Pinterest - beware of what you do

**tilt** · 03-01-2012, 11:00 AM

hmmmm without wanting to bother to read it all again I believe we did get the terminology right - but the conversation slid from copyright to patents.

The reason I brought this to attention was that even if people know what copyright is and have some concept of what they can do or can't do - pinterest - as an effect of just existing - seems to legitimize pinning any- and everything, cause surely they wouldn't exist as a company if the actions that they encourage were questionable.

**bartmoss** · 03-01-2012, 11:17 AM

Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law, and:

Originally Posted by tilt

Especialy "concept" and "idea" copyright is damaging for development as I'm sure you, as a programmer, agree with.

As I said, it's just a pet peeve, I've seen much worse than this thread. ;-)

**Clercon** · 03-01-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by bartmoss

Eh, let's not start THAT discussion please.

But what worries me is how many people still don't get even the basics of copyright law. I can sum it up really quickly for you:

Don't use anything unless:

1) You made it yourself for your own use (not as a work-for-hire contract for someone else)
or
2) You have express, written permission by the creator to use it for that specific purpose.

There. Done. That's really all there is to it. Of course there are many exceptions, but that is the gist of it.

I am not a lawyer, this ain't legal advice.

I see it this way when it come to the problems with copyright. When I grew up people brought magazines, pictures, music (on tapes) or whatever they wanted to show each other, or show off with. It was part of being friends sharing stuff with each other. Today people want to do that online and now they break copyrights when they do it (or at least a lot of companies lawyers claim they do). Part of the problem is that with Internet the sharing culture went global and out of control by those who used to control it (the big companies) and they want the control back whatever the cost.

**Gamerprinter** · 03-01-2012, 11:46 AM

I also make vinyl signs in my graphics shop, and often from non-professional customers, I get constant requests to provide art from Disney, NFL, NBA, NBL, Calvin and Hobbes, etc. I always refuse to do such work, as copyright infringement is a serious offense. Some companies especially Disney and the NFL are strict about copyright enforcement and will sue someone for doing such a thing. Besides, I'm a professional, and I create work that has it's own copyright. In the desire to protect my own work, I respect copyright law, as it's currently written, and will not breach it for someone else.

**Redrobes** · 03-01-2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by bartmoss

Redrobes mentioned software patents, then illustrated it with what is clearly trademark law

It wasn't an illustration of patents, it was a reference to the previous post about the trademarking of a basic colour for a whole market sector.

anyway...

With your statement about making stuff yourself. I would quite agree. Except that if you make a cake yourself in the shape of a Disney character or film your kid with some music in the background then its not acceptable. The problem is that lets say you switched off the music player so that now your kid is dancing without any music. Then there is still the designer of his clothes and the pattern on the carpet not to mention anything else in the background like pictures, vases, furniture shapes etc.

Here is a public domain photo site with a pic of a modern building. As you say, architecture is covered, so is this picture legit to be public domain now ?
http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/...odern-building

Say I went to the Oscars and took a photo of a celeb. Given that dress/suit is probably covered with a design copyright is it my photo. Could I post it. Any by extension and some case law that I recall, any photo you have taken yourself with a car in it. That has occurred. Or a photo which has a bill board poster advert, or a printed company lorry. Can you record yourself if your stood outside of a cafe with music playing or say you live next door to a concert stadium. If you sketch that building is it still ok. Theres a slew of problems sketching in a museum even for old pictures.

Where all of these things used to be 'obviously' ok they are now not necessarily ok. If the fines for putting a photo with some lorry advert in the background was at most a mild telling off with possibly taking the photo down or modifying it then ok but with fines that make assault or vandalism look mild, the situation is well out of control. This is where things have gotten stupid.

**tilt** · 03-01-2012, 01:13 PM

in Denmark we have always "laughed" at the lawsuits that were possible in the US. A lot of those cases would never had made it in front of a judge here. But the danish record labels also have their attorneys who is clearly looking to the US and trying to impose the same "rules" here, they are also lobbying a lot for stricter inforcement of copyright (not patent or trademark

).
I do think that people shouldn't be able to just plagerise everything that is created - but "fair use" is slowly turning into "no use at all". In an ACTA discussion the other day somebody noted that singing a famous danish birthday song (think happy birthday) in a public place actually violates copyright - even though its now 69 years after the author passed away.

Almost all of copyright legislation was made in analog days - and all the changes since have been proposed by the big companies trying to protect their assets. And to any that asks - nope - I don't want somebody to rip of my upcoming book or map packs - I DO want to get paid for my work - but I'm pretty open for alternatives to the existing legislation.

And concerning patents I'd never expect that the software I made to run a trucking business would be the only type of said software - rather I expect competitors would look at what I've done and copy it if I did it well.

**bartmoss** · 03-01-2012, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Clercon

I see it this way when it come to the problems with copyright. When I grew up people brought magazines, pictures, music (on tapes) or whatever they wanted to show each other, or show off with. It was part of being friends sharing stuff with each other. Today people want to do that online and now they break copyrights when they do it (or at least a lot of companies lawyers claim they do). Part of the problem is that with Internet the sharing culture went global and out of control by those who used to control it (the big companies) and they want the control back whatever the cost.

Not really, it's a problem of scale. If your friends Back Then made 10000 copies of a magazine to give to other people for free, it'd be the same problem. You can still show your friends something in private and I am pretty sure it's not a copyright violation. (I am not a lawyer.)

Copyright is important and it is necessary. Only people who never created anything of value can really be fundamentally against copyright. Of course, the current limitations are a bit ... unrealistic, especially the length of copyright protection.

**bartmoss** · 03-01-2012, 03:02 PM