[Air-L] copyright

[Hans Lammerant]

For copyright questions do not forget to check the Terms of Use of the
service. One of the reasons that Twitter is popular for a wide range of
research, including commercial use, is that it is very open. Facebook is
more difficult.

Twitter: https://twitter.com/en/tos: article 3 under Your Rights:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services,
you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the
right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify,
publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all
media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This
license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the
world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license
includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the
Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services
available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the
syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such
Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions
for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other
companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no
compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit,
post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

article 2. *Sharing Your Content and Information*

**You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and
you can control how it is shared through your privacy
<https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy> and application
settings <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>. In
addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like
photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following
permission, subject to your privacy
<https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy> and application
settings <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>: you
grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free,
worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in
connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you
delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been
shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it
means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook,
to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e.,
your name and profile picture).

article 5. *Protecting Other People's Rights*

7. If you collect information from users, you will: obtain their
consent, make it clear you (and not Facebook) are the one collecting
their information, and post a privacy policy explaining what information
you collect and how you will use it.


In other words, who tweets has given already the permission to further
use the content. At Facebook it depends on the person's settings, but
the Public setting implies also such permission. This concerns copyright.

Keep in mind that privacy and data protection is a different set of
rules, which are quite different in the US, the EU and elsewhere. And
Facebook is explicit in the need to obtain consent. This does not
substitute privacy law, but shapes what reasonable expectations of users
are. Twitter does not make a statement about this (at first glance, so
check all documents). This makes that you can defend a position (in the
US legal context) that the use of Twitter is public speech and therefore
reasonable expectations of privacy do not counter the use of tweets by
others. EU data protection is more strict and requires for every use a
clear legitimation (which can be consent) and purpose.

Best,

Hans Lammerant

researcher Law, Science, Technology and Society (LSTS) - Vrije
Universiteit Brussel (VUB)

On 03-11-17 20:19, Dan L. Burk wrote:
> Given that we don't know what is in the screenshot (and also given that
> it being public is largely irrelevant) it may not be wise to offer
> advice on what is or is not "definitive" fair use. 
>
> Additionally, according to her web page, it appears that Lauri is
> located in Macau, so advice on fair use may be itself irrelevant. 
>
> Fair use is one possibility that she can discuss with her publisher,
> assuming her publisher is located in the U.S. (or Israel) and doesn't
> service international markets. 
>
> Or, it may be simpler to get permission to reproduce the material. 
>
> Cheers, DLB 
>