users may retain and continue to display, reproduce, re-pin, modify, re-arrange, and distribute any of your User Content that other Users have re-pinned to their own boards or which you have posted to public or semi-public areas of the Service.”

    So, if, I had an account and closed it, the site could, may, use my content, regardless.

    In the off line world, when agreement is ended, it is ended, here the agreement could continue despite me ending it.

    And then;

    “We reserve the right, but are not obligated, to remove User Content from the Service for any reason, including User Content that we believe violates these Terms or the Pinterest Acceptable Use Policy.”

    Yet, the DMCA is followed, so is take down content or leave it up?

  • Anonymous

    They’re improved but I still find these terms unacceptable. If I post a photo of mine on their site they have the IRREVOCABLE right to reuse it or give royalty free licence on my work. That to me is still outrageous and begs the question, why do they need/want that? Can you imagine if Pinterest was for music and a young Bruce Springsteen posted a song there thus giving Pinterest the irrevocable rights to use that music, alter it, etc. in a royalty free way in perpetuity? 

  • Matt McGee

    “…why do they need/want that?”

    Because that makes it possible for other users to repin your stuff, which gives you much more visibility. When you see “reuse” in that sentence, think “repin.”

  • Anonymous


  • Ruth O’Leary

    What really gets me is that posting other people’s content (including my own), invariably without their permission or even any attribution, seems to be Pinterest’s entire business model.  They discourage pinning content you yourself have created, and encourage pinning things you’ve found elsewhere.  In other words, they are actively encouraging and enabling copyright infringement on a grand scale.  If this had been music not images, they’d have been arrested by now!

    As it is, they’ll all become millionaires in the inevitable sell-out or IPO, entirely off the back of other people’s content, without those of use whose creativity is being abused earning a penny.

  • Anonymous

    I also think as like as
    Anton Stetner

  • Anonymous

    Digg, Facebook, YouTube still have right to “sell” your content. Who cares? All your base belong to Google/YouTube/Facebook anyways.

  • Ruth O’Leary

    Giving them the right sell your content is one thing: that’s your choice.  Claiming the right to sell content placed there as part of illegal copyright infringement is quite another.  I have never given anyone permission to add my content to Pinterest, but people add it anyway, and now Pinterest seem to think they can do what they like with it.

    This is just plain wrong.  If it’s wrong to do exactly this with music and videos, why is it seemingly perfectly acceptable with images?  There should be a level playing field here – if they’re making money off piracy then it should be stopped.