4 ms·
Perhaps there's a difference in that embeds can display the content without directing the viewer to page. Consider: * Embedding a copyrighted image. * Linking
by manfredo 9y ago
Perhaps there's a difference in that embeds can display the content without directing the viewer to page. Consider:
* Embedding a copyrighted image.
* Linking to the original page that hosts said image.
In the latter case the copyright holder would still monetize of of, say, ads hosted on their website. Whereas in the former the copyrighted work would likely be displayed without the chance for the copyright holder to monitize.
I'm more surprised that Twitter doesn't have a clause where all users waive copyright to any posted on their website. Otherwise essentially all social media platforms would constantly be infringing. I upload my profile pic to Facebook, I can't turn around and sue them for the fact that it's displaying this image to all other Facebook users viewing my profile.
- quickthrower2 9y agoThePirateBay is an example that muddies the distinction.
- kd0amg 9y agoIn the latter case the copyright holder would still monetize of of, say, ads hosted on their website. I'd have an easier time with this reasoning if I saw more legal argument directly addressing why "exclusive right to their respective writings" includes the right to require readers to also see something else at the same time as they view the writings.
- Joeri 9y agoThe social media terms of service typically include granting a global sublicensable royalty-free license to all copyrighted content you upload.
- ruytlm 9y agoWhich is why it's surprising to see the photographer going after the publications; it makes more sense to go after the 'someone else' who tweeted the picture. I suspect that it's a case of targeting those who are more likely to be able to pay out in case of a win in the courts.