Friday, May 11, 2012

Pinner Hall of Shame?

Welcome to the rarefied atmosphere of obsessive pinning. Do these users really do have the right to upload, say, 40,000 images to Pinterest's servers? Can they show permission for every image? Are they protected against a lawsuit for registered works, carrying damages from $15,000 to $150,000 per image, plus attorney fees, and paying for Pinterest's lawyers in addition to those of the plaintiff? Is it worth it? The more images are uploaded, the greater the risk of getting sued, and the more likely the damages will be maximal as they are when willful infringement can be shown. What arguments, if any, can be made that the copyright infringement was not willful in the case of someone with 70,000 pins?


Jan Galbraith - 34397 pins


Joanne Giroux - 35841 pins


Marcy Rupp - 36458 pins


Valerie Thorpe - 38156 pins


Janessa VanOefellen - 38165 pins


Janie Lane - 38798 pins


Elaine Nasser - 39406 pins


Kathy Jackman Hutchison - 41409 pins


Kim Kiwi - 43652 pins
1% handbags


Lilly Styles - 44640 pins



CasaBella Interiors - 45834 pins
Disclaimer: "Pins are not our own property"


Monica Bourne - 50693 pins
"I'm an obsessive collector of inspirational and useful pictures [...]. And I compulsively organise everything."


Pascale De Groof - 55223 pins


Mayann Rizzo - 61503 pins
That's a lot of "being authentic" with other people's content.


Mary Beth Burrell - 78933 pins
Is there an image she doesn't like?


Christine Kysely - 80570 pins
"Visual Content on my Pinboards is owned and copyrighted by its respectful owners."
Why would a self-described artist and photographer infringe on the works of others to the tune of 80 thousand images, and admit it?


Lise Lemay - 80680 pins
Probably on the missing person list.


Teresa Powell - 82903 pins
There could be a few expensive lawsuits in those boards.


Luann Lang - 106740 pins
Please capture, drag away from the computer and air out in sunlight.




Pin Hammer - 23 pins

6 comments:

ohnostudio said...

Kysely = "Why would a self-described artist and photographer infringe on the works of others to the tune of 80 thousand images, and admit it?"

Because she's not a photographer, but apparently someone with every social network profile available on every site thinkable. It seems to be all a smokescreen. In fact a small gallery just appeared in blogspot word featuring this name as an artist. One of the images is ripped from photographer Walter Looss. The pinheads are pathetic. Do your own Google search on the user name, in fact, search youtube ;-)

The pin gallery for this user is easily identified by any professional editor as totally amateur "curating" with no sense of good taste at all. It's just sheer volume nabbed by someone with way too much time on their hands..

ohnostudio said...

Ha! Busted. I knew the profile image was fake

http://pinterest.com/christinekysely/

Here is the photographer's site it was taken from

http://carlocalope.com/main/port.html

A Glass Artist said...

That's some clever detective work.

The whole idea that images posted on the web need "curation" is preposterous. For individuals with that many pins, it's digital hoarding, plain and simple!

Mel Brackstone said...

Here's a good one for your hall of shame - a life spent pinning and gathering sheep...Oh, I mean followers.

http://www.repinly.com/popular-pinner/Joy-Cho--Oh-Joy/1399/1/

zirconelle said...

Post like this are just what I mean... It may be fun to laugh ad let off steam, but it's not likely to get anyone on pinterest to use the site responsibly. Calling pinners sheep is not likely to encourage them to use their brains when they pin.

merlen hogg said...

Wow! Impressive.


fuging