tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post479160597874019456..comments2022-12-02T13:41:41.120+00:00Comments on Francis Davey: Colonel Mustard is not in the Library with a copyright claim formFrancis Daveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-8447669005436739432011-04-14T09:55:00.234+01:002011-04-14T09:55:00.234+01:00@Patrick - Thanks for the appreciation and the twe...@Patrick - Thanks for the appreciation and the tweet. I doubt that tweeting about this post could infringe any copyright in it for many reasons. Tweeting the whole post bit by bit for commercial purposes without attribution might do so, but I rather think that's unlikely.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-78418465660352402492011-04-14T09:49:55.680+01:002011-04-14T09:49:55.680+01:00Fascinating and perfect timing. After wading throu...Fascinating and perfect timing. After wading through lots of opinion from the USA I finally found this, and written recently to boot!<br /><br />My own interest started when I saw someone on Twitter who had included a 'All tweets (c) [name]' at the end of their brief profile 'about me' section. I wondered whether it was possible/would hold up/what the point was trying to insinuate everything she said (presumably) was copyright. Overkill?<br /><br />As it was, the tweets were not very interesting; in fact, suggesting they were in anyway protected made me much more critical of whether there was anything actually of value in what the person was tweeting about. It very much put me off the tweeter in question whereas usually I might 'give them a go'<br /><br />Thanks again for the UK perspective. Oh, and I've just Tweeted this article by the way, hope that's OK ;-)<br /><br />@ilegalbytesPatrick Torsneyhttp://ilegal.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-4501445054241722482011-03-24T09:41:56.282+00:002011-03-24T09:41:56.282+00:00@Anonymous. Spot on. The efficacy of search engine...@Anonymous. Spot on. The efficacy of search engines means that its much easier now to determine who was the author of a work than it ever used to be. I know of no discussion as to how this might effect the attribution requirement in cases of fair dealing.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-63988836316053691142011-03-24T03:00:07.460+00:002011-03-24T03:00:07.460+00:00It sure as heck is possible to identify the author...It sure as heck is possible to identify the author of the tweet by starting from the information provided by the Now Show and using Google, because that's how I come to be reading your blog entry.<br /><br />Of course, you might still argue that just because it's identifiable doesn't mean it's sufficiently attributed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-52599907873197162952011-03-15T14:33:23.371+00:002011-03-15T14:33:23.371+00:00@Francis, re your update:
"Although its just...@Francis, re your update:<br /><br />"Although its just possible to argue that "Someone" means "Someone on twitter" and that it is thereby possible identify the author by searching on twitter for the origin of the tweet. Seems like a long shot to me."<br /><br />The odd thing is that for a couple of weeks after I first published the tweet I got a 'long tail' of retweets. That is to say, there was an initial high spike where ~400 people retweeted it and then ~100 more over the next 2 weeks.<br /><br />On the Saturday morning when I first heard the podcast I noted that there was another spike of about 10-20 people retweeting it (over a whole week after the previous retweet). I thought nothing of it until I heard the show later that morning. This does imply that some people did exactly what you said and searched for the original tweet.<br /><br />Searching for "Big society cluedo" on twitter shows that many people copied the quote from the radio and tweeted it themselves, attributing Jon Holmes (the person who read the tweet out).<br /><br />@Philippe Bradley: I suspect you're joking, but to be clear I have no disappointment or resentment about this at all. It's been a catalyst for an interesting thought experiment about copyright and tweets, no more. I don't expect royalties ;)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10984024092827925070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-6428096377981505482011-03-15T13:56:57.820+00:002011-03-15T13:56:57.820+00:00@Sym - thanks for the full quote, I've updated...@Sym - thanks for the full quote, I've updated the post to take it into account.<br /><br />@Philippe - I'm not even thinking about whether there should be copyright, I have enough work as it is keeping up with what the law is not what it should be. At present I remain unconvinced that copyright is necessary <b>at all</b>. I've certainly seen no good arguments in favour and cogent ones against.<br /><br />@Lillian - CC-BY is the one you are looking for I think. Twitter certainly could allow users to choose their own attribution mechanism or adopt a fixed one for the whole site. No problem there. They don't seem to have done so.<br /><br />And yes, I agree that tweeting gives an implied licence to retweet, but I'm not sure whether it goes further than that.