SaltYou know you’ve chuckled at a few of them–the  ubiquitous internet meme.  But, have you ever wondered whether all this sharing, changing and going “viral” is legal.

Protecting or commercializing your meme

If you create or are the subject of a meme, it can be difficult to commercialize it or protect it. There are generally two “rights” that can be associated with a meme—trademark and copyright.

Copyright:  Copyright protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. As the person who created a work, you have a copyright regardless of whether you file it with the U.S. Copyright Office.  To sue over a copyright, you need to register it, but your lack of registration does not otherwise lessen the right to claim something you created as yours.  If you take the picture, then generally you own the copyright. But, if you add a few new words to someone else’s picture, your addition does not likely transform ownership to you.

The point of internet memes, however, is that they be shared.  If you are aggressive and enforce your copyright, the meme won’t become, well, a meme.

Trademarks:  A trademark protects a word, phrase, symbol and/or design that distinguishes the source of the goods. These are brand marks that give a particular product or service a distinct identity or help consumers distinguish between various products or services. Could your meme be a source indicator for your goods or services?

Grumpy CatsIt does not happen often, but it has happened before.  Grumpycats.com turned its meme into a business by selling books, shirts, posters and even Christmas decorations. The trademark holder is the family who originally took the picture of the cat and posted it online. The original trademark registration listed the goods associated with the mark Grumpy Cat as “stuffed and plush toys, action figures, dolls and toy animals, all based on a real cat that is an internet meme.”

So what about the risk of using memes?

Most creators launch their memes for the love of the meme and want people to share and tweak. But, there have been claims in the past. Getty Images, which has a reputation for strictly enforcing their intellectual property, has enforced the use of one of its images in a meme.

The Socially Awkward Penguin was a short-lived meme that was shared and people would socially awkward oengineoften change the text to include awkward sayings. The original image of the penguin came from a National Geographic photographer and Getty Images enforced their rights and demanded money from people who used the image in memes.

But what about fair use?

Capture

Fair use is the most obvious defense to a claim. The problem with fair use is that there is no bright line test and no lawyer can guarantee you that a court would find that your use of the meme was a fair use.

The fair use factors include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Because most memes are meant to be parodies or include critical comments in a non-commercialized way, fair use will likely save the day. If you use it in a commercial way in advertising or try to sell items using someone else’s images for Captureyour meme, then you will likely find yourself in trouble.

 

For the most part, internet memes are harmless fun. If you are sharing with your friends and commenting on current events, you likely don’t have much to worry about. Share the Salt Bae image to celebrate your buddy’s epic bottle flip. On the other hand, if you are using a meme to sell products, you may want to think twice.

If you created the original image that has gone viral and you want to sell products or otherwise monetize it, you may want to take the right legal steps to protect yourself.

Today, we have a guest post from Gray Reed & McGraw attorney Cleve Clinton (the one on the far left).  He is one of the writers of the enlightening and entertaining blog over at Tilting the Scales where they share common sense, practical insights and a little humor, all to help clarify interesting and timely business legal issues that pop up.

Their most recent post fits in perfectly for what we cover here — intellectual property rights of out-of-sync dancing costumed sharks and 3D printing.  You can check out the original post and more of Titling the Scales here.

Left Shark and Lawsuits – Who Gets Bitten in the End?

By Cleve Clinton on February 10th, 2015 
Halftime was just the Beginning: A backup dancer in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show goes viral upstaging the singer, Tom Brady and Russell Wilson for MVP. Thanks to social media, “Left Shark” became a “thing” overnight and an enterprising entrepreneur (Frederick Sosa) sells internet 3D printed figurines to cash in on the immediate success of the carefree creature.

The Real Shark? Katy Perry’s lawyers issued a cease and desist letter claiming copyright violations and threatening a lawsuit. No surprise there.

The Victim?  Protecting some 10 sales of a $24.99 “Left Shark Desk Figurine” versus litigation threatened by a 1,000+ attorney law firm?  No contest – Frederick Sosa of Orlando. Even assuming he did have the resources to fight, it’s not worth the time or the argument. At $24.99 a pop, the economics are obvious. The good news is that Sosa got a lot of airtime for his 3-D online printing business. In the social media world he and Left Shark upstaged everyone on the big stage.

