Say you come across a gorgeous picture of Michelle Obama’s latest dress, and you want to remember it next time you’re in the market for a fancy get-up. You pin it to your DRESSES!!! board on Pinterest. There are, potentially, some copyright issues there.
Someone took that picture, and you didn’t pay that person for its use. And while that wouldn’t be a problem if you had torn that photo out of a magazine and posted it on your physical bedroom wall, instead, you’ve posted it on your publicly accessible internet wall. You’re running into more complicated legal questions—including the possibility that Pinterest is going to make a profit off of the photo you just distributed.
At the end of October, Pinterest struck up a partnership with the digital photo company Getty Images that could help address some of the structural issues of running a social media company with user-contributed content. Pinterest will pay a fee for Getty’s metadata, which, in theory, will help improve the ways in which Pinterest users can search for and find more delightful pictures. On Getty’s side, the fee will provide some compensation to the photographers in the company’s network.
During its 18 years in business, Getty has worked out partnerships with more traditional media companies, like National Geographic and CNN, and with user-generated media companies, like Flickr. But the company has also aggressively gone after online copyright infringement. CJR sat down with Getty Images’ senior VP and general counsel, John Lapham, to talk about how the company’s thinking about copyright has developed and changed as images have sprawled over the Web.
What put Pinterest on your radar? How did your thinking about that company and that type of photo use evolve?
It’s just my natural love of crafting.
No, I mean, for us, it was a company that was soaring in popularity, but still young. And so it seemed like it was a great opportunity to work with them to help their product develop in a way where they could still be wildly popular and still have a super active user base, but at the same time, evolve in a way that respected other people’s intellectual property.
What does the fee they’re paying you actually cover?
It’s not a licensing arrangement. They’re paying for the metadata and the re-attribution of the imagery. Right now, you might find a Getty Image on their site that a user right-clicked from the Getty Images website itself, or that they might have right-clicked from MarthaStewart.com. A lot of times, by the time the imagery got to Pinterest, it was stripped of its metadata, and there was no attribution for the source.
So, this gives us a chance to take advantage of our image search technology, find out where our images are being used and then reattach the metadata and provide the attribution for the content.
It sounds to me like you’ve created a new type of revenue stream.
It’s definitely a new type of revenue stream. What we’re trying to do right now is to take advantage of what’s already happening. And what’s happening and what will continue to happen is that people are going to use lots and lots of imagery, and there are going to be news ways to use it. And our traditional models of having that paid for and giving permissions wasn’t going to work for a site like Pinterest.
That seems like a different approach than the one you’ve gotten some criticism for—identifying instances of copyright infringement and then sending people letters saying, “You’re using our stuff, and you need to pay us for it.” How much are you still doing of that?
We have an unauthorized use program that goes out and, using our image search technology, finds instances where our images have been used for a commercial purpose, without permission. We’ll continue to do that. Part of that is that we have an obligation to our contributors to go find instances where their images are being used and they’re not being paid. There are a lot of times where it’s our contributors bringing those instances to our attention.