Copyrighted content Pinterest has a notification system that copyright holders can use to request that content be removed from the site. Pinterest released a statement in March 2012 saying it believed it was protected by the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'s
safe harbor provisions. The DMCA safe harbor status of Pinterest has been questioned given that it actively promotes its users to copy to Pinterest, for their perpetual use, any image on the Internet. Pinterest users cannot claim safe harbor status and as such are exposed to possible legal action for pinning copyright material. Pinterest allows users to transfer information;
intellectual property rights come to play. A "nopin" HTML
meta tag was released by Pinterest on February 20, 2012, to allow websites to opt out of their images being pinned. On February 24, 2012,
Flickr implemented the code to allow users to opt out. In early May 2012, the site added automatic
attribution of authors on images originating from Flickr,
Behance,
YouTube and
Vimeo. Automatic attribution was also added for Pins from sites mirroring content on Flickr. At the same time, Flickr added a Pin shortcut to its share option menu to users who have not opted out of sharing their images. Content creators on sites such as
iStock have expressed concern over their work being reused on Pinterest without permission.
Getty Images said that it was aware of Pinterest's copyright issues and was in discussion with them.
Legal status In February 2012, photographer and lawyer Kirsten Kowalski wrote a blog post explaining how her interpretation of copyright law led her to delete all her infringing pins. The post went
viral and reached founder Ben Silbermann who contacted Kowalski to discuss making the website more compliant with the law.
Terms of service Pinterest's earlier terms of service asserted the right to "sell" user content. In a March 2012 article in
Scientific American, illustrator Kalliopi Monoyios alleged that "Pinterest's
terms of service have been garnering a lot of criticism for stating in no uncertain terms that anything you 'pin' to their site belongs to them. Completely. Wholly. Forever and for always." At the time, Pinterest's terms of service stated that: According to Monoyios, Pinterest's claim to a broad license to sell user content potentially undermined artists' ability to monetize their own work. Several days later, Pinterest unveiled updated terms of service that, once implemented in April, ended the site's previous claims of ownership of posted images. "Selling content was never our intention", said the company in a blog post. In March 2017, Chinese authorities blocked Pinterest without explanation. The block was imposed during the annual
National People's Congress, a politically sensitive period in the country. While Pinterest is not known for its political content, experts identified the ban as consistent with Chinese government efforts to use
website blocks and the "
Great Firewall" as an
industrial policy tool to promote Chinese tech companies (e.g.,
Baidu,
Youku,
Weibo, and
Renren) by censoring foreign tech companies. Huaban, Duitang and many other websites bear similarities to Pinterest. Internet service providers in India had blocked Pinterest following a
Madras High Court order in July 2016 to block a list of around 225 "rogue websites indulging in online piracy and infringement of copyright". The block was temporary.
Content policies and user bans In October 2012, Pinterest added a new feature allowing users to report others for negative and offensive activity or block other users if they do not want to view their content, a bid that the company said aimed to keep the site "positive and respectful." In December 2018, Pinterest began to take steps to block health
misinformation from its recommendations engine, and blocked various searches, content, and user accounts that related to, or promoted,
unproved and disproven cancer treatments. The company said it also blocked multiple accounts that linked to external websites that sold
supplements and other products that were not scientifically validated. In December 2019, following a campaign from the activist group
Color of Change, Pinterest announced that it would restrict content that advertises wedding events on former
slave plantations. Following its pattern of user protection, Pinterest worked with the National Eating Disorders Association in July 2021 to, after having previously put restrictions on them, completely ban weight loss ads due to their harmful nature, becoming the first social media site to do so. According to Pinterest's own reports, this resulted in a 20% decrease from 2021 to 2022 in searches of the phrase "weight loss". This followed an already existing site wide ban on more extreme content explicitly promoting unhealthy surgeries, disorderly eating or supplements for suppressing hunger and losing weight. Beginning in late April and early May 2025, Pinterest began to remove pins and ban accounts in large volumes citing community guidelines as the reason, causing outrage amongst its users.
Discrimination In 2020, two former Pinterest employees, Ifeoma Ozoma and Aerica Shimizu Banks went public about their experience at Pinterest. Both women recounted experiences of discrimination at work, including racist comments, unequal pay, and punishment for speaking out. Additionally, Ozoma claims that the company failed to protect her when personal information was shared with hate sites by a colleague of hers. In response, Pinterest released an apology statement and CEO Ben Silbermann sent an email to all employees pushing the company to do better. In August 2020, dozens of Pinterest staff participated in a virtual walkout in support of two former colleagues who publicly accused the company of racism and gender discrimination. In December 2020, Pinterest agreed to pay its former Chief Operating Officer $20 million+ to settle a lawsuit alleging discrimination. In November 2021, Pinterest settled a lawsuit that alleged racial and gender discrimination. The company agreed to spend $50 million on improving its diversity and to release former employees from non-disclosure agreements. The settlement was in regard to Ozoma and Banks's accusations of June 2020. ==See also==