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:

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

  15. California poised to enact most significant U.S. AI legislation

    *

    The SB 1047 bill aims to prevent AI-linked catastrophes

    *

    Bill deeply divisive among tech firms, politicians

    By Garrison Lovely

    NEW YORK, Sept 19 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – C alifornia is poised to enact the United States’ most significant piece of legislation around artificial intelligence, which could help reshape governance of
    the technology worldwide.

    The bill, called SB 1047, would be the first binding U.S.
    legislation aimed squarely at preventing AI-linked catastrophes, representing a
    significant break from the United States’ traditionally hands-off
    approach to regulating the industry.

    It recently cleared California’s legislature with a large majority and is now entirely in the hands of Governor Gavin Newsom, who has until Sept.
    30 to sign or veto it.

    But the legislation has exposed a deep divide across the tech industry and the political establishment, upending
    the usual coalitions. Critics worry it will hurt innovation in California
    and complain it uses liability to keep companies in check, while providing only vague rules for them to follow.
    Some say such regulation should be implemented at the federal level.

    Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has allied with Trump-supporting venture capitalists such as Marc Andreessen to kill the bill; billionaire Elon Musk has endorsed it, lining up with powerful labor groups and the feminist group NOW.

    Asked to comment on SB 1047, Newsom’s office told the Thomson Reuters Foundation they “don’t typically comment on pending legislation.”

    The governor, however, broke his silence on the bill this week, saying he was worried about the “outsized” impact the legislation could have.

    “(AI) is a space where we dominate, and I want to maintain our dominance… At the same time, you feel a deep sense of responsibility to address some of those more extreme concerns,”
    he told the Salesforce conference in San Francisco.

    He told the LA Times he had not yet made a decision on the bill.

    The United States has lagged global efforts to regulate the technology.
    The EU passed its sweeping AI Act in 2023, Britain’s new Labour government pledged to introduce “binding regulation” on top AI companies, while experts say China has taken a sharply
    growing interest in safeguarding against the technology’s extreme risks.

    DEEPLY DIVISIVE

    Authored by California Senator Scott Wiener, the legislation would primarily require developers of the next generation of AI models like ChatGPT
    to implement safety measures designed to prevent catastrophes, defined as
    incidents resulting in at least $500 million in damage or mass casualties.

    The bill would apply to AI firms that do business in California and develop
    models that cost at least $100 million to train. It would also allow California’s attorney general to sue
    developers of covered AI models that cause disasters if they did not implement appropriate safeguards.

    While President Joe Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence issued in October 2023 is
    considered more wide-reaching, it does not
    include SB 1047’s enforcement provisions.

    Leaders of top AI companies have frequently warned about the existential threat
    of AI and asked to be regulated, but many have criticised the legislation.

    Tech giants OpenAI, Meta, and Google all wrote letters to California lawmakers
    expressing their opposition, warning the bill could prompt AI developers to leave the state.

    “S.B. 1047´s uncertain definitions and harsh penalties, tied to unreasonable foreseeability and liability provisions, are likely to drive AI innovation out of California,” said Google
    in a letter from July.

    A similar argument was made by eight Democratic members
    of Congress from California in a letter to Newsom in August.
    They also said the bill did not address the imminent risks from artificial intelligence, including misinformation and discrimination.

    Nancy Pelosi expressed her opposition in what appears
    to be the first time she stood against a piece of state-level legislation from a member of her own party.

    Wiener has sought to address the criticism, saying in an open letter in August that “SB 1047 addresses severe and very tangible risks to national security and public safety.”

    He told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that the bill was “very flexible” — not vague
    — so companies could continue to innovate and safeguards could evolve along with the industry.
    While he also preferred AI to be regulated at the federal level,
    he said California needed to take action in the absence of this.

    “We need to be clear that Meta and all of the other large (AI) labs have all committed to perform safety testing, which is the heart of this bill,” said Wiener.

    Dario Amodei, CEO of AI start-up Anthropic, said on a podcast that the idea that firms would leave California because of SB 1047 was “just theater”.
    California is the world’s fifth-largest economy and is home to the
    top-five generative AI companies.

    Some of the critics also appeared to have financial ties to the
    industry.

    A 2023 financial disclosure report for Nancy Pelosi showed her husband owned between $16 million and $80
    million in stocks and options in Google, Amazon, Microsoft,
    and Nvidia.

    When asked for a comment, her office said “Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions.”

    Prominent AI researcher Fei-Fei Li argued that SB 1047 would “harm our budding AI ecosystem” in a Fortune
    opinion piece that was cited by Pelosi in her statement.

    Li set up a billion-dollar startup to make AI technology in April, which received significant financial backing from Andreesen Horowitz, a leading AI investor behind a campaign against SB
    1047.

    Asked whether this posed a conflict of interest, Li said in an email:
    “On the contrary, it is my firm belief that a healthy technology ecosystem is good for our country and our world.”

    EXISTENTIAL THREAT?

    The central debate is around whether near-future
    AI systems could cause the disasters the bill aims to
    prevent, said Dean Ball, research fellow at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University.

    If AI capabilities develop as SB 1047 supporters expect, the need for regulation will become clearer,
    he added.

    But some supporters are concerned there will not be enough time
    to act later.

    “Progress in AI capabilities is rapid these days,” said Daniel Kokotajlo, an OpenAI whistleblower who shared evidence that the company forced outgoing employees to sign lifetime non-disparagement agreements to retain their vested equity.

    “Corporations are incentivized to race each other and to say – and believe – that doing so is what’s best for humanity.”

    On Thursday, OpenAI announced a new reasoning model which it said was capable of surpassing
    human experts in a number of technical benchmarks for the first time.

    The new model received the company’s first “medium” rating on bioweapon risk, indicating it
    is the first model to be able to meaningfully assist experts in the production of bioweapons beyond just access to the
    internet. (Editing by Ana Nicolaci da Costa)

    Rispondi

Lascia un commento