Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Pro photographer Aaron Babcock took a picture of Bill Murray at a Nebraska/Purdue football game in 2018, and published it to his Twitter feed. Gannett publishing reposted the picture to four of its website without permission from Babcock, and the photographer has sued for copyright infringement. Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation. A judge has denied Gannett's efforts to have the suit dismissed, and the case may have wide-ranging implications, particularly for sports photographers.
Posts: 37,913
Threads: 4,147
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
"Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation"
that's quite an argument...
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
hal wrote:
"Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation"
that's quite an argument...
I'm pretty sure he's happy they used his image without his permission.
Posts: 11,908
Threads: 606
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
vision63 wrote:
[quote=hal]
"Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation"
that's quite an argument...
I'm pretty sure he's happy they used his image without his permission.
Or, he will be once a settlement is reached.
Posts: 13,803
Threads: 1,151
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
0
hal wrote:
"Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation"
that's quite an argument...
Unfortunately, I'll bet Gannett is 100% correct. The real problem here is Twitter and Facebook, etc.
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
AllGold wrote:
[quote=hal]
"Gannett argues that Twitter's TOS allow it to republish images without permission or compensation"
that's quite an argument...
Unfortunately, I'll bet Gannett is 100% correct. The real problem here is Twitter and Facebook, etc.
Or people using using Twitter and Facebook as if they are customers instead of what they really are, their products.
Posts: 8,463
Threads: 878
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Twitter’s TOS can supersede copyright law? My understanding has been that even if signed, illegal aspects of a contract are still unenforceable.
Wouldn’t this get messy for any copyright holder posting content on the platform? Movie trailers, article excerpts, etc.? It seems they’re position is that once posted to Twitter, content essentially becomes public domain, usable by anyone without limitation or compensation.
Posts: 40,656
Threads: 1,025
Joined: May 2025
Blankity Blank wrote:
Twitter’s TOS can supersede copyright law? My understanding has been that even if signed, illegal aspects of a contract are still unenforceable.
Wouldn’t this get messy for any copyright holder posting content on the platform? Movie trailers, article excerpts, etc.? It seems they’re position is that once posted to Twitter, content essentially becomes public domain, usable by anyone without limitation or compensation.
I believe so. It's not clear what your "creative commons" terms are on Twitter and Facebook etc., like you can specify on photography specific sites. Normally, a media entity will seek permission to use your image from Twitter. I'm sure they'd pay his fee if he asked them, but he sued them, so now it's a war.
Posts: 13,803
Threads: 1,151
Joined: Jun 2025
Reputation:
0
I don't know how it ultimately works out, but I do know among professional photographers this is a continual controversy because services like Twitter, Instagram, etc. are always, ALWAYS trying to pull this crap with their TOSs that say if you post it on our service then we can do anything we darn well please with it. I don't know if that attempted theft really extends to all their users or just the service itself.
In my opinion, it's part of a larger problem where corporations with their army of lawyers create excessive contracts and TOSs against regular people who don't have an army of lawyers.
Posts: 25,197
Threads: 9,431
Joined: May 2025
AllGold wrote:
I don't know how it ultimately works out, but I do know among professional photographers this is a continual controversy because services like Twitter, Instagram, etc. are always, ALWAYS trying to pull this crap with their TOSs that say if you post it on our service then we can do anything we darn well please with it. I don't know if that attempted theft really extends to all their users or just the service itself.
In my opinion, it's part of a larger problem where corporations with their army of lawyers create excessive contracts and TOSs against regular people who don't have an army of lawyers.
You said what I was about to say. It will be interesting how courts rule on this.
|
