Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon given the rate they're growing.
But the outrage, outrage, OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this clause here just tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how many times they've agreed to it in the past.
It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a month from now nobody will be talking about it.
I think this is extremely common. Most people don't read Terms of Service Agreements. And an even higher percentage of people don't read Updates to such agreements.
Much of it is a conceit, yes, and I'm not qualified to comment on the legal precedents surrounding such licenses.
I'm sure Pinterest makes you check a box saying you agree to the Terms of Use before they let you create an account.
Whether that's sufficient is up to a court to decide, and an attorney could tell you the likelihood of a successful suit given a specific fact pattern.
I'm not an attorney, though.
As I said below, people -- engineers, especially -- get caught up in contractual technicalities. The fundamental question is: do you trust Pinterest to do right by you?
Flickr has a similar clause that every photographer who has uploaded their photos has agreed to, but they do right by their users and so nobody believes one day Flickr is going to undo all that work. It would alienate their customers.
If you think Pinterest is untrustworthy, why do you think some text on a screen that they wrote themselves is going to impact their behavior one way or another?
Actually, Flickr’s TOS (now a general Yahoo one) is quite different. They make it clear that their rights are limited to the specific uses obvious and essential to the function of their sites:
> Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
> With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.
The key here is “solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.” Pinterest’s ToS doesn’t have such language.
Additionally, Yahoo’s ToS doesn’t indemnify Yahoo against all possible liability or force their legal bills w/r/t copyright claims &c. onto users. The relevant language is much more constrained:
> You agree that Yahoo! has no responsibility or liability for the deletion or failure to store any messages and other communications or other Content maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You acknowledge that Yahoo! reserves the right to log off accounts that are inactive for an extended period of time.
Although Yahoo is definitely more constrained then Pinterest in terms of their license language, they actually do have a similar indemnity clause:
"You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make available through the Yahoo! Services, your use of the Yahoo! Services, your connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another."
But the outrage, outrage, OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this clause here just tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how many times they've agreed to it in the past.
It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a month from now nobody will be talking about it.