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-64647684653691887452011-03-15T13:43:28.992+00:002011-03-15T13:43:28.992+00:00To @Philippe interesting thought derived from your...To @Philippe interesting thought derived from your comment - what if Twitter itself stated Twitter contributions were released under a CC attribution no-other-restrictions license? (sorry I donlt know the technical categories well) Could it be valid for them to make that the default, and for individual users to be able to "opt out" of that f they didn;t like it? very Google Library practice I know., but would supply most people with an enforceable remedy of the kind they'd probably most like?panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-86340231988878191282011-03-15T13:40:13.555+00:002011-03-15T13:40:13.555+00:00To @Sym, there is indeed a wider issue worth raisi...To @Sym, there is indeed a wider issue worth raising - I got alerted to the matter by a friend pointing out that professional if not yet mega star comedians were trying out their jokes on Twitter to gauge audience response and then finding them lifted by better known comedians without attribution. There's quite a lot of such in various contexts (eg extensive RT ing of embarrassing tweets by Gillian Mckeith which she had removed herself , surely thereby revoking any implied license?). I've also noted the widespread practice of filling pages in papers (inc broadsheets) with celebrity tweets - not to illustrate stories which presumably comes under some (c) fair dealing but as the entire content which surely doesn;t. I think implied license is the most likely argt (and of course the celbrities won't sue)- but as it is well accepted just "putting stuff on the web" doesn't usually create implied license to copy, I don't particularly see why tweets out of context would be different - but I agree with Simon that in the context of Twitter (or a client) RT prob does imply acceptance of implied license to copy *within* Twitter(and just as well too - see my blog piece..).Lilian Edwardsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-48092808486832590052011-03-15T13:30:31.282+00:002011-03-15T13:30:31.282+00:00The analysis seems spot on but really, is there an...The analysis seems spot on but really, is there any sense in copyright extending to tweets? <br />- Who needs copyright to incentivise tweeting? <br />- Are tweets the sort of content that copyright law needs to incentivise? - - And who suffers (actually suffers - apologies, Sym, if your disappointment at not scoring a contract with the podcast writers or listeners) from infringement of their copyright in a single tweet? (now, a tweetstream, that is a different issue - e.g. a liveblog of a current event, or some other narration or discourse)<br /><br />I wouldn't begrudge Sym a minor remedy for the non-attribution, but for copyright law to do anything more in this circumstance would seem deeply inappropriate.Philippe Bradleyhttp://www.overthecounterculture.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-2997385958581960372011-03-15T08:27:11.393+00:002011-03-15T08:27:11.393+00:00Thanks for writing this up Francis. You are corre...Thanks for writing this up Francis. You are correct in your assumptions: I'm not the sort to get upset by this sort of thing, and it's slightly flattering that something I wrote in an offhand way one evening appeared on a show I've enjoyed for years.<br /><br />There is a wider issue here though, so it's important to explore these matters.<br /><br />The show can still be downloaded in MP3 format from the BBC's 'Friday night comedy' podcast feed. I'll not link to it, as they take the file down 7 days after first broadcast.<br /><br />Starting at 10:53:<br /><br /><b>Someone amused me no end on twitter the other day, ok, when they answered twitter's question 'what are you doing?' by writing: <i>"I'm playing big society cluedo, it's easier than normal cluedo because there isn't a library"</i></b><br /><br />So, apart form prefixing "I'm", it's an exact quote of the tweet and a statement that he lifted it from twitter. <br /><br />If he didn't admit to seeing it on twitter and attempted to pass it off as his own I think we would be looking at a very different matter here (Not that I'm any sort of legal expert).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10984024092827925070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3638060991094829710.post-64605747878842324322011-03-15T08:08:55.022+00:002011-03-15T08:08:55.022+00:00I fully agree with your analysis and have no doubt...I fully agree with your analysis and have no doubt that an original tweet is protected by copyright under English law. As you say, the question is one of what acts infringe that copyright.<br /><br />One argument is that the prominence given to the 'retweet' feature together with its widespread use could mean that there's an implied licence to retweet. Now just copying a tweet elsewhere isn't quite the same as retweeting, and of course retweeting, if done properly, preserves the username of the original tweeter (so there is fair attribution.) It's reposting without attribution, as you say, that is most problematic.<br /><br />As for adapting the tweet, the sheer brevity of tweets may encourage it (although part of the charm of a good tweet is its pithiness.) If I had to pick a lawsuit-inducing scenario, it would be that of a Hollywood blockbuster turning out to have its plot summarised in a tweet from just before it was first pitched!Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.com