The Battleground that is Pinterest: 2

I gave a bunch more thought to the whole Pinterest copyright thing, and I've realized that by blocking access to the original location of a pinned image WITHOUT REMOVING THE IMAGE ITSELF FROM PINTEREST actually DENIES ownership of that image! For example, this being a Blogger blog, I may indeed be just as blocked on Pinterest as many others. However, from the information in the just-linked post on Inspiration&Realisation, any images pinned from Binary Catfish may still remain accessible and REPINNABLE on Pinterest WITHOUT access to the original location of those images. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that violate even the relatively-fluid Fair Use clause??? If my images aren't being properly attributed, that means Pinterest is basically denying my ownership of them.

I'm cool with people using my images as inspiration, which fits into Fair Use, and I don't mind if my ideas are redistributed so long as I'm credited, and a tool like Pinterest makes it much easier TO credit me. I try very hard to ensure that I use good blogging practices and properly link and attribute the images I share, BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO (most Tumblr users should be dreadfully ashamed of themselves). I want anyone who stumbles across my tiny corner of the internet to be able to go directly to the source and experience the thing I found so inspiring for themselves! The progenitor of that inspiration deserves it.

This whole fiasco is SOPA in reverse, and IT IS NOT COOL. Did Pinterest not JUST fix their terms of service to ensure continuing ownership of the images that get pinned? Why is it that only MEGA-CORPORATIONS get any protection for their intellectual property? Thanks to Inspiration&Realisation, I think I know the answer to that last question...