Pinterest Loves Photographers

Pinterest is an invite only virtual pin board that was started back in March 2010, and their recent popularity spike has put more users, eyes, and scrutiny on the service. Some photographers that took interest uncovered some valid, but addressable, concerns about the service possibly infringing on photo copyrights. Pinterest provides an excellent inspiration board service for its users that may provoke some legal questions by photographers, but is also a good way for photographers to expose their work to a broader audience.

Pinterest has created a new type of social network that connects its users together as pinners, and at the same time is focused on being a resource, and repository for each user’s own interests. Andy Paras spoke with several local pinners in Charleston, SC, and found they were each using it for different purposes. Genna Shelnutt had created a board of pins she found motivating for her to hit the gym, and she also uses Pinterest in the grocery, to refer back to recipes she had seen and wanted to try. Jeny Tyler used Pinterest to find and catalog design inspirations for her new nursery. Cheryl Smithem is even consulting with clients on how to use Pinterest to increase brand awareness (Paras). Other services may have handled each one of these cases, but nothing before Pinterest has really put it all together in a way that was this easy or engaging. Some users were concerned, after connecting to Pinterest with their Facebook or Twitter account, that Pinterest had crossed a privacy line by automatically following some of their friends who are already Pinterest users. This may be an annoyance, but Pinterest made unfollowing other users easy, and they now allow new users to sign up without connecting to Facebook or Twitter, which allows users to stay selectively secluded. Venture Beat writer Sean Ludwig reported that Pinterest traffic has “surged 50 percent between February and January of [2012],” making it now the third largest social network (Ludwig). Pinterest’s explosive growth and happy users are a testament to what a great service it provides. This speedy growth hasn’t kept them from addressing any issues and concerns as they evolve.

The biggest issue Pinterest currently has and will continue to face is that of copyright. Photographers correctly assert that copyright of their pictures is important and inherent when they are first taken, but are wrong in saying that Pinterest and their users are violating copyright by pinning the photographers’ images. Pinterest is protected by the section 512(c) amendment to Title 17 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, that is a safe harbor provision, which protects Pinterest from any copyright violations of their users so long as they do not obtain direct financial benefit from these images, do not have direct knowledge of infringing material, and act on official take-down notices from copyright owners “expeditiously” (17 USC § 512). Photographers have suggested that Pinterest operates in a fashion similar to the music sharing service Napster, which previously provided a very fluid and easy way for any lay-person to download music without compensating the copyright holder. When Napster attempted to use the safe harbor provision, they were ultimately overruled due to the fact that their financial success was tied to the distribution of illegal material. Each time a song was shared on Napster the artist lost revenue, because the person who downloaded it without paying would have ordinarily been a consumer of their product. On the other hand, with Pinterest, the users who are viewing and sharing these images were not consumers of the photographer to begin with, so the photographer is not losing revenue by his or her images being seen. This lack of impact on the value or loss of revenue for the photographer supports the user’s re-use of photographs as falling under fair use per Title 17 section 107(4), which states that when “determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include . . . the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” (17 USC § 107). Furthermore, section 107(1) states another consideration for fair use is the “purpose and character,” which, in the case of the vast majority of Pinterest users, is in the spirit of sharing things they love (17 USC § 107). Both the safe harbor provision section 512 and fair use section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protect Pinterest and their pinners from copyright litigation.

