incrediBILL - 6:45 pm on Apr 6, 2013 (gmt 0) [edited by: incrediBILL at 7:24 pm (utc) on Apr 6, 2013]
All I'll say was until we made a very loud and very public spectacle on stage at SES San Jose '06 the search engines weren't willing to address 302 hijacking either and myself and a few others kind of railroaded them into a solution in front of a few hundred people and the problem has since went away, like polio, as long as you properly vaccinate your site.
I've pushed the topic of mashup sites outranking the original content privately more than once to a lukewarm reception but I never thought to trot out their own guidelines, didn't occur to me at the time, would make an excellent stand alone slide in the presentation :)
Problem is when you're talking about a company that makes billions from scraping and copying entire sites in cache and screen shots, plus ripping all your images to use out of context that also runs YouTube and Blogger, which historically have been far worse than Pinterest, it's kind of like asking the pot to call the kettle black.
Reality check is we're asking one company to penalize another company for doing the same kinds of things they do which is hypocritical of them if they did it which may be the reason all this nonsense exists in the first place. Once they make that distinction and draw that line it may open themselves up for litigation and perhaps the legal beagles have told them in no uncertain way not to interfere with mashup sites and let nature take it's course to see what the courts would do using those sites as a test case giving the SE's a chance to fix their issues in the wake of a potential bad outcome for a site like Pinterest. Don't forget YouTube took a pounding and it's still standing and many of the problems still exist so there is precedence that the will of the public can overrule actual law which can even happen in jury verdicts creating public policy, fascinating reading if you ever have the time.
It's a big chicken and egg problem plus even copyright allows changing a percentage of the original work to make it a new work, such as a collage which is kind of what Pinterst does in the context of the collection of images pinned together as a group. Plus there's fair use, satire (just draw a mustache on it), etc. and the whole thing gets all fuzzy.
If you really want to see something done you need someone like Getty and Picscout behind doing something about it, aka RIAA and Napster, which would bring it to a boil in short order. Make a honeypot (fashion or food site) exclusively full of Getty images aimed at the Pinheads without overtly asking them to PinIt to avoid being culpable and just sit back and wait for the fireworks.
I honestly think we're watching another evolution of copyright at the moment and I think the rules of image usage are probably about to change and not for the better of the image owner. The last time something of this magnitude happened it resulted in $0.99 MP3 sales, iTunes, Amazon Music, Rhapsody, etc. and the end of the album. As a photographer myself I'm not thrilled with this site and have no clue where it's going to lead us but I do feel a social or technological change afoot to address the problem.
Worse case is if photographers, other than those being commissioned for commercial projects, can't continue to earn money for creating content they'll simply find something new to do and many forms of media will be scrambling to get images from alternate sources to fill the void. Perhaps images will be crowd sourced even more in the future, which they already are thanks to sites like Flickr with the commons licensing for most of it.
Open Source images is probably the way it's going to be with a payment only for the first exclusive use and BLAM! it's out there everywhere. Some agreed upon technology embedded in the image files themselves to state what type of license it is, enforced at the browser level and the image upload sites, would certainly go a long way to thwart the average person from using them improperly. Having a DRM built into the image and the browser would sure help avoid the need to block PinIT as the browser would say "This image is rights restricted and may not be copied." and that would be that. FTP and other file copy programs would also need DRM code included and obviously it wouldn't stop any of use old-timers but we're not the 99.9999% of the problem
No clue, just thinking out loud here.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 7:24 pm (utc) on Apr 6, 2013]