When using Pinterest (and Flickr and YouTube and Facebook
and on and on), what copyright, fair use, trademark and other issues
weigh on building communities and corporate use of fan pages and social media generally?
A hypothetical “Company” has plans for its Pinterest “community”, and
in particular, wonders about these situations:
- Using Images of Identifiable People
- Fair Use and Images
- Trademarks: When is a “Fair Use” Argument Strongest?
- Why Attribution and Linking to Original Sources is Important
3 introductory questions:
Question #1: Someone used to be a paid Company sponsor or spokesperson. They are no longer. Can the Company continue to post a photo of the old sponsor to Pinterest? Short Answer: If the contract with the sponsor expressly permits it, yes. Ordinarily, the contract would specify engagement for limited time, and that would prohibit rights to use images beyond the contract period. But it really depends on what the contract says.
Question #2: Can the Company post a photo of a fan of the Company? Short Answer: Express consent is required, either through a release or the fan’s agreement (whenever the photo is submitted) to terms of service. Exceptions are discussed below.
Question #3: Can the Company post a photo of a Coca-Cola bottle on its Pinterest page? Short Answer: If the use of the image does not suggest (implicitly or explicitly) endorsement or association, then yes.
The issue of same-sex unions is hotly debated, and the discussion is heating up this election year with the case on California’s Proposition 8 making its way to the Supreme Court, and with President Obama recently declaring that he is in favor of same-sex marriage.
Some of the most commercially successful and popular music of all time – including the entire catalog of The Beatles – is subject to a degree of uncertainty under current copyright law in the United States due to an anomaly in the federal copyright framework with respect to older sound recordings.
The nation's largest Internet service providers, in an unprecedented partnership with titans of the entertainment industry, have agreed to implement a uniform policy aimed at deterring online copyright infringement known as the 
The DMLP recently appeared as an amicus curiae in Commonwealth v. Busa, a case brought in Boston Municipal Court under Massachusetts's anti-counterfeiting law, 
Earlier this week the CMLP (under its new name, the Digital Media Law Project) sought leave to file 
I'm not all that worried about YouTube's legal fate as such (I'm pretty sure Google can 
The All-Party Intellectual Property Group (APIP) in the United Kingdom 
If there is a polar opposite to organizations like ours, it is the intellectual property troll. And in the IP troll heirarchy, one of the trolliest has long been Righthaven, the self-described "pre-eminent copyright enforcer" that sued hundreds of bloggers and other Internet denizens apparently as part of its business model. If the DMLP, the EFF, Public Citizen, and the like are the Justice League, Righthaven would be in the Secret Society of Supervillians.
By now you might have heard about 
