4 ms·

> This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on tw

> This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. The latter question comes down to how feasible it is for a person tweeting to know how their tweets are going to look on the main timeline w/regard to attribution, which seems like something it’s reasonable for a court to decide.

em-bee 6y ago
what's bonkers is wanting to punish users for something they didn't do. judges not understanding technology strikes again.
- aspaceman 6y ago
  I believe this decision punishes Twitter - not the users.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    to punish twitter they wouldn't need the identities of the retweeters. the only use for knowing the retweeters is to haul them into court.
    - roblabla 6y ago
      To be fair, they could be asking for the identities in order to summon them as witnesses against twitter. I don't hold much faith that this is the intention though...
      - em-bee 6y ago
        the thought crossed my mind, but wouldn't you do that after you sue in the discovery step?
gruez 6y ago
>This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. >Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Does it mean that any sort of action needed to see the attribution constitutes "hiding" it, opening you to liability? What if the image was too big and I have to scroll down to see the attribution? What's the difference between having to click on a thumbnail to see an attribution, and having to scroll down? What if the attribution is too small to see at normal zoom levels, and you have to zoom in? Unless his name was plastered all over the picture (thereby ruining it), I doubt anyone on a phone is going to be able to read the authorship information. Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image?
- londons_explore 6y ago
  > Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image? Don't give EU lawmakers ideas...
  - Beldin 6y ago
    What Twitter does likely violates (eg.) all cropped cc-by-nc-nd licensed images on twitter. I'm certainly not in favour of allowing one of the big tech companies to systematically undermine such Creative Commons licenses just because it's more convenient for them. If we're going to allow anyone to ignore license terms, let's not start with corporations.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  This is a solved problem. Don't crop photos on your platform. If you want photos to be cropped to fit a square box, make it explicit for users to enable. Have an additional attribution field if that's not sufficient enough.
  - judge2020 6y ago
coldtea 6y ago
>Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Why not? It's precisely our place as citizens to criticize laws we deem absurd/unfair/bad, including people who chose to exercize them in hamrful ways. Human law != some divine dictum everybody should not criticize and uphold at all times. Seggregation was a law too.
Thorrez 6y ago
Most people don't watch the credits of a movie. That doesn't mean the actors didn't get attribution.
- slevir 6y ago
  Interestingly enough, in japanese movie theaters most people do stay to watch the credits. From what I hear, specifically out of respect for creators. ...Well, I'd say it's because there's often additional short scenes after credits.

em-bee 6y ago

what's bonkers is wanting to punish users for something they didn't do. judges not understanding technology strikes again.

aspaceman 6y ago
I believe this decision punishes Twitter - not the users.
- em-bee 6y ago
  to punish twitter they wouldn't need the identities of the retweeters. the only use for knowing the retweeters is to haul them into court.
  - roblabla 6y ago
    To be fair, they could be asking for the identities in order to summon them as witnesses against twitter. I don't hold much faith that this is the intention though...
    - em-bee 6y ago
      the thought crossed my mind, but wouldn't you do that after you sue in the discovery step?

gruez 6y ago

>This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. >Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Does it mean that any sort of action needed to see the attribution constitutes "hiding" it, opening you to liability? What if the image was too big and I have to scroll down to see the attribution? What's the difference between having to click on a thumbnail to see an attribution, and having to scroll down? What if the attribution is too small to see at normal zoom levels, and you have to zoom in? Unless his name was plastered all over the picture (thereby ruining it), I doubt anyone on a phone is going to be able to read the authorship information. Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image?

londons_explore 6y ago
> Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image? Don't give EU lawmakers ideas...
- Beldin 6y ago
  What Twitter does likely violates (eg.) all cropped cc-by-nc-nd licensed images on twitter. I'm certainly not in favour of allowing one of the big tech companies to systematically undermine such Creative Commons licenses just because it's more convenient for them. If we're going to allow anyone to ignore license terms, let's not start with corporations.
searchableguy 6y ago
This is a solved problem. Don't crop photos on your platform. If you want photos to be cropped to fit a square box, make it explicit for users to enable. Have an additional attribution field if that's not sufficient enough.
- judge2020 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

>Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Why not? It's precisely our place as citizens to criticize laws we deem absurd/unfair/bad, including people who chose to exercize them in hamrful ways. Human law != some divine dictum everybody should not criticize and uphold at all times. Seggregation was a law too.

Thorrez 6y ago

Most people don't watch the credits of a movie. That doesn't mean the actors didn't get attribution.

slevir 6y ago
Interestingly enough, in japanese movie theaters most people do stay to watch the credits. From what I hear, specifically out of respect for creators. ...Well, I'd say it's because there's often additional short scenes after credits.