The Nameless Libertarian ruminates on the matter of Twitter. I have to say, I tend to take a similar view – it’s a waste of pixels and as such, I don’t have an account, just as I don’t have a Facebook account. This is unlikely to change. As, like TNL, I’ve yet to see anything on it that is worth reading.
What piques TNL’s interest is this case.
Material that is published on Twitter should be considered public and can be published, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has ruled.
The decision follows a complaint by a Department of Transport official that the use of her tweets by newspapers constituted an invasion of privacy.
Apparently the Daily Mail republished her comments and as they included remarks about being hungover at work, she is embarrassed as a consequence.
I’d make two observations here;
One – the PCC is correct. If you publish your thoughts on the Internet and don’t lock them down to invited viewers, then they are in the public domain and your privacy has already been eroded; by you, no one else. And, if you want to retain a patina of separation between your online thoughts and your real life, don’t publish using your real name. Sure, people can find out who you are, but for the most part will have no motivation to do so.
Secondly – if a publication reuses your material for profit, then you should issue them with an invoice and mean it. That, frankly, is the line Ms Baskerville should have taken with the Daily Mail.
And finally, Twitter is a waste of Pixels (did I say that already?) – or as someone put it, too many tweets make a twat… Publish the intimate details of your private affairs on it in your own name if you wish, but don’t be too surprised when it bites you on the bum.
What is your basis for issuing them with an invoice? Presumably because it’s “your” material, which presumably is yours due to copyright?
Are any of her brief witterings copyrightable works? No. So I suggest that had she taken that line, she would have come out looking just as stupid as she did taking the equally ridiculous “the things I published in public are private” line.
As I have commented on other blogs, Twitter is just haiku for morons.
Copyright automatically applies on written publications unless otherwise stated or rescinded by the author. Just because it is only 140 odd characters of garbage doesn’t alter that. So, yes, I’d issue an invoice. If more people did this, newspapers might start to get the message that republishing without consent is not okay. Exactly the same applies to images. Given that they are republishing for profit, the fair use argument fails. The same applies to papers trying to republish work here – although I have the advantage of a clearly defined copyright policy. And, yes, I will issue an invoice and I will pursue it.
Henry, haiku is a bit posh for morons…
I don’t do twatter either.
Mrs M! had a facefing account as a way of keeping in touch with her old mates in the 4 corners of the globe (the what of the what?!) She soon found that it was just a way of getting dragged into a load gossip, so she shut it down.
too many tweets make a twat…
I don’t tweet for that reason.
@Longrider, regarding comment #3, yes, the fact it is short very much does have a bearing on whether it is copyrightable or not, as does whether it can be considered original and creative or not, and many other things too. (In fact, short phrases are specifically NOT copyrightable, like titles of articles).
Issue your hypothetical invoice – you will be laughed out of court.
If I publish “bleugh, I am hung over this morning, and I don’t like this government I’m working for” do I suddenly own the copyright in that little phrase and have the right to invoice anyone else who uses the same words? No.
Additionally, even if you managed to convince a court that your tweet was a copyrightable work, which seems highly unlikely to me, it would be perfectly acceptable to quote it with proper attribution as part of a (so-called) news article, much like you legitimately quote excerpts much longer than 140 characters from other’s work as part of your articles on a daily basis.
Of course not – but in this specific case, they are republishing work that is attributable to an individual and doing so for profit.
Whether it is laughed out of court is neither here nor there as it is not the object of the exercise; it is to make a nuisance of oneself with the newspaper. If enough people did it, they would – hopefully – think twice about republishing without consent. That is the issue here, not privacy. What I publish here is written for free and published for free. If a newspaper wants to use it, then a professional fee applies as I don’t write for professional publications for nothing. Okay, slightly different to Twitter as the articles are rather more substantial, but the same basic principle applies
It’s bit like the old Jeremy Beadle/candid camera things a few years back. Programme makers were making money at the expense of unwitting dupes. Those dupes should have insisted on a full appearance fee of a suitably sufficient value to discourage the activity in future.
Ms Baskerville published on a not for profit platform. The Daily Mail now thinks that it is okay to republish for its own gain. In which case, they should pay her for her contribution to their story as without it, there wouldn’t be a story, would there? At the very least, they should seek consent to republish her remarks.
As for copyrighting phrases and words, maybe you’d like to remind Steve Jobs about that one 😉
Yes, I did mention fair use. With a tweet, the whole work (for want of a better term) is used. When I quote, I only quote a small portion of the whole so fair use applies.
As I said in the previous comment – it’s not about convincing a court, it’s about making a nuisance of oneself with the newspaper to make a point about republishing for profit.
Far better to either not do Twitter or to do so under a pseudonym.