Legal Issues? Plenty to go around on Copyright Law and 3D Printing.

Copyright. Generally speaking: Can a non-generic animal costume be copyrighted? Probably. But, who owns the right to the copyright? If used before, it may be in the public domain. If not, it depends. Who designed the shark costume? What do the contracts say among any number of possible claimants – a third party designer, Perry’s team, the NFL, NBC or someone else? Finally, if it is protectable, was it properly perfected? For the real answer to any specific copyright questions, our very own Gray Reed copyright, trademark and patent experts David Lisch and David Henry can provide the right answers to the hard questions.

Last Bite? After removing the figurine for sale from Shapeways.com, Sosa put his Left Shark figurine design on MakerBot’s Thingiverse site as a free download for anyone with a 3D printer. A modified version is still available as “Blue Drunk Shark.”

3D Printing. The more novel question? Can a 3-D printing-on-demand company be liable for the infringements of its users? The 3D printing industry blog notes that federal law provides a safe harbor for websites and services that provide a platform for users to publish their own works. Manufacturing-on-demand services could be considered analogous to sites such as YouTube and Tumblr; the only real difference is that their products are physical, not virtual. Yet a federal judge ruled last year that CafePress, which makes T-shirts and coffee mugs on demand, didn’t qualify for that safe harbor, allowing a photographer’s infringement claims against the company to proceed. A year ago, Tilting wrote about 3D printing of guns, the fact that the innovative emerging ideas of 3D printing is a disruptive technology and its likely impact on copyright issues. No doubt, more to come.

Tilting the Scales in Your Favor. Evaluate the risk. Be realistic. Identify the opportunity and the near term goal. In this case, better to use sound judgment at the beginning and maximize the social media limelight, then be prepared graciously bow out.

Previous Tilting Articles: There’s a Printer for That!

 

I love college basketball.  Given that my Missouri Tigers haven’t given me much to talk about, I thought we could discuss the efforts by this upset Duke fan to have her image removed from the Internet captured during the Miami – Duke game that snapped Duke’s incredible 41-home-game winning streak.  You can read about it here.

I am not a Duke basher (nor fan) and I don’t want to pile on this poor fan.  Believe me, after what Kentucky did to Mizzou last night, I felt worse.  This does, however, raise some interesting legal questions.

How do you remove images from the Internet?

 

1. Copyright

The primary way is to use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  If you own the copyright to the image, it is usually pretty easy to get images removed from websites operated in the U.S. and to have the search engines de-index them.  You can read more about the DMCA here.  Generally, if you take the picture, you own the copyright.  The copyright to this image belongs to ESPN and probably the ACC or NCAA.  You know that really quick copyright notice for broadcasts – any use of images is prohibited, blah, blah, blah.  Screen shots would be included.  The fan could ask ESPN to get these images removed.  ESPN may be a little busy, however, because I think Tom Brady may have sneezed.

2.  Invasion of Privacy

There is little expectation of privacy in the stands of a nationally televised sporting event.  Do a search for certain NSFW conduct at sporting events to see how people forget this sometimes.  Also, look at the back of your ticket next time you head to a game.  There is a lot of fine print about the lack of privacy you may experience.  Nevertheless, let’s go through the common law claims of intrusion upon seclusion, publicity to private facts, appropriation of likeness and false light.

Intrusion upon seclusion.  The elements of the claim are: (1) intentional intrusion; (2) upon private affairs of another; (3) that is highly offensive to another.  Being upset at a basketball game is not a private affair.  Most states follow the stand in doctrine which provides that if the media stands where the general public could observe the events, then there is no intrusion.

Publicity to private facts.  To prevail on a claim, the information must not be a matter of legitimate public concern and its publication would be highly offense to a reasonable person.  I am not suggesting comments to a blog are true indications of what is offensive, but a quick view of them reveal that using that screenshot is not highly offensive to most.

