3 ms·
Interesting enough. But let's take a step back. Sure, a single tweet may not be copyrightable, but what about timelines? Couldn't someone consider their Twitte
by bena 17y ago
Interesting enough. But let's take a step back. Sure, a single tweet may not be copyrightable, but what about timelines?
Couldn't someone consider their Twitter timeline to be a body of work? Think about Fake Micheal Bay, Darth Vader, or other fake users who exist solely for entertainment purposes. No single tweet is important, however the image they convey of the character is described in these 140 character chunks. Pretty much a work of fiction.
It would be like trying to say that words and sentences can't be copyrighted because they are too small to comprise anything substantial, but ignoring books, songs, plays, etc.
A case for missing the forest for the trees.
- CodeMage 17y agoIn this case, I'd say that the author is trying to stop people from staring at the trees, so that they can tour the forest.
- bena 17y agoHe never makes that claim. He focuses on whether or not a tweet is copyrightable as a body of work. He never brings up or implies that a person's timeline might be something more than the sum of the individual tweets. His answer to the question is no for various reasons. He never delves into the higher levels. He takes the question simply at face value. If asked whether words or sentences are copyrightable, his answer would be the same for all of the same reasons. However, we intuitively know that words and sentences are not the end product of writing and don't base copyrightability on the basis of words and sentences being copyrightable.