Un buon motivo per non iscriversi a Pinterest

di
Spread the love

Tutti usano Pinterest, ma quasi nessuno si è preso la briga di leggere con attenzione i termini di utilizzo del social network. Invece, proprio nel caso di Pinterest, è consigliabile dare un’occhiata approfondita ai Terms of Use prima di aprire un account, perché ci sono alcune cose che non tornano.

Pinterest è un sito che appartiene alla società Cold Brew Labs, dove puoi postare anzi “pinnare” le immagini che trovi in giro per la rete su una o più bacheche virtuali chiamate “boards”, e raggruppare le foto che ti piacciono di più sotto i temi più svariati. Tu per esempio puoi creare una board dedicata interamente alle scarpe, e un’altra con tutte le foto del mio cantante preferito. Ma prima di cominciare è bene che tu sappia che quando ti iscrivi a Pinterest accetti automaticamente di attenerti ai termini di utilizzo del network, che sono piuttosto ambigui.

Nell’insieme di norme che regolano i Terms of Use di Pinterest, elencato come Member Content ho trovato questo:

You acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services. Accordingly, you represent and warrant that: (i) you either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that you make available through the Site, Application and Services or you have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary to grant to Cold Brew Labs the rights in such Member Content, as contemplated under these Terms; and (ii) neither the Member Content nor your posting, uploading, publication, submission or transmittal of the Member Content or Cold Brew Labs’ use of the Member Content (or any portion thereof) on, through or by means of the Site, Application and the Services will infringe, misappropriate or violate a third party’s patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, moral rights or other proprietary or intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy, or result in the violation of any applicable law or regulation.

Per farla breve, il paragrafo dice che quando posti una foto su Pinterest dichiari che sei l’unico e solo proprietario di quell’immagine, o di aver ricevuto espressamente il consenso del proprietario alla pubblicazione, e di conseguenza di non stare violando nessun copyright.

È fondamentale che il copyright sia tuo, perché solo così Pinterest può vendere tutto quello che hai pinnato.

By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services.

Se il copyright non è tuo, allora vuol dire che hai infranto i diritti proprietari di terzi, e la responsabilità non è di Pinterest, ma soltanto tua.

You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold Cold Brew Labs, its officers, directors, employees and agents, harmless from and against any claims, liabilities, damages, losses, and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal and accounting fees, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) your access to or use of the Site, Application, Services or Site Content, (ii) your Member Content, or (iii) your violation of these Terms.

Facciamo un esempio: tu hai pinnato qualcosa che non è tuo, magari proprio la foto del tuo cantante preferito ma scattata da un famoso fotografo. La foto è bella e Pinterest se la rivende. Allora il suddetto fotografo decide di far valere il diritto alla proprietà intellettuale e chiede un indennizzo alla Cold Brew Labs. La società a questo punto se ne lava le mani perché tu hai dichiarato di essere l’unico e solo proprietario della foto. Così alla fine ti ritrovi da solo a pagare i danni e tutte le spese legali.

Ti sembra un’esagerazione? Forse hai già dimenticato cosa è successo con la chiusura di Megaupload.

Via | Knoed

Related Posts:

398.980 commenti su “Un buon motivo per non iscriversi a Pinterest”

  27. Excellent article. Keep writing such kind of information on your blog.
    Im really impressed by your site.
    Hello there, You’ve done an incredible job. I will certainly
    digg it and in my opinion recommend to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this website.

    Rispondi

  44. Why expanding the College Football Playoff worked – and what still needs to be fixed
    [url=https://moshennik.eu/company.php?name=club–unite-to-live—utl-club]жесткий анальный секс[/url]
    Now that it’s all over and the Ohio State Buckeyes are the college football national champions, it can be definitively said: expanding the College Football Playoff worked.

    The grand experiment to allow more teams to play for the national championship wasn’t perfect, but it ended up where it was supposed to: a worthy national champion with exciting, close games in the later rounds when the best teams faced one another. It gave us awesome scenes on campuses around the nation, created new legends and showed how a sport so steeped in tradition can evolve when faced with new demands from its fans and business partners.

    Here are four reasons why the new version of the College Football Playoff worked – and the areas that can still be fixed.

    The committee picked the right teams, even if some games were blowouts
    Before the games kicked off in December, much of the focus was put on the inclusion of Southern Methodist University (SMU) and Indiana University – two teams that won a bunch of games but didn’t have the brand recognition of schools like Alabama, South Carolina and Ole Miss.

    Here’s what else those teams had that SMU and Indiana didn’t: three losses.

    The Hoosiers lost only once in the regular season – to eventual national champion Ohio State. The Mustangs had lost twice, once to Brigham Young University and again in the ACC championship game to Clemson.

    In the first year of the expanded, 12-team playoff, could the committee really leave out a major conference team with 11 wins and punish another one for playing for a conference championship while other teams sat at home? Warde Manuel, the University of Michigan athletic director who served as chair of the committee, said they could not.

    Rispondi

  46. 100 фриспинов за регистрацию и множество бонусов для регулярных игроков. Clubnika casino открыла свой телеграм канал. Ищи нас по ID @clubnika_casino_site или переходи по ссыле: LINK here [url=https://t.me/clubnika_casino_site]Промокод Клубника казино[/url]

    Rispondi

Lascia un commento