The Copyrightability of Twitter Posts

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Copyrightability of Twitter Posts

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday March 30, 2009 @08:05AM from the no-taking-it-back-once-you-put-it-on-the-intartubez dept.

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."

9 of 183 comments (clear)

140 Characters? by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-30 08:13 · Score: 5, Funny

140 Characters? You can copyright 140 characters? Maybe. Can you copy this post?
Copyright © 2009 Morgan Greywolf. All rights reserved.

--
My blog
1. Re:140 Characters? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-03-30 08:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There are some things that can't be copyrighted.
  For everything else, there's Lawyers.
  (Accepted wherever greed is good)
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
2. Re:140 Characters? by retchdog · 2009-03-30 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Here is an "anthology" of six-word-long short stories; maybe you'd agree that at least a few of them are art?
  http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/sixwords.html
  (Of course, there might be a problem with "derived works" here - Alan Moore and Darren Aronofsky independently wrote basically the same thing.)
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
3. Re:140 Characters? by eln · 2009-03-30 09:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Strangely enough, out of all of those 664476756947807176715034333311766515110070489754984251115127044065335\
  958723421280563932610202817364857562965301326676439580847882136233622\
  470228337349221780394017946865300500917686923368657379455054140638838\
  860621536007842505308434547056289460001 combinations, there are only about 23949324789628367456963242 that are actually worth copying, none of which have ever appeared on Twitter.
4. Re:140 Characters? by Faylone · 2009-03-30 09:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  So, everything on one page?
isn't anything created... by Lordfly · 2009-03-30 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative

...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.
Twitter? Mystical? Hardly. by geekmux · 2009-03-30 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

...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...
It's a *lot* more complicated than that by Rix · 2009-03-30 08:28 · Score: 4, Informative

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.