[Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research

[Ted Coopman]

All,

A bit tardy with this, as it bounced around a bit...

I would have to mostly agree with Jeremy here. Again, this being specific to
the context of US law. For example, in terms of libel, posts or materials on
public forums (defined here as accessible to anyone with having to join or
ask permission) are "published." Interaction that results in the collection
of data requires (ethically and usually institutionally) informed consent.
What constitutes "informed consent" is another discussion.

The idea of copyright entering into this is curious, and I have re-read the
thread as I thought I had misunderstood it (maybe I have...). While fixing
anything in digital form creates a defacto copyright (via DMCA), the use of
this material as data even if quoted in subsequent publications, is not a
violation of copyright. It clearly falls under fair use:

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is
entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes
of *commentary
and criticism*.
Based on 4 Factors:
1. The Transformative Factor: The purpose and character of your use
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market

Research is clearly within this realm. It is clearly transformative of the
original text, the nature and venue of such a publication lends itself to
commentary/analysis, the amount taken of all the total posts and reproduced
in any subsequent publication is likely minimal, and the effect on the
market is non-existent.

Similar, but specifically relevant here is parody: A parody is a work that
ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way.
Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the
original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly
extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to
"conjure up" the original.

If all fixed text online is copyrighted to the point that its use in another
context is a violation, than any journalist who quotes a Twitter post in
print would be infringing. That is clearly not the case. I would be more
concerned with your IRB and your own ethical perspective.

-TED

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu> wrote:

> there is the question to return to this, that while the data may not
> be private to you anymore, it might still be private to facebook.  so
> i'll modify the below with anything you put on facebook, you no longer
> have any claims to privacy and should facebook make it public,
> distribute it, etc., it is theirs to do that with.  if they make it
> public, it is public, and your claim to privacy or understanding of
> privacy is likely to them only a matter of keeping a customer base
> happy.
>
>


-- 
Ted M. Coopman Ph.D.
Lecturer
Department of Communication Studies
San Jose State University
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/ted.coopman/