4 ms·

Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether? You WA

by retube 15y ago

Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Aren't you consciously and knowingly injecting it out into the ether? You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? <b>Edit:</b> If you're downvoting please explain why. I think I'm making a valid point, I'm interested to hear another opinion. And downvote me for the quality of my argument, not because you disagree. That suppresses valid and interesting debate.

darklajid 15y ago
I mostly agree. It should be this way, in legal terms, as far as I'm concerned. But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others. Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.
- tghw 15y ago
  > There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady. Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.
masklinn 15y ago
> Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due). You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation. > You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.
- martinpannier 15y ago
  That's not exactly true. American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
  - masklinn 15y ago
    > American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. Yes. > And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation. Sure, but the fact remains that, under french IP laws, it is legally impossible to put something in the public domain yourself, as the creator of that thing. And checking SQLite's "copyright" page (which made me realize this nit of french IP law) there seem to be places where the very concept of "public domain" does not exist.
- retube 15y ago
  Legal definitions of "public domain" aside, if you're putting something onto twitter you presumably want it to be shared. Isn't that the point of twitter? If you do retain the copyright, does this mean that people have to pay for retweeting? This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm betting she wouldn't have had much success. I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have value.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
martinpannier 15y ago
You WANT it to be distributed and concede the necessary rights to TwitPic, but that's very different from putting it out in the public domain. You still retain copyright, and normally the picture host shouldn't be able to sell it nor journalists to use it (this is precisely the reason there was such a kerfuffle about the TwitPic TOS recently). I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for. We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
edanm 15y ago
"You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?" Authors want their books distributed. Musicians want their music distributed, too. They just want to make money, as well. Honestly, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, which is interesting. I just think we have to work on the terminology. Because anyone can see that there's a big difference between snapping a picture and putting it on Twitter, vs. writing a book and trying to sell it. (+1, by the way. You made a good argument. You might want to remove the "<b>" though, that kind of formatting doesn't work here).
sbierwagen 15y ago
If you're downvoting please explain why. Okay. I'm downvoting because your legal argument is incorrect, and I don't want as many people to see it, in case they get the wrong impression.
tghw 15y ago
You are badly confusing publishing with copyrights. Most photographers like their work published. Some publish through art galleries, some through newspapers, some through billboards, and some through twitter. None of these make it public domain, however. Public domain means anyone can use the photo as they see fit, which is not why the photographer put it out there. She is exercising her copyrights by licensing the photo (royalty free) to whatever service she uploaded it to. (It's always in the ToS that by uploading, you give them some sort of license, but you usually do not give them the copyright.) Now, it is possible that she uploaded to Twitpic, which specifies in its ToS that by uploading, you give them license to publish and relicense the photo. If that's the case, then it is possible the various news agencies went to Twitpic to get a license to use the photo (for free or for some fee paid to Twitpic), but my guess is that is not what happened. Think of it this way: if you wrote a book and posted a link to it on twitter, would you be happy if someone else started selling it on Amazon?
- retube 15y ago
  I'm not talking about the issue of someone else selling her picture. Obviously that is not on. Maybe I missed this, but has her picture been sold by others? I though the issue was that various media organisations had published it on their own networks?
  - tghw 15y ago
    They weren't selling it directly, but they are making money off of it without giving her a cut.
ajscherer 15y ago
It seems like everyone is determined to give you a legal answer to what what I interpreted as a moral question. The overwhelming response has established that legally she still owns the copyright to the photo. The quesiton that's worth discussing, in my mind, is should she be able to go after people for damages for using her photo in ways other than attempting to plagarize it or just straight up sell copies? When you post a picture to twitter you are essentially saying Hey everyone look at my photo!. In my view it is then impossible to justify later freaking out and saying Holy shit everyone is looking at my photo! After reading the article, I think the "victim" here may even agree with me. Her quotes didn't give the impression that she felt particularly wronged in the whole affair.

by retube 15y ago

darklajid 15y ago

I mostly agree. It should be this way, in legal terms, as far as I'm concerned. But I still question the ethic of these media companies that skim the internet, looking for 'free' content that they then go on and sell (either directly as a print media/with a paywall or indirectly though ads) to others. Is it free for anyone to use it as a desktop background? Certainly so, in my world. But I am disgusted that this again highlights how user generated content is ripped off and sold. There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady.

tghw 15y ago
> There's no law against it, but I still consider it shady. Actually, there are. The entirety of copyright law deems this an infringement. Just because you have access to something and it is easy to copy does not give you the right to do so.

