>This week’s ruling can therefore be taken to mean that if you use social media in a newsworthy way, it could be seized and shared, however personal the content

>This week’s ruling can therefore be taken to mean that if you use social media in a newsworthy way, it could be seized and shared, however personal the content. Good. This isn't a terribly high bar to clear, and it's directly related to public sharing / public performance type issues. Not even close to violating privacy rights like with a mistaken email forward - this was done by the person, intentional or unintentional, they opened it up. I'm glad to see Copyright still have merit in the court system when the case being brought - this one - clearly doesn't meet the standards for the purpose and intent of the law. Ex-post-facto-cash-grab still not strong legal strategy.