Pinterest undoubtedly creates a unique environment and untapped marketing opportunity for photographers. While Facebook, Twitter and Google+ allowed their users to post photos, even copyright infringing ones, the purpose has always been sharing with others. In Pinterest the act of creating and filling boards with inspiration or collections is more about the self. Pinning a beautiful landscape to a board full of vacation ideas is about documenting thoughts and inspiration for the pinner to later reference. Some photographers have commented that the act someone takes of pinning their work to Pinterest is taking control out of their hands. They fear that with or without their consent their content, if it interests a pinner, will be posted to Pinterest. Though this is probably true, there is a way for photographers to take control of the situation and benefit from Pinterest. By embracing the service and being the first to pin his or her work, a photographer can become the initial source and have all repins be directed back to themselves and to their web sites. Photographers need to make sure they are uploading photos of a quality they are comfortable with having shared online, because data on the Internet can persist forever. By becoming comfortable with the process of sharing images online and on Pinterest, a photographer can relax about any fears for someone claiming ownership of their work. Ownership of the pinned images and the right to re-sell pins is another concern that has been raised. According to the International Business Times, the Pinterest terms of service agreement expresses that all users who pin images consent that they have permission or right to allow Pinterest to sell those images. This was a big red flag that caused the Boston Business Journal to delete their Pinterest board full of architectural designs (“Pinterest Copyright”). The wording of the terms of service was a valid cause for concern, and the liability involved in accepting those terms was enormous. Pinterest reacted quickly though, announcing an updated Terms of Service on March 23, 2012 that would go into effect April 6,2012. They cleared up the re-selling of content saying, “Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms” (Silbermann). This should put any photographers’ worries at ease that thought Pinterest was going to be profiting directly from their work.

Users of Pinterest are enamored with the service, and Pinterest has been quick to address all concerns. Pinners will continue to use their pin boards for all manner of purpose, and can do so without fear of copyright or terms of service implications. Photographers who were wary of the old terms of service can be assured that their concerns are being addressed. Those savvy photographers, who are interested in exposing his or her work to a new, and previously untapped market, can be the first movers and shakers, establishing the authenticity of their work on Pinterest. Pinterest will continue listening and adjusting their terms of service as new concerns arise, and as they expand into uncharted territory, we can all be right there, confidently pinning along the way.

Works Cited

“17 USC § 107 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

“17 USC § 512 – Limitations on Liability Relating to Material Online.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, 12 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

“Pinterest Copyright, TOS: To Agree or Not To Agree.” International Business Times, 2 Feb. 2012: Regional Business News. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Ludwig, Sean. “Pinterest now the third most popular social network after Facebook & Twitter.” VentureBeat. 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Paras, Andy. “Pinterest: Pinning hopes and dreams.” Post and Courier, The (Charleston, SC) 13 Feb. 2012: Newspaper Source. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

Silbermann, Ben. “Updated Pinterest Terms.” Oh, How Pinteresting: Pinterest, 23 Mar. 2012. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.

The History of Lionel Model Trains

The sound of the wheels rolling on metal rails, the smell of the smoke from a steam locomotive and the warm electric hum of the transformer bring back memories of Christmas and hobby times past. Lionel model trains have been an integral part of American history for fathers and sons since being introduced in 1901. Lionel wasn’t the first electric toy train but they quickly became the best. They stayed ahead of their would-be competitors by continually evolving and innovating new model trains and accessories. Lionel grew to be the largest toy brand in the world by the 1950s, enduring the Great Depression and two world wars, and is still enjoyed by today’s generation.

Electric Express

The Lionel Manufacturing Company was started in 1900 by Joshua Lionel Cowen, and he went on to create Lionel’s first model train in 1901, the Electric Express, which was a battery-powered cheese-box for a department store window display (G. Souter and J. Souter, Classic Lionel 16). It wasn’t originally marketed to consumers, but that quickly changed and by 1903, the Electric Express, now made of metal, was Lionel’s first complete train set, coming packaged with an unpowered car (G. Souter and J. Souter, Classic Lionel 16,19). Dennis Karwatka reported that it was in this year that Lionel also started to make a new engine, the No. 5 electric locomotive, painted to look like a locomotive that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad had just put into service. Having this scale version of an in-service locomotive was a big success, “[starting] a craze for expensive models that continued for years” and set the direction for future design choices (Karwatka 12). Lionel continued to innovate during these years with a three rail track system, the Standard Gauge, in 1906 and an outlet powered transformer, both of which eliminated short circuits in the track. In 1915 Lionel came out with O gauge trains and a cheaper to manufacture track, which would eventually dominate the Lionel brand (Fillon). Lionel had established itself in the model train market and it looked like the best was yet to come.