Commercial appropriation of likeness.  This requires the (1) appropriation of one’s name or likeness; (2) for a commercial purposes.  Although ads are sold on blogs, the use of the name is not for a commercial purpose.  This cause of action usually applies to celebrities when a store tweets about them without permission or makes video games about them.  If a UNC fan used this picture to start selling t-shirts, then she may have a claim, but not for the use of the image on Twitter or blogs.

Portrayal in false light.  It requires: (1) publishing information that creates a false impression; (2) thereby casting the person in a false light; (3) creating emotional (as opposed to commercial) harm; and (4) the act is highly offensive.  I suspect there is nothing false about this fan’s feelings.  Like I said, no one saw me in my living room with a look of disgust last night, but there is nothing false impression about how she is feeling and why she is upset.

3.  Approach the websites

According to the article, the first image appeared on Twitter.  Under the Twitter Rules, posters are not supposed to abuse others, infringe on the rights of others or violate copyrights.  If you ask nicely and point out how posts violate a site’s terms, sometimes the wesbites will take it down although they may not legally have to.  In fact, in the terms of service, Twitter says it may not monitor the tweets and:

You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive.

In addition to being at the mercy of Twitter’s whims that day, the problem is now that the image is on many other sites as well.

The Streisand Effect

We have talked about the Streisand Effect before.   It’s the name given to the phenomena resulting from increased attention to online posts, stories, websites, etc. only after someone complains about them or raises a legal issue about them.  Had the fan not asked to remove the image, I would not have read about it and would not be blogging about it. Sometimes, the wiser move is to let it go (no, I will not sing it).  It’s a bad business development strategy on my part, but is often the best advice I have ever given.

On the bright side, at least the fan was not wrongfully accused of being caught cheating on her boyfriend at the Ohio State v. Alabama game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2QQj1n57ok

 

 

 

 

5.  Using Images Without Permission is No Monkey Business

From the Wikimedia Commons website

This was one of the more interesting stories of the year – does the photographer who set up everything to allow for a monkey to take a selfie own the copyright to that selfie?  This year we learned that no, the photographer does not.

 

 

 

4.  Infographic: The Use of Images From The Web on Your Site, Newspaper or Broadcast – Enough Said:

3.  The Law on Unpaid Interns – This post makes the list almost every year because I repost the guest post by Michael Kelsheimer of the Texas Employer Handbook every year as tech start-ups look to hire unpaid interns.  It’s a little more complicated than you may think.

2. #SMH-butnotacontestorasweepstakes – Check your online promotion hashtag or face scrutiny from the FTC – This post covered the surprise investigation of the Wandering Sole contest by Cole Haan.  The FTC basically said if you are going to have customers “endorse” your products by and through a contest, you better make sure the connection between the endorsement and contest is disclosed.  The legality of online contests is a popular topic with an older post Is Your Online Sweepstakes or Contest Legal still remaining popular.

1.  When Online Behavior Crosses the Line – The Law on Threats, Libel and Just Being Rude – Online defamation and related topics continue to be popular.  In fact, this post from 2012, remains one of the most popular on the site, How to Identify the Anonymous Online Defamer.  My suspicion is that SEO on these topics leads to more page views.  Nevertheless, it continues to be a very important issue for individuals and businesses and will likely continue in 2015.

 

Who owns the rights to a selfie taken by a monkey?  While it sounds like a law school exam, it is based on a real story as reported here by the American Bar Association.

According to the article, a monkey picked up the photographer’s unattended camera and began taking pictures.  This is one of the images captured by the monkey.

From the Wikimedia Commons website

The nature photographer claims he owns the copyright.  Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Commons website has been distributing the picture for free and has refused to take it down.

Usually, the rule is that whoever takes a photograph owns the copyright as discussed with the famous Ellen DeGeneres Oscars selfie.  Wikimedia is claiming animals can’t own copyrights unless a human adds a significant creative element to the picture. Hence, Wikimedia says there is no copyright with the picture.

Under U.S. Copyright law, to be entitled to the copyright, you have the be the “author” of the work which is normally the person who created the work and the basis for the general rule when it comes to photographs.

