|Blurred Lines Of Permission: Tweets Turned Into Ads In Print Media|
When a third party takes part of the content of a tweet and uses it in a print media ad, is this ok? The third party did ask permission from the originator, but they declined. The third party went ahead and used the tweet in a modified format.
It seems the lines are blurred on this.
|Tony Scott – known as A. O. Scott to those who read his film criticism in The Times – is at home on Saturday morning. He picks up his print edition of The Times, planning to do the crossword puzzle. But first he leafs through the paper, and there on Page C7 is a full-page advertisement – almost all white space except for 75 characters. It’s his tweet from a few days before. Actually, no, it’s not his full tweet, but a part of his tweet, mocked up to look like a full tweet.Blurred Lines Of Permission: Tweets Turned Into Ads In Print Media [publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com] |
It certainly brings up ownership issues. Does the content I write and post on Twitter actually belong to me? Does the content belong to Twitter?
|Does the content I write and post on Twitter actually belong to me? Does the content belong to Twitter? |
How about when I include authorship?
Example: "phrase here." - Joe Author
Tweeters being "precious", who would've thunk it!
As if it matters a jot.
|You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). |
|The third party did ask permission from the originator, but they declined. |
Heh. The human equivalent of asking for robots.txt and then ignoring it.
If someone asks permission and is explicitly refused, I don't see any "blurring". I see a major lawsuit. It might be different if it were an ad for Twitter, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.