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.
...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.
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