The U.S. Copyright Office has a rule that the work must be of “human authorship” and works created mechanically or by random selection, without any human contribution, are not eligible for a copyright.  The photographer’s claim that the picture was a result of his hard work may not succeed under U.S. law.  It’s not the amount effort that counts, it’s the inclusion of human creative originality.

The blawgosphere is offering many opinions on this.  For example, Steve Baird suggests that perhaps the monkey is the photographer’s assistant and therefore the credit for the picture goes to the photographer.  Matthew David Bozik opines that perhaps it is a joint work.  We will have to see what tactic the photographer takes.

In the meantime, what can you do to avoid the same problem short of making the animal sign a work for hire agreement?  You can do post-production work on the photograph that provides its own original creative touch to it without releasing the original.  While it may not be a selfie if you remotely take the picture, you would still be considered the one who clicked the button.  According to the articles, the photographer went through a lot of effort to make this happen – will he get the credit?

You can read more about the case herehere,  here and here.

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Aereo violates copyright law by retransmitting over-the-air programming without authorization.  This will shut down the controversial start-up or force them back to the drawing board to come up with a new system.  The sound you heard was a huge sigh of relief of all over-the-air networks, cable carriers and content creators because this would have caused everyone to re-evaluate how programming is broadcast, and more importantly, paid for.

For those not familiar with Aereo, it essentially allowed users to “rent” an antennae that would pick up a signal at a certain point.  Aereo would then take that over the air signal and send it to the user’s phone so they could stream the content from their phones.

The issue was whether this was a “public performance” of the copyrighted works.  Aereo said it was not because the users could receive the same content for free if they had antennas attached to their TV at home.  Aereo merely re-transmitted the same content to allows users to access it on their phone privately.

The networks sued Aereo almost as soon as it launched in 2012.  They argued the simultaneous broadcasts to thousands of paying customers represented an illegal retransmission of protected works — even if you called it renting an antenna.

Actually, everyone can give a sigh a relief.  Had Aereo won, the broadcast networks said they would stop providing content.  The cable companies pay the networks a lot of money to retransmit the over the air channels and this would have changed everything.

While this is a blow to Aereo and possibly innovation – at least through this specific model – the world as we knew it before Aero will continue.

 

We created this infographic for some of our media clients to give them a one-page cheat sheet on the analysis they need to do when trying to decide whether they can use an image from the internet in a pinch.

The infographic includes all the caveats because rarely can a legal issue be discerned down to one page with so few words.  In fact, I wrote a three-part series on this very topic last year.  

To view this as a pdf, click Use of Images InfoGraphic.

 

With the short Thanksgiving week, I thought we would touch on a few interesting stories developing over the last couple of weeks.

Photographer gets $1 million+ verdict from AFP and Getty for copied Twitpics

In my three part series on using images from the web for your news stories, we talked about the Morel v. Agence France-Press case.  Agence France-Press, the Washington Post and Getty used images of the Haitian earthquake put on Twitter by photographer Daniel Morel.  The Washington Post settled, but the case went to trial last week against AFP and Getty.  AFP thought they had permission from the photographer to use the images, but they did not get permission from the right person.

Previously, a judge rejected AFP’s argument that it could use the images because they were put up on Twitter. The Twitter terms of service did not provide that the photographer gave his rights in the images away or grant anyone else the right to use the images outside of Twitter.  In the trial, it turns out AFP did not follow their internal guidelines on the use of images or take immediate corrective action.  The jury awarded the upper end of the statutory damages.

If you have policies, follow them.  If you make a mistake, you fix it as quick as you can. You can read about the case here and here.

Engineering gift for girls’ video spreads on Facebook – lawsuit follows.

I have a daughter.  I liked this commercial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFpe3Up9T_g

I assumed they had the Beastie Boys’ permission.  Apparently, they did not and the Beastie Boys sent a copyright cease and desist letter.  The people at Goldiebox fought back and filed a suit asking the court to declare the parties’ rights.   Is it a parody or do the Beastie Boys have to do this to make sure more people don’t use their songs in commercials?  You can read more about the case here with some legal analysis from the EFF here.  At least Goldiebox will get some more attention with the lawsuit at the beginning of the holiday shopping season.

