[Air-L] copyright

Sat Nov 4 10:20:49 PDT 2017

As a Journalist and an academic researcher I would like to add the  
following remarks:
a) We as Journalists, always ask permission from the owner of the  
account to publish his/her footage. What I mean is that you don't have  
the right to reproduce the material(image, video, graphics, etc,  
especially when you're monetizing from this use.
b) Twitter has a policy for fair use which means if there is a  
dispute, courts will decide.  
https://support.twitter.com/articles/20171959
c) In my opinion, the same rules apply to all social media.
Hope it's helpful
Best
Andreas

Παραθέτοντας από "Dan L. Burk" <dburk at uci.edu>:

> Good points, especially the reminder about data privacy.
>
> I might disagree with Hans just a bit on what the ToS terms do or allow.
>  Copyright involves multiple exclusive rights. For example, the Twitter
> language below covers most or all of the exclusive rights of a copyright
> holder with regard to Twitter, but only specifically covers the "making
> available" or right of communication to the public, which in the U.S.
> would be the right of distribution or of transmission, with regard to
> subscribers.  So with regard to subscribers, the language does not
> necessarily grant permissions for rights such as the right of
> adaptation.  So I don't think you can safely say that someone who tweets
> material has given permission to further "use" the content; the terms
> allow Twitter and its formal licensees to do pretty much anything with
> the content, and allow others to re-transmit the content (e.g., retweet)
> but many uses (like incorporation into a book) will not be explicitly
> covered by the language below.
>
> Licenses for some such third party uses might be implied from the fact
> of the public posting, but then you have to start relying on what the
> court thinks is a reasonable inference from the circumstances.
>
> Also, the ToS may or may not be enforceable in some jurisdictions where
> a claim may be brought -- for example, some exclusive rights in
> copyright and related rights cannot be contractually waived in some
> European countries, ToS or no ToS.
>
> All of this provides endless material for final examinations in my
> classes.  Life is good.
>
> Cheers, DLB
>
> --
>
> Dan L. Burk
> Chancellor's Professor of Law
> University of California, Irvine
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2017-18 Fulbright Cybersecurity Scholar
>
> On 2017-11-04 02:19, Hans Lammerant wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:  
>> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>>
>> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>> http://www.aoir.org/
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:  
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/