Slashdot Mirror
The Copyrightability of Twitter Posts
TechDirt has an interesting look at some of the questions arising about the copyrightability of Twitter messages. I haven't seen any actual copyright lawyers weigh in yet, but it certainly will be interesting to watch the feathers fly until someone nails down the answer. "[...] it seems like there would be two issues here. The first is whether or not the content is covered by copyright — and, for most messages the answer would probably be yes (there would need to be some sort of creative element to the messages to make that happen, so a simple 'hi' or 'thanks' or whatever might not cut it). But, the more important question then would be whether or not ESPN could quote the Twitter message. And, there, the answer is almost certainly, yes, they could, just as they could quote something you wrote in a blog post."
140 Characters? You can copyright 140 characters? Maybe. Can you copy this post?
Copyright © 2009 Morgan Greywolf. All rights reserved.
My blog
...automatically assumed to have copyright attributed to the author?
I had no idea Twitter had some mystical "copyright-defeating aura" about its service.
hookers and grits.
as soon as you create something, it is protected by copyright.... as long as you're in the US (YMMV in other countries)
and yes, ESPN can quote.... as long as its newsworthy.... news is covered by fair use...
plus, ESPN is owned by Disney.....
they can get away with anything....
Why are we all a twitter over something that was twittered when it should have been tweeted. Or are we tweeting over something that was twittered by using a twitter that refused to tweet?
Tweet tweet?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
...automatically assumed to have copyright attributed to the author?
I had no idea Twitter had some mystical "copyright-defeating aura" about its service.
The only thing about Twitter that is "mystical" is its ability to stay popular and relevant well past its 15-minute window...
Seriously... you're an idiot if you are going to twitter about taking a shit or a piss. If you're going to twitter something meaningful, like hey I'm on the subway and its being delayed b/c some jackass jumped off the platform and I'm going to be late to (wherever). Then supposing you're friends are following you they will know... where you are and why you're late.
Twittering is no more idiotic than instant messaging. Its like an email list for instant messaging. It has qualities a chat room lacks like a degree of permanence.
But hey lets make another joke about twittering your bathroom habits and maybe you'll get modded +5 funny and not just redundant.
from the cache page.
Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:
* Names of products or services
* Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
* Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
* Titles of works
* Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
* Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
You can't copyright facts, for example. If you get up on a soapbox on Main St. and yell that the Mayor is a space alien, the local paper can report that you did so without any invocation of copyright. They can quote parts of your screed under fair use. TFA discusses this part, if you'd read it.
Just a simple proof:
Character count is less than
One hundred forty
Copyright © 2009 detachable_halo.
Could it be that we make fun of Twitter because the majority of people actually think we care about their day-to-day bullshit? I've seen "accomplished" bloggers tell everyone how they went to a book store and found a great book they'd been looking for. Then 15 minutes later "ooooh, I'm reading the book", as though we thought they'd leave the damn thing unread for a year. Two hours later "This book is pretty intense".
Might as well be:
"Sitting down to take a shit"
"eww, smells like asparagus doesn't agree with me"
"damn, this one's gonna hang and break, and I'm gonna have to wipe even more"
"remind me to never eat at Joe's again"
Instead they could have written "hey, I read this great book I bought yesterday and it was awesome. I'd been looking for it for a while. Highly recommended." One post, under 140 characters and doesn't make it seem like they're a fucking attention whore.
In short: Look, you aren't famous and you're not going to get your 15 minutes of fame by writing utter drivel. The odds are against you and if you're not famous now, writing bullshit ain't gonna endear us to you enough to get you nominated for an Oscar. You're probably mediocre and should accept it that most of us don't care any more than that 13 year old girl cares about your hemorrhoid problems when you tell her in the checkout line.
You have got to be kidding.
If we ever get the "free market" that lots of people seem to believe in, we'll be paying fees for breathing. That's how it works: people who get lots of money get power. When they get power, they pass laws which help them get more money. The money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest target is the set of people who don't have lots of money or power. That's about all of us.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why are we even discussing this? no of course you can't copyright 140 characters in a specific sequence and of course I can write the same line everywhere I please, without giving a crap about what the original author thinks or having to pay him. Why you ask? because its frakkin' common sense. Slashdotters usually agree on not wanting to end up living in a police state, brought forth by the endless new IP legislation. By discussing and thus taken seriously that 140 chars, what amounts to a sentence, you're not doing yourself or the rest of us a favour. Its ridiculous and the courts should dismiss such claims outright.
Nope. Quit that wager before you lose your shirt.
Tweet posts are copyrightable works as long as trivial outliers are avoided. Ignoring issues like TOS grabs, the lower bound is much shorter, perhaps down in the 1 word range.
You can fit two haikus per tweet - no one's going to deny the creativity there!
Just because most people burn their characters on facile content doesn't automatically strip away the copyrightability.
What's happening is that it's hard to find a Fair Use fragment since the whole is so short.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You'll notice the conspicuous absence of the word "sentence" from what you quoted. Never have I read anywhere that a single sentence is ineligible for copyright. It's certainly not in Title 17. Part of the reason is that "sentence" is of an undefined length. Sentences can be very short. (like that one) Or they can be very long, like the kind you find in the last chapter of Ulysses.
My point is that if a haiku contains enough creative content to qualify for a copyright, a sentence of the same length, containing the same amount of creative content would also qualify.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
One-hundred forty;
that is all the space you get.
Haiku is covered...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?