Pinterest and Copyright: Repinning Is Not Reproduction

Pinterest, now the third-largest social network in the United States, has been under intense public scrutiny in recent weeks.   Many have wondered very vocally if the site is facilitating copyright infringement on a mass scale, a la Napster a decade ago.

That’s a big question, and I’m not going to try to answer it here.  Many others have already addressed it, and as a private practitioner, I’d rather keep my opinions on the issue to myself.  But one thing we can all agree on is that answers to such questions should be based on accurate facts.  And one fact that few of those discussing the issue seem to appreciate is the difference between “pinning” and “repinning” on Pinterest.

Used as a verb, “pin” means to add an image to Pinterest.  Pinned images are copied from their host servers and duplicated on Pinterest’s servers.  This is significant to (although not necessarily dispositive of) the copyright infringement debate, because one of the things that U.S. copyright law gives copyright owners the “exclusive right” to control is the “reproduction” of their works.

But a Pinterest user may also add an image to her board that has already been pinned to another user’s board.  This is called “re-pinning,” and is somewhat analogous to “retweeting” a message on Twitter.  Although this causes the image to appear on multiple Pinterest boards, it does not create an additional copy of the image on Pinterest’s servers.  You can confirm this yourself by re-pinning images, and verifying that the image has the same URL regardless of the board on which it appears.

In other words, repinning does not infringe the copyright owner’s reproduction right.  Of course, that doesn’t necessarily get repinners out of the woods.  Copyright owners have four other exclusive rights in their images as well–the rights to control distribution, derivation, public display, and public performance–and there are those who have argued that even repinning may infringe one or more of these rights.  But I am not taking a position on those issues here.

It seems certain that Pinterest and other online innovators will continue to spark heated debate over online copyright issues well into the foreseeable future.  The technology evolves so quickly that it can be difficult to understand how it works or how it implicates copyright principles.  But it’s important that the courts, companies, consumers, and copyright holders alike make our decisions based on accurate information.

About Brian Wassom:
All Posts by Brian Wassom | Share By Email | Brian Wassom on Google+
  • Rogan Lester

    “You can confirm this yourself by re-pinning images, and verifying that the image has the same URL regardless of the board on which it appears.”

    Maybe, but every single pinner is liable to a lawsuit whenever they’ve pinned the material, or repinned it.

  • Brian Wassom

    Why is that?

  • Cynthia Dashiell

    See the following – pasted from their terms of use.
    a.Your content.
    Pinterest allows you to pin and post content on the Service, including photos, comments, and other materials. Anything that you pin, post, display, or otherwise make available on our Service, including all Intellectual Property Rights (defined below) in such content, is referred to as “User Content.” You retain all of your rights in all of the User Content you post to our Service.

    b.How Pinterest and other users can use your content.
    Subject to any applicable account settings you select, you grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify (e.g., re-format), re-arrange, and distribute your User Content on Pinterest for the purposes of operating and providing the Service(s) to you and to our other Users. Nothing in these Terms shall restrict Pinterest’s rights under separate licenses to User Content. Please remember that the Pinterest Service is a public platform, and that other Users may search for, see, use, and/or re-pin any User Content that you make publicly available through the Service.

    • Cynthia Dashiell

      Note that I am not attempting to answer Rogan’s point, but perhaps having the actual terms of use a user agrees to may help facilitate further comment.

  • Linda Copyright

    The pinned infringed content is being reproduced every time it is being made accessible from yet another web page. That each such web page calls for the same image copy is a technically that, in my opinion, is very unlikely to stand up in court. More copies are made from the perspective of user experience, which is what really counts.

  • Jason

    Does the same idea of repining go for “sharing” images on facebook? (i.e. share an image from a brand page or celebrity facebook page on my own wall?)

    While the right to share or repin is clearly licensed to facebook or pinterest respectively in their Terms of Use, does this licence extend to the users of facebook and pinterest service??
    (note: Youtube ToS Para. 6c clearly extends such license to users)