1. Normal users with public albums who are unaware of the fact that anyone can push the ‘Buy print’ button and produce prints of the user’s family pictures, wedding album, holiday pics, original art.. you name it. Even with the ’scapegoat’ of the “users signed the TOS” it shouldn’t be impossible for PB to 1) more clearly express the implications of an open account on the site at sign up AND in the upload area and 2) make new accounts private by default (as suggested in the first article on the subject)

2. Third party image rights holders whose images are uploaded to PB by users without rights to them. THIS is the real problem, but unfortunately the one that probably matters less to PB because the third party entity is of no interest to them. As long as they have the user, even uploading content they have no rights to, PB is happy and the TOS are in effect so PB has their back covered and artists have to waste valuable time on DMCA complaints.

So.. there are basically two different target groups here. You have reached and continue to reach the second one well by word of mouth in the online artist community, through deviantART and similar sites. I’d say the first group needs to be targeted as well, because they will probably have larger impact (if their numbers are large enough) on PB since they are actually direct users.

Considering the measures that production companies are taking against file sharing of music and movies, I’m surprised they’re not more concerned about picture/photo content, that is not only being shared but sold for profit. The same legislation applies after all. Why not contact the production companies, they certainly have more leverage against PB, making them see things in a different light. I mean, Warner Bros wouldn’t be happy to hear Fox is making money off their stuff now would they?

1. Normal users with public albums who are unaware of the fact that anyone can push the ‘Buy print’ button and produce prints of the user’s family pictures, wedding album, holiday pics, original art.. you name it. Even with the ’scapegoat’ of the “users signed the TOS” it shouldn’t be impossible for PB to 1) more clearly express the implications of an open account on the site at sign up AND in the upload area and 2) make new accounts private by default (as suggested in the first article on the subject)

2. Third party image rights holders whose images are uploaded to PB by users without rights to them. THIS is the real problem, but unfortunately the one that probably matters less to PB because the third party entity is of no interest to them. As long as they have the user, even uploading content they have no rights to, PB is happy and the TOS are in effect so PB has their back covered and artists have to waste valuable time on DMCA complaints.

So.. there are basically two different target groups here. You have reached and continue to reach the second one well by word of mouth in the online artist community, through deviantART and similar sites. I’d say the first group needs to be targeted as well, because they will probably have larger impact (if their numbers are large enough) on PB since they are actually direct users.

Considering the measures that production companies are taking against file sharing of music and movies, I’m surprised they’re not more concerned about picture/photo content, that is not only being shared but sold for profit. The same legislation applies after all. Why not contact the production companies, they certainly have more leverage against PB, making them see things in a different light. I mean, Warner Bros wouldn’t be happy to hear Fox is making money off their stuff now would they?

Noel: I agree that you should read the TOS and that users who sign up for PB without setting their accounts to private are probably without recourse. However, I sharply disagree with the idea that PB is in the clear from third party artists.

The problem is that the TOS is an agreement between PB and the person who registers the account. A third party artist that is not a member is not a party to that agreement. Their arrangement with PB is governed by the law at large. The DMCA gives hosts safe harbor but one of the exceptions is if they profit directly from the infringement, as they do here.

If PB were found liable for the infringement, they could then pursue the uploader for violating their TOS and work to reclaim those damages, but that would be a separate case.

Simply put, an artist that has not signed up with PB can not be held accountable to their terms of service and the law is pretty clear about the liability of hosts in these cases.

Standard caveats apply.

Noel: I agree that you should read the TOS and that users who sign up for PB without setting their accounts to private are probably without recourse. However, I sharply disagree with the idea that PB is in the clear from third party artists.

The problem is that the TOS is an agreement between PB and the person who registers the account. A third party artist that is not a member is not a party to that agreement. Their arrangement with PB is governed by the law at large. The DMCA gives hosts safe harbor but one of the exceptions is if they profit directly from the infringement, as they do here.

If PB were found liable for the infringement, they could then pursue the uploader for violating their TOS and work to reclaim those damages, but that would be a separate case.

Simply put, an artist that has not signed up with PB can not be held accountable to their terms of service and the law is pretty clear about the liability of hosts in these cases.

Standard caveats apply.

Why are you bothering with an online petition? Anyone can fake the names on an online petition. A simple script can generate names and addresses. Companies for that reason don’t pay a lot of attention to them.

Basically the online petition is the option for people who want to feel like they’re doing something without actually going out of the way to do anything, it’s about as effective as the effort put into it.

May I suggest a different tactic? Have people send letters, a post bag stuffed full of well written complaints to the company has a far bigger impact than some bytes on a screen.

Why are you bothering with an online petition? Anyone can fake the names on an online petition. A simple script can generate names and addresses. Companies for that reason don’t pay a lot of attention to them.

Basically the online petition is the option for people who want to feel like they’re doing something without actually going out of the way to do anything, it’s about as effective as the effort put into it.

May I suggest a different tactic? Have people send letters, a post bag stuffed full of well written complaints to the company has a far bigger impact than some bytes on a screen.