Want to criticize me, it will cost you!

KlearGear’s terms of service state:

“In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.”

A Utah couple criticized KlearGear on RipOff Report.  Soon thereafter, KlearGear sent the couple a bill for $3,500.  KlearGear never sued, but did report the couple as delinquent to the credit reporting agencies.  We have talked about being proactive, but not too proactive, when it comes to online complaints.  Since the news of this broke, KlearGear has shut down its Facebook page and its Twitter feed to hide from the blow back.  You can read more here, here and here.  This is not the kind of press you want before the shopping season.

Update 11/27/13 –  a lawyer is now representing the couple and has sent a demand to KlearGear to remove the notation with the credit agencies or face a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit.  Read about it here.

Reputable companies line up to support TheDirty.com

Finally, we update you on the Jones v. TheDirty case we have talked about before.  This is the suit by a former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader against the website TheDirty.   A Kentucky judge allowed the case to proceed against the rumor and trash site despite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which normally provides immunity for website operators based on user generated content.  The jury awarded $380,000 and TheDirty.com appealed.

While some may believe the ends justified the means against this particular defendant, the refusal to dismiss this case flies in the face of almost every other Section 230 case.  In this case, the court wrote “the very name of the site, the manner in which it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie” shows that the site “specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content.”  TheDirty.com asks people to “submit dirt.” Their submission form has entries for the “dirt,” and provides a link to upload photographs. The court seized on the fact that in response to the post about Jones, the site operator wrote “I love how the Dirty Army has a war mentality.”  Thus, no dismissal by the judge.

Section 230 has its place.  Imagine if Facebook, Google, or YouTube could be sued or had to police all of the user generated content.  I don’t think those services would exist.  That’s why many of them have filed amicus briefs with the Sixth Court of Appeals urging the court to reverse the ruling and dismiss the claims.  You can read more here about how and why the likes of Amazon, Google, LinkedIn, Google and Microsoft are asking for the reversal.

 

In part one, we discussed how fair use may apply to the media’s use of social media images.  In part two, we looked at how the various sites’ terms of service come into play.  Today, we look at the one prominent case in this area and describe some best practices.

 The Agence France-Presse Twitter Case

There is just one well-known case involving the media’s use of social media images.  Agence France-Press and the Washington Post both used images of the Haitian earthquake put on Twitter by photographer Daniel Morel.  A judge rejected AFP’s argument that it could use the images because they were put up on Twitter.  The Twitter terms of service did not provide that the photographer gave his rights in the images away or grant anyone else the right to use the images outside of Twitter.  After denying AFP’s motion for summary judgment, the case, as far as I can tell, is still pending.

Best Practice

1.   Make sure it’s legit

It’s easy to get duped.  Jimmy Kimmel showed us that.  This is more a producer/editorial function rather than legal, but it’s worth noting here.

2.    Get permission

The good news about social media is that it makes it easy for you to reach out to ask permission.  You don’t need any magic language and you don’t need a lawyer to draft anything for you.  Send the person who posted the image – “Hi, I’m the producer, we are considering using this image.  Did you take it and would you mind if we used on the news?” It is not uncommon for there to be a small payment, but most amateurs won’t ask.

3.     Make sure you have permission from the right person

In the AFP case, AFP did reach out and tried to get a license to use the images.  They just did not get them from Morel — the actual photographer.  The AFP staffer saw the images on Twitter and reached to the account where the staffer saw them.  Unfortunately, that person had already lifted them from Morel’s account.  AFP then distributed the images to Getty and Morel was not pleased.   You can read more about the facts of the case here.  For those of you who want some more legal beef on the case, check out Professor Goldman’s post here.

4.     Don’t make promises in your request or box yourself in

Because of fair use, you don’t have to ask for permission.  Even if they say no, you might be able to use it.  Therefore, don’t send a message that implies you are only going to use it if you obtain their permission or suggests that you have to have it.  My example above would be fine.  Sending a message that says: “We have to hear from you soon to know whether we have your permission” implies it’s a requirement and could be used against you if there is a trial later.

