4 ms·
The hypocrisy of major copyright holders never ceases to amaze me. Getty would go after a business that redistributed Getty's photos for profit in a heartbeat.
by michaelhoffman 13y ago
The hypocrisy of major copyright holders never ceases to amaze me. Getty would go after a business that redistributed Getty's photos for profit in a heartbeat.
- joeblau 13y agoI found the same irony in this story. Getty and AFP would prosecute anyone trying to resell work. I'm not to familiar with Twitters privacy policy so I'm not sure who actually owns the pictures that are posted there, but I'm guessing from the ruling that it's the users.
- _delirium 13y agoIt's in section 5 of the ToS here: https://twitter.com/tos https://twitter.com/tos The short of it is that you retain copyright over your photos, but grant Twitter a worldwide, nonexclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce them. You also authorize Twitter to extend that right to third parties via syndication agreements or APIs. This seems mostly intended to ensure that Twitter can set up APIs and feeds usable by third parties, although the permission as written would allow Twitter to engage in broader syndication agreements if they wanted. But in any case, third parties can't just grab content and reuse it on their own. You could probably make some kind of photo-feed website scrolling recently tweeted photos, maybe even sort them into galleries (as long as your website complies with the Twitter API's own ToS). But you can't just right-click/save-as and upload the JPG to embed in your news article, because that removes it from the context where you're covered by the license the photographer has granted to Twitter.