1934 Mickey Mouse

America entered World War I in 1917, and Lionel remained in step with the time, releasing “… an O-gauge armored train complete with a cannon-equipped locomotive” for the children at home (Lionel sec. 1910s). Even though America didn’t use armored trains in the war, Lionel used the slogan “Bring Up the Siege Guns on Tracks! Best fun yet, boys! Now, there’s bushels of fun ahead!” as part of the armored train marketing (G. Souter and J. Souter, Lionel 33). Lionel incorporated in 1918, officially becoming a corporation and changing the company name to the Lionel Corporation. Lionel continued to gain in popularity and success and “had sold over a million … train sets by 1921” (Karwatka 12). Lionel and another competitor, American Flyer, purchased a common competitor named Ives Manufacturing in 1928 (G. Souter and J. Souter, Lionel 43) to utilize Ives’ reversing unit that would allow the model trains to travel forwards and in reverse (Lionel sec. 1920s). Lionel was doing very well with “… profits in 1929 [standing] at nearly $2.3 million …” and it looked as though they could do no wrong (G. Souter and J. Souter, Classic Toy 67). When the stock market crashed, it hit everyone very hard and Lionel was no exception, going into receivership in 1934 to avoid bankruptcy (Lionel sec. 1930s). The article “Lionel Line” in Time magazine reported in 1935 that Lionel had approached Walt Disney the previous year and negotiated the rights to make a Mickey & Minnie wind-up handcar “to scoot around Lionel tracks” (“Lionel Line”). It was an instant success, selling 235,000 handcars that winter at $1 each. In a matter of eight short months all of Lionel’s creditors were paid and the judge who presided over the receivership said, “’This was the most successful receivership in the history of this court.’” (“Lionel Line”). With the war and depression behind them, Lionel started to pick up steam again and began producing more animated accessories which, appeared in 1940, including a “No. 164 log loader, with [a] working conveyor belt” (Lionel sec. 1940s).

Lionel Wartime Paper Train

Some of this momentum was lost in 1942 when, America being well into World War II, “Lionel cease[d] production of electric trains and [built] compasses and compass cases for the war” (Lionel sec. 1940s). Lionel didn’t stop producing trains all together and in 1943 released a paper train set complete with paper track, locomotive, tender, boxcar, gondola, and caboose (G. Souter and J. Souter, Lionel 69). At the same time Lionel was putting out a Railroad Planning Book and Model Builder magazine so fathers and sons could plan for new model train layouts to come after the war (Lionel sec. 1940s). The paper train may not have been a lasting success, but Lionel was busy working on new concepts and ideas for locomotives and accessories to put back into production after the war was over. Mike Fillon wrote for Popular Mechanics that, in 1946, Lionel released a large collection of products, including a smoking mechanism in their steam engines. Not all their war-time innovations were successful though, such as the Lionel Electronic Set which was controlled by a new Electronic Control Unit that sent signals to receivers placed in each car on the track. This new advanced system ended up being problematic and was discontinued by 1949. That same year locomotives were being die-cast instead of the steel stamped method and injection-molded plastic was being used for rolling stock. In 1950 Lionel introduced Magne-Traction, which helped the locomotives grip the rails more, which enabled trains to go faster without flying off the track. 1953 marked the peak of Lionel’s history; they had recorded their largest profit for the year and were now the world’s largest toy manufacturer (Fillon).

