Connor BrookeWe were recently quoted in an online magazine article; our picture, our name and our original tweet. In fact, it was a screen shot of what we had written on a fairly controversial topic! We were never informed that we had been quoted and would never have seen it if it wasn’t for Google Alerts. In short, our permission was never sought. In the journalism world, this would have been a sure no-go; quoting someone on a controversial subject without their knowledge, could get them into a sticky situation.
So, this led us to the million dollar question…..can you copyright a tweet?
This is a very complex question but should the journalist have taken a screenshot of the tweet without our permission? Should they not have let us know this was to be used? With 1.4K shares online, this was hardly a subtle article, sitting lonely on the web -this was getting read.
In 2009 a legal court ruled that copyright may exist in text of 11 words or more- and subsists when a work is its own intellectual creation. So then, it seems the answer should be yes?
Well, it’s clearly not that clear cut.
One of the most well known examples of tweet ‘borrowing’ was during the marketing for the Cohen Brothers film Inside Llewyn Davis. The marketers used a tweet from A O Scott, one of America’s leading film critics, on a full page advertisement. Let’s give them some credit though; they did ask his permission first. So what’s the problem?
Well, Scott actually said no.
Scott stated that using his tweet for a marketing campaign seemed like “a slippery slope and was contrary to the ad hoc and informal nature of the medium.” Hear hear we say!
Regardless of his objection, this tweet was edited and used in the New York Times as a full page advert. A leading American Copyright Lawyer told Scott that he did have grounds for “fake endorsement” as he owned the tweet and it was subsequently edited and used without his permission. She also suggested that its use had possibly been a violation of Twitters terms of use.
Twitter’s terms and conditions do actually state that content “may not be used in advertising” broadcasts without prior consent. This use is clearly a violation of this, however, did Scott putting this online for all to see mean that he had volunteered this statement for public use? Either way, Scott did not sue…but regarless of this, this has since prompted much debate about how much of what we write online we actually own!
The law is clearly still adjusting to the rise of social media and is obviously struggling to keep pace. Social media legalities is still a grey area and copyright laws are still being worked out. However we then ask…if you can be prosecuted for the negatives you post online, then surely you should be credited for the positives?
Under the 2003 Communications Act, it is actually an offense to send a message using a public electronic communications network if it is “grossly offensive”. This has been seen in numerous high profile court cases, for example the cases of feminist Caroline Criado-Perez and Tom Daley. These are just a couple of examples from the many cases involving trolling, social media abuse, and tweeting about legal cases. Thousands of people have been held accountable for their social media posts, be that getting sacked from their job, severely disciplined or even prosecuted and as social media use continue to rise, it appears this trend looks set to continue.
So, this draws on our previous question; if you can be held accountable, and even prosecuted, for what you write on social media, then surely the law recognises these as your thoughts, comments and ideas….so then shouldn’t you ‘own’ this post and have total say over where it is replicated?
i.e. shouldn’t you own its copyright?
This article was written for Business 2 Community by Connor Brooke.
Learn how to publish your content on B2C
Join our Telegram channel to stay up to date on breaking news coverage
Add B2C to your Google News Feed
good piece and thought provoking but as a film buff I have to correct you-it’s the Coen Brothers, not Cohen :)
Thanks Janice. It is indeed the Coen Brothers,that was a typo that has somehow sneaked its way into the piece! Thanks :)