fathom - 2:43 pm on Mar 29, 2012 (gmt 0)
I'll cover the legal direction.
(3) Legal avenue (illegal use). This could bring some collective relief, if it forces Pinterest to (a) shrink images to thumbnail size only or (b) allow pins on websites that actively opt-in only, or at offer a single-action, opt-out solution.
Pinterst.com is not registered as a designated agent of DMCA as detailed by Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. They have "sort of" borrowed the literature from the act but the act cannot protect them without their official registration.
Assuming they registered under another name (which is why I cannot find their designated agent claim @ [copyright.gov...] they are violating DMCA provisions which also voids their protection.
Your best bet... stop posting here and contact a law firm experienced in intellectual property law with specific experience in digital media.
Pinterst.com has no safe harbor from prosecution thus you can name them as a co-defendant in a lawsuit with their members that violate your rights.
I would believe the law firm could produce an out of court settlement quite quickly since Pinterst.com are ignorant to a lot of liability due to poor due diligence.
That said, you cannot sue without registering your rights with the same office (copyright.gov)
In essence, the core of my objection is that Pinterest allows FULL-SIZE images. If they were shrunk down to a maximum single dimension of 150 pixels, I'd be all for it. Not to mention that there is legal precedent, this would be legitimate fair use. Why can't they be honest, and just do that?
Listen, this isn't about process but rights. Rights to define how everyone may use your works.
Devaluing your rights (each creator) is why Pinterst.com does.
<added>They were on the list [copyright.gov...]