1957 Lady Lionel

Lionel was on top of the world in the mid-1950s. Although families continued setting up their Lionel train layouts at Christmas time, interest in model trains had started to decline (Fillon). Lionel made several attempts to diversify their model train line-up including a now infamous “Lady Lionel” in 1957 that featured a pastel pink locomotive and tender car to try and attract girls but they didn’t make a big impact (Doyle 51). Joshua Lionel Cowen resigned from the Board of Directors in 1958, at the age of 81 (Somonelli 72) and Lionel’s Lionel Train History webpage states that just one year later in 1959, he and his son sold their remaining share of Lionel to Roy Cohn. Through the 1960s, Lionel seemed to be just barely staying afloat and filed for bankruptcy in 1967, just two years after Joshua Lionel Cowen passed away. In 1969 Lionel licensed its name to General Mills who, by 1973, put Lionel into one of its subsidiaries named Fundimensions. They went on to put out new trains and reproductions that were as good if not better than the originals. In 1977 Walt Disney and the Lionel brand teamed up again on a train set named the Mickey Mouse Express, which revitalized the Lionel brand in the minds of consumers for a short time. With profits and interest in model trains continuing to decline, General Mills was looking to unload its Lionel assets by 1986. They sold the brand to Richard Kughn, a real estate developer, who established the brand under a new name, Lionel Trains (Lionel sec. 1950s, sec. 1960s, sec. 1970s, sec. 1980s). Richard J. Kughn marked the first owner of Lionel since Joshua Lionel Cowen left that was a real model train enthusiast and owned “one of the country’s largest toy train collections” (Schleicher 35). Lionel released a new audio system called Railsounds™ in 1989, showing renewed vigor as a company. In 1992 Lionel Trains teamed up with another model train enthusiast, musician Neil Young, to create Liontech. In 1994 a new control system called TrainMaster™ brought back the functionality of the earlier 1946 Lionel Electronic Set (Lionel sec. 1990s). Lionel was sold in 1995 by Richard Kughn and is now Lionel LLC. As a sign of Lionel returning to its former glory they published the first fully illustrated catalog of their products in over 30 years in 1996 and continue to publish one annually (Fillon).

Lionel catalogs, chock-full of new model train layouts, freight trains, passenger cars and animated accessories, continue to fill the holiday wish lists of American children and adults alike. Lionel model trains have been around for over 100 years and have endured war, depression and uncertainty of ownership, a testament to their commitment to model train enthusiasts and America’s love of Lionel. Although ownership of the brand changed hands many times in the second half of the last century, their product quality never faltered and Lionel continues to make incredible model trains today. The Lionel brand of model trains is as strong now as it was through the 1950s and will be a part of American history into the twenty first century. Future generations can count on Lionel model trains to inspire their imaginations.

Works Cited

Doyle, David. Standard Catalog of Lionel Trains 1945-1969 2nd Edition. Iola: krause, 2006. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

Fillon, Mike. “Lionel Trains.” Popular Mechanics 178.4 (2001): n. pag. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

Karwatka, Dennis. “Joshua Lionel Cowen and Lionel Model Trains.” Tech Directions 66.4 (2006): 12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

“Lionel Line.” Time 25.5 (1935): 66. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Lionel Train History, Lionel Past and Present. Lionel, 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

Schleicher, Robert. Modern Lionel Trains. St. Paul: MBI, 2003. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

Somonelli, Yolanda M. “The Mighty Blue Comet…and The Man Who Immortalized It!” Antiques & Collecting Magazine 104.4 (1999): 20. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

G. Souter and J. Souter, Gerry, and Janet G. Souter and J. Souter. Classic Lionel Trains, 1900-1969. St. Paul: MBI, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

—. Classic Toy Trains. St. Paul: MBI, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

—. Lionel: America’s Favorite Toy Trains. St. Paul: MBI, 2000. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Feb. 2012

Significance and Symbolism of Statues in the Neo-Sumerian age and Egypt’s Old Kingdom

Rulers in the Neo-Sumerian age and Egypt’s Old Kingdom utilized statues to convey a message of power, wealth and divine connection to their deities. Gudea of Lagash used statues in his own image during his rule in the Neo-Sumerian age to show his wealth and connection to his gods. The pharaohs of Egypt’s Old Kingdom used a larger number of statues that showed their power and they had an even greater purpose in Egyptian religion. Though the meaning and usage of statues varied for these rulers, they both used statues in their religion and chose materials that would show their wealth and desire for immortality.

