Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
PIN-UP demands removal from our site of new publications, citing copyright violations. But if at first the claim concerned a specific image, now other materials have been added to the list, including an article in which PIN-UP is simply mentioned in the journalistic text. This change in the subject of the claim looks like an attempt to pressure the editorial team through copyright complaints.
It all began with one publication The first time PIN-UP demanded the removal of our site's material about Ihor Fisun and his ties to the payment business. The complaint concerned an image that bore PIN-UP branding. The company asserted copyright infringement, but did not provide the editorial team with documents proving that PIN-UP itself created the image, commissioned it with assignment of exclusive rights, or purchased exclusive rights to it. In other words, PIN-UP claimed rights to the image but did not substantiate the chain of acquisition of those rights. This matters, because a PIN-UP logo on a photograph does not automatically make the company the owner of copyright to the entire photograph. Then one article became not enough In a new appeal PIN-UP now demands the removal of eight URLs. The Ukrainian and Russian versions of the materials, AMP versions, and another publication — our site's article about Maksym Sigalov, the owner of a Russian casino, and Kamilla Primakova — were added to the list. And here the claim becomes conspicuous. The material mentions PIN-UP in the text. It is not the same situation as with the photograph from the first complaint. The company does not explain which of its copyrighted works was used in this publication or what specific use allegedly infringes its rights. Nevertheless, the article was still included in the list of pages to be removed. In other words, the claim already extends beyond a single image. From a photograph to a journalistic text The key detail of the entire story: initially PIN-UP claimed rights to a specific visual material. Now the company is demanding the removal of a page where its name appears in a journalistic text. These are two different things. If the company has exclusive rights to the photograph and proves unlawful use — the subject of dispute is the photograph. But if the company wants to remove an article where it is simply mentioned, a different question arises: which exact work of PIN-UP was used and where exactly was copyright violated? The new claim lacks such specificity. The list of URLs grows along with the claim PIN-UP also included several versions of the same materials: Ukrainian, Russian, and AMP pages. Thus, one claim turns into a demand to block an entire set of pages at once. For the editor, this means no longer a dispute over a single image, but a need to defend multiple pages featuring journalistic materials from deletion. At the same time, the mere presence of different technical or language versions of the article does not explain what new object of copyright is allegedly violated on each of them. Copyright as a way to remove unwanted materials That is where PIN-UP's actions look most telling. The company could have limited the claim to a specific image and demanded proof of rights to it. Instead, after the initial request, the list of pages expanded. Now the demand includes a publication in which PIN-UP is mentioned in the text, not just a page with the disputed image. This creates the impression that copyright complaints are used not so much to protect a concrete object of copyright, but rather to pressure the media into removing materials whose content does not please the company. It is unnecessary to prove PIN-UP’s motives — they are evident from the sequence of actions. First one publication. Then new URLs. Then another material where the company appears as a party mentioned in the text. What exactly does PIN-UP want to remove? Yes, the company has the right to defend its copyrights if they are indeed infringed. But then the claim must be linked to a specific work. In the case of the first publication, PIN-UP spoke about an image. In the case of the second material, editorial staff sees a different situation: the company demands the removal of a journalistic text but does not indicate a specific PIN-UP copyrighted work whose unlawful use would justify the demand. It is this difference that makes the new claim notable. It is no longer simply about a photograph. It is about removing from the site materials in which PIN-UP is mentioned or described. And if this practice continues, any critical publication about the company could potentially become the subject of a similar complaint.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Як PIN-UP намагається заткнути рот ЗМІ". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Fraza.