5.     Attribution

If you are unable to get permission, then you should at least provide attribution.  Many amateurs would be satisfied with a little notoriety from the attribution.  Attribution won’t get you out of a lawsuit if they get mad, but it may help show you were acting in good faith or alleviate any anger so the person reconsiders whether they really want to file a lawsuit.

The Poynter Institute’s Adam Hochberg wrote an article titled “Twitpic, Flikr Use by Eyewitnesses Raises Questions for News Orgs About Image Rights, Compensation” that includes a good discussion of these issues.  According to the article, the Associated Press requires editors to contact all “citizen photos” and verify each image for both authentication and permission.  The article provides several ideas for an image policy and some of the issues involved.

What is the real harm?

The main point of this series has been to avoid any liability and provide some guidance and good practices.  I am not saying the minimal likely harm should be part of the decision-making process as to whether you violate a copyright.  When dealing with fair use, there is risk, but it is usually not a huge risk.  Assuming it is a close call (and you are not scooping or stealing some paparazzi images of the Royal Baby), you are likely looking at having to pay either actual damages or statutory damages.  The actual damages could be the market rate for the license to use the image.  The statutory damages, on the other hand, are between $750 and $30,000 per work.  If the fair use analysis is a close call and you use best practices, you are likely to be on the lower end of the statutory damages.  In the AFP case, the court ruled he damages would be assessed on each image used by AFP and not on each time it was subsequently downloaded or used after AFP sent it to Getty.  Whether you multiply $5,000 times 8 or 8,000 makes a huge difference.

If you mess it up, your biggest liability is likely going to be the bad P.R. and your legal bill.

Last time, we looked at whether the media can use images from social media sites applying fair use to several typical situations.  Today, we look at the specific terms of service of various popular sites to see if some make it easier than others for the media to use images.

Facebook:

Plain English:  Each user allows Facebook, and only Facebook, to do what it wants with the images subject to the privacy settings.   It gives no others any rights through its terms.  Facebook could sublicense to the image to you, but I have not heard of this being done for the purpose of news reporting.  As we discussed last time, the fact that someone puts up the image for the world to see can help with the fair use argument.

Twitter:

In plain English:  The same as Facebook.  Interestingly, Twitter includes a “Tip” section where it says:  “This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.”  There is certainly no issue retweeting images and posts, but the “tip” seems to be more broad because it would allow the media to repost images and posts off of the Twitter platform.  The Twitter terms do not expressly allow that, but this language could help argue it does.

Twitter also reserves the right to sublicense whatever is provided, specifically allowing Twitter to make it available to other media and platforms without any compensation to the user.  The tip says:  “Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. But what’s yours is yours – you own your Content (and your photos are part of that Content).”

While this is certainly not a green light to re-use images from Twitter, it could help a media outlet argue fair use.

LinkedIn

Plain English:  The terms contemplate that your images on LinkedIn may be copied, but they do not expressly allow it.  The terms warn “[a]ny information you submit to us is at your own risk of loss.”

Pinterest

Plain English:  The site had its own copyright issues in the past.  It tries to make it clear that anything a user submits is meant to be shared as much as possible.  The terms say: “You grant Pinterest and its users a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, store, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify, create derivative works, perform, and distribute your User Content on Pinterest solely for the purposes of operating, developing, providing, and using the Pinterest Products.”  This means they want you to share what you find on Pinterest, but only share it on Pinterest — not the front page or the 5:00 news.  

Pinterest has a section called “More simply put” that says “if you post your content on Pinterest, it still belongs to you but we can show it to people and others can re-pin it.”

Vine

Plain English:  Vine is allowed to sublicense content, but there is nothing that allows the general public to do whatever it wants with the videos.

Instagram

Plain English:  Instagram may sublicense the images, but there is nothing in these terms that would specifically allow the media to use the images.

Up Next

In our conclusion of this series, we will discuss a couple of cases and talk about the best practices.