Gudea was the ruler of Lagash during the Neo-Sumerian age in approximately 2100 BCE. He wasn’t born into royalty but he married the daughter of the ruler at the time, which secured his position in the royal house of Lagash. He was an extremely religious ruler and continually made gestures and gifts to various Sumer gods throughout his rule. He believed that the gods sent him dreams and visions as a means to communicate with him, which he interpreted as a message from the gods to erect temples in their honor. He went on to create and restore many temples throughout Lagash and upon completion of each temple he would place a statue made in his own image within. These statues where meant to be a representation of him within temple, always praying with his eyes focused on the gods. It is through these statues that survived from his age that we are now able to learn of his dreams, temples and religions beliefs through inscriptions carved into each one. Though his chosen title was that of ensi, the ruler, he referred to himself through these statues as “god of Lagash.” One of these inscriptions tells us of a great holiday celebration that lasted for seven days after the statue had been installed. There are over twenty four statues of Gudea which, either standing or sitting, always have his hands held together at his chest in prayer, have him dressed in the same clothing with one shoulder exposed, and range in size from about a foot tall to just over five feet. His head is either left bald or capped with a round wool lined hat. The gowns he was depicted in were covered with inscriptions with either messages to the gods or detailed explanations of why he was positioned in that particular fashion, with his chest showing him full of life and more defined arms showing the strength granted to him by the gods.

Seating diorite statue of Gudea, prince of Lagash, dedicated to the god Ningishzida, neo-Sumerian period.

The statues of Gudea were made from a highly polished dark grey stone called diorite, it is this material that gives these statues a very strong presence within the space and conveys their importance. Diorite wasn’t local to Lagash and had to be imported. It was such a highly prized material that early Mesopotamians listed it as a reason for conducting military expeditions. Gudea displayed his wealth as a ruler with this choice of material and the prestige of diorite was transferred to the statues that were carved from it. An inscription on one of the statues of him reads, “This statue has not been made from silver nor from lapis lazuli, nor from copper nor from lead, nor yet from bronze; it is made of diorite.” In all the statues he had made in his image, he can be seen wearing the same ceremonial clothing and is holding his hands together in prayer, as a permanent display in each temple showing his servitude to his gods. In each statue there is an inscription, which either speaks of his building of temples, service to the gods and of the gifts of wealth and health bestowed by the gods to him and his land. In one particular statue of him, in which he is seated, a blueprint for the construction of the temple E-ninnu is placed on his lap. This temple was dedicated to Ningirsu, the god of war, who was one of the gods giving him visions and when it came time to build this temple he took a very hands on approach. He first measured the site where the temple was to be built and during a festive celebration he laid the first brick. He attributed his visions, dreams and wealth to his divine connection with the gods. His choice of materials for his statues, installing them into temples built for the gods and the form the statues take, all served to elevate him to a status above all others in the eyes of the gods.