masklinn 15y ago

> Surely if you tweet an image you've taken you're putting it into the public domain? Surely not. In fact, in some countries (e.g. France) this phrase does not even make sense legally (under french copyright law, it is not possible to put something in the public domain until the term is due). You're putting it for public viewing, but the copyright remains yours, and it does not implicitly allow third parties to make money out of it without compensation. > You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point? That does not make it public domain. Nor does it need to.

martinpannier 15y ago
That's not exactly true. American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > American "copyright" is not quite the French "droit d'auteur", which, if I'm not mistaken, is what you're mentioning. Yes. > And then, even the "droits d'auteur" are broken down in the patrimonial rights and the creation attribution—you can cede your patrimonial rights (rights to profit from the picture), but never the creation attribution: the picture will always be your creation. Sure, but the fact remains that, under french IP laws, it is legally impossible to put something in the public domain yourself, as the creator of that thing. And checking SQLite's "copyright" page (which made me realize this nit of french IP law) there seem to be places where the very concept of "public domain" does not exist.
retube 15y ago
Legal definitions of "public domain" aside, if you're putting something onto twitter you presumably want it to be shared. Isn't that the point of twitter? If you do retain the copyright, does this mean that people have to pay for retweeting? This image only became famous but virtue of the fact that it went viral on twitter and the wider web. If she'd not tweeted it - and as someone with no press contacts - had attempted to sell it directly to media organisations I'm betting she wouldn't have had much success. I think it's pretty hypocritical to try and leverage free services like twitter for self-promotion and personal brand-building then completely back-track on that ideology and claim some kind of restriction on a particular post cos it suddenly has been delivered to a wider audience and may suddenly have value.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

martinpannier 15y ago

You WANT it to be distributed and concede the necessary rights to TwitPic, but that's very different from putting it out in the public domain. You still retain copyright, and normally the picture host shouldn't be able to sell it nor journalists to use it (this is precisely the reason there was such a kerfuffle about the TwitPic TOS recently). I hate being self-promotional, but this issue is exactly the reason we created Picuous, which is a Vimeo/SoundCloud/Scribd for pictures: pictures can be embedded legally, carry automatic attribution, and can be tracked by the picture owner. Using the pictures in the player is free, using them in other contexts is pay-for. We want to change this traditionnal diffusion/monetization/ownership Bermuda Triangle… People interested in this problem should check it out: http://picuous.com http://picuous.com. All feedback is welcome on martin@picuous.com.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

edanm 15y ago

"You WANT it to be distributed - isn't that the whole point?" Authors want their books distributed. Musicians want their music distributed, too. They just want to make money, as well. Honestly, I'm not disagreeing with your main point, which is interesting. I just think we have to work on the terminology. Because anyone can see that there's a big difference between snapping a picture and putting it on Twitter, vs. writing a book and trying to sell it. (+1, by the way. You made a good argument. You might want to remove the "<b>" though, that kind of formatting doesn't work here).

sbierwagen 15y ago

If you're downvoting please explain why. Okay. I'm downvoting because your legal argument is incorrect, and I don't want as many people to see it, in case they get the wrong impression.

tghw 15y ago

You are badly confusing publishing with copyrights. Most photographers like their work published. Some publish through art galleries, some through newspapers, some through billboards, and some through twitter. None of these make it public domain, however. Public domain means anyone can use the photo as they see fit, which is not why the photographer put it out there. She is exercising her copyrights by licensing the photo (royalty free) to whatever service she uploaded it to. (It's always in the ToS that by uploading, you give them some sort of license, but you usually do not give them the copyright.) Now, it is possible that she uploaded to Twitpic, which specifies in its ToS that by uploading, you give them license to publish and relicense the photo. If that's the case, then it is possible the various news agencies went to Twitpic to get a license to use the photo (for free or for some fee paid to Twitpic), but my guess is that is not what happened. Think of it this way: if you wrote a book and posted a link to it on twitter, would you be happy if someone else started selling it on Amazon?

retube 15y ago
I'm not talking about the issue of someone else selling her picture. Obviously that is not on. Maybe I missed this, but has her picture been sold by others? I though the issue was that various media organisations had published it on their own networks?
- tghw 15y ago
  They weren't selling it directly, but they are making money off of it without giving her a cut.

ajscherer 15y ago

It seems like everyone is determined to give you a legal answer to what what I interpreted as a moral question. The overwhelming response has established that legally she still owns the copyright to the photo. The quesiton that's worth discussing, in my mind, is should she be able to go after people for damages for using her photo in ways other than attempting to plagarize it or just straight up sell copies? When you post a picture to twitter you are essentially saying Hey everyone look at my photo!. In my view it is then impossible to justify later freaking out and saying Holy shit everyone is looking at my photo! After reading the article, I think the "victim" here may even agree with me. Her quotes didn't give the impression that she felt particularly wronged in the whole affair.