Nearly six hundred years earlier in Egypt’s Old Kingdom, around 2700 BCE, the pharaohs were also having statues constructed but with a very different purpose in mind. Pharaohs had these statues placed with them in their burial chambers as an alternate home for their ka, their life force, after they died. Since mummification during the Old Kingdom wasn’t as refined as it later became, these statues were vital to the pharaoh’s afterlife if their body was destroyed for any reason. During the Fourth Dynasty, the pharaoh Khafre, had statues made with many common characteristics that can be seen in the statues of other pharaohs during the Old Kingdom of Egypt. One of the most famous statues of Khafre was sculpted from diorite and had the same highly polished, deep dark grey characteristics as those that can be seen in the statues of Gudea. The form of the pharaoh is that of an idealized shape, perfect in physique, definition of muscle and imposing size, all of which make up what a pharaoh should look like. The pharaoh can be seen sitting erect on his throne, wearing a simple kilt. His eyes are looking straight out into the distance with his arms at rest on his thighs and his legs are parallel to each other and perpendicular to his body. This position gives the appearance of an alertness and calmness that would remain eternal. The throne in which he is seated has arms and legs are shaped to look like the bodies of two lions and papyrus plant reliefs fill the spaces between the thrones legs. Horus, the falcon-god, sits atop the thrones back with his wings out to either side of the pharaoh’s head as a display of his protection. This statue of the pharaoh Khafre displays him wearing a headdress and false beard making this a very iconic royal statue. Khafre’s back and legs are attached to his throne and the rigidity of his posture and lack of an extending parts was done with the intent to convey the desire for an existence throughout the rest of time. Another common position statues of the pharaoh’s were carved into was that of standing in mid-step, one particular such funerary statue is that of the pharaoh Menkaure and his wife Khamerernebty. They were carved in a manner to reflect an idealized physique similar to that of the Khafre statue. They stand together with their backs still attached to the stone from which they were carved. Khamerernebty’s right arm is holding the pharaoh’s waist and her other left hand rests on his arm which is typical of Egyptian sculpture to signify they were married. Other than this contact, there is no other emotion displayed in the statue, they both look straight into the distance and stand as a permanent sanctuary for their ka. Several apprentices, each apprentice working in from one side, crafted the rough form of these particular funerary statues from a single block of stone. Once the rough form of the statue had been achieved, a master sculptor came in to complete the work.

Statue of Khafre in diorite. Valley Temple of Khafra, Giza.

There were many statues sculpted for each pharaoh, his wife, priests and other servants to help serve him in the afterlife, these statues also served as a means to help the pharaoh become more connected with the gods. The serdab, meaning the “house of the statue”, was the main resting place for these statues which were also used in a couple of rituals, the most important of which was the opening of the mouth ceremony. In this ceremony, priests would magically open the mouths of the mummy and a statue in order to allow the pharaoh the ability to speak and eat in the afterlife. This was a very long and well-documented ritual in which a new statue of the pharaoh was carved and dressed in order to give the pharaoh back the use of his mouth. The statues were also the primary focus of the daily ritual performed by priests. They preformed this ritual by cleaning the statue with water before applying ointments or oils. They then dressed the statue and applied makeup to it as a means of preparation for other rituals to come. The rituals that followed included offerings of food for the pharaoh and then ended with the cleansing and purifying of the temple. These statues and rituals were a significant part of life during Egypt’s Old Kingdom. The pharaoh’s used many different materials for their statues but Khafre, like Gudea, wanted to use diorite for his statue. He knew that diorite was a valuable, tough and beautiful material that would give his ka an immortal place to reside after he passed. The diorite for his statues had to be mined from quarries about 400 miles to the south before it journeyed north to be sculpted. The quantity of statues carved, their choice of materials and the rituals surrounding them proved just how significant the pharaoh’s commitment was to the gods and to success in the afterlife.

Through their personal and spiritual connection with their statues the pharaohs regarded them much higher than Gudea of Lagesh did some 600 years later. The pharaoh’s statue was to be the eternal resting place for his ka after death and while the sheer number and choice of materials for the statues displayed the pharaoh’s great wealth, their ultimate goal was achieving a divine afterlife in the company of the gods. Gudea of Lagesh, while connecting his statues to divine communications and visions from the gods of Sumer, put more emphasis on the statues as a means to display of his power, wealth and status above all others. While Gudea used the statues and their surrounding temples to influence his people during the Neo-Sumerian age, for the pharaoh’s these statues were the ultimate vessels for their life force that would allow them to live as a god among the gods for all eternity. Both rulers, while hundreds of years apart, used statues to depict their power and the significance of their religious beliefs. The rulers’ choices of durable materials, importance placed on their beliefs of life and afterlife, and reverences placed on their statues truly have enabled them to far outlive their kingdoms and earthly bodies.


Gardner’s Art through the Ages: A Global History, Volume I