tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post522664895633051070..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Are tweets protected by copyright (under US law)?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1157444895860757582014-01-10T23:33:58.756+00:002014-01-10T23:33:58.756+00:00Clive,
Love the quote - have a great weekend.Clive,<br /><br />Love the quote - have a great weekend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87897509067055347422014-01-10T21:45:18.289+00:002014-01-10T21:45:18.289+00:00I think I'll have to call upon George Bernard ...I think I'll have to call upon George Bernard Shaw to close this thread: "Two countries divided by a common language"Clive Brutonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73864806106249699302014-01-10T16:12:46.144+00:002014-01-10T16:12:46.144+00:00Clive,
You lose me on your question.
Conversatio...Clive,<br /><br />You lose me on your question.<br /><br />Conversations - in and of themselves - are simply not protected.<br /><br />A conversation transformed through fixation is protected - regardless of the fixation (as long as the fixation is the type necessary for protection). I realize that sounds a bit circular, but it appears that you still think that something about pure conversation holds something protectable. Such does not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84054414417983339372014-01-10T13:24:10.076+00:002014-01-10T13:24:10.076+00:00Anonymous:
>A conversation and a transcription ...Anonymous:<br />>A conversation and a transcription of a <br />>conversation are two separate and distinct items.<br /><br />I am absolutely alive to the idea that the idea (or expression of that idea) and the method of fixation are separate things. That's exactly the issue in Norowzian, which is misunderstood in some literature: Norowzian's "film" <i>Joy</i> is a dramatic work, and the fact that it is fixed on film (rather than in writing) has no effect on the scope of copyright protection it enjoys.<br /><br />A video of traffic along Euston Road probably has no authorial copyright protection, but the recording itself may be protected as an "economic" film right (as per CDPA 1988 s5B).<br /><br />It's not clear to me that, unequivocally, conversation has no authorial protection in UK law - as long as it has some form of fixation. Clearly a sound recording of that conversation is a different, economic, right to any authorial right.<br /><br />Is the law in the USA different in this respect?Clive Brutonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4885131135223550502014-01-09T22:35:02.913+00:002014-01-09T22:35:02.913+00:00We may be talking past each other.
A conversation...We may be talking past each other.<br /><br />A conversation and a transcription of a conversation are two separate and distinct items.<br /><br />While the transcription is completed with the hope of accuracy (typically), they remain two different items.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82988147148017136822014-01-09T21:51:37.691+00:002014-01-09T21:51:37.691+00:00Anonymous:
>What is transcribed may capture co...Anonymous:<br /><br />>What is transcribed may capture copyright - <br />>but fixation is a definite requirement, and it <br />>would be the transcription rather than the <br />>conversation that would be the subject matter.<br /><br />I think I may just need to clarify what I previously wrote, because it seems that it was misunderstood.<br /><br />Clearly fixation is a requirement, <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/3" rel="nofollow">s3(2) CDPA 1988</a>, <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1999/3018.html" rel="nofollow">Norowzian v Arks</a>, <a href="http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1989/1989_26.html" rel="nofollow">Green v NZ Broadcasting</a>, <a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2006/24.html" rel="nofollow">Nova v Mazooma</a>… and I'm sure the doctrine is well covered in the USA.<br /><br />What I meant previously was that "conversation" may or may not be suitable subject matter, but the issue as to whether it is or not is not fixation. Since if a conversation is transcribed or otherwise recorded then the issue of fixation disappears - if by "fixation" you mean something akin to s3(2) CDPA.<br /><br />If you mean something else, ie that it is not suitable subject matter, then I don't really have a firm view about that either way.Clive Brutonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31359780785389238142014-01-09T17:25:27.847+00:002014-01-09T17:25:27.847+00:00Clive,
What is transcribed may capture copyright ...Clive,<br /><br />What is transcribed may capture copyright - but fixation is a definite requirement, and it would be the transcription rather than the conversation that would be the subject matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8542360611259787582014-01-09T14:29:04.430+00:002014-01-09T14:29:04.430+00:00Anonymous:
>a) Conversation is not copyrightabl...Anonymous:<br />>a) Conversation is not copyrightable as it is <br />>not fixed in a tangible media.<br /><br />Doesn't it become fixed if someone transcribes it in some form (or otherwise records it)? That's not to say that I think it automatically becomes the correct subject matter, but I'm not sure fixation is really the issue.Clive Brutonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7815955166998011562014-01-08T13:51:26.424+00:002014-01-08T13:51:26.424+00:00Some interesting comments. Interesting because th...Some interesting comments. Interesting because there appears to be some misconceptions about what is copyrightable, what items possibly copyrightable can be contracted away, and what those with those contracted away rights then can do with their now possessed contracted rights and all of that overlayed with the potential for a Fair Use defense (which is NOT a defense that is applied universally, but rather is a case by case defense).<br /><br />Some items to keep in mind:<br />a) Conversation is not copyrightable as it is not fixed in a tangible media.<br />b) the umbrella of rights in copyright can be contracted away.<br />c) as property rights, the contracted rights can then be broken apart and selectively re-contracted by the rights owner.<br />d) as mentioned, Fair Use defense rules are applied on a case by case basis.<br />e) copyright protection is not available for names, titles or short phrases (at least in the US - see circular 34).<br /><br />A bit off-topic, but the same circular limits protection to software since the heart of software is formulaic (what software does is the formula part, the copyright protected part is the 'text directions' as it were, the non-operable portion)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12843822708128881822014-01-08T11:48:38.658+00:002014-01-08T11:48:38.658+00:00With regard to conversations, budding authors were...With regard to conversations, budding authors were (are?) often advised to sit on the top of a bus with a notebook, on the basis that overheard conversations are better than anything one could make up. Treating Twitter on the same basis sounds riskier, though just because of the permanent record issue (same with defamation, for that matter; things overheard in the pub are much less likely to end up in law suits than things in Tweets).Susan Hallhttp://susanhall.shoesforindustry.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2735035435626855442014-01-08T11:25:53.326+00:002014-01-08T11:25:53.326+00:00Retweeting is accepted by users of twitter, and pr...Retweeting is accepted by users of twitter, and presumably a sort of licence exists therefore for a tweet to be copied and spread.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69121047642756401372014-01-08T10:27:59.121+00:002014-01-08T10:27:59.121+00:00Is it daft to think in terms of Twitter being conv...Is it daft to think in terms of Twitter being conversation - so (the exact or inexact) repeat of a Tweet is equivalent to reporting something heard in conversation ? Agree there's likely to be copyright in a sting of 140 (or less) characters - I definitely find myself fine-tuning Tweets ("creative effort") but shouldn't we strive to keep copyright out of this area / leave any issues to other areas of law as appropriate ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17547963789032954274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77686130245033981052014-01-08T07:09:25.005+00:002014-01-08T07:09:25.005+00:00Good post, Eleonora. I think tweets are sufficient...Good post, Eleonora. I think tweets are sufficiently original (well maybe not mine ;)) to get US copyright protection -- especially as presented as a series or ones the include images.<br /><br />For practical purposes, though, nearly every instance of reproduction would amount to news reporting or some other form of fair use. Finally, it would be odd if Twitter's licenses permit CBS and other big TV entities to splay your tweets whereever they (this is indeed what Twitter's TOS allow), while everyone else was denied the right to reproduce them. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-83619864759777253032014-01-07T22:20:15.456+00:002014-01-07T22:20:15.456+00:00Doubt the issue would be whether the tweets qualif...Doubt the issue would be whether the tweets qualify as sufficiently original. The question would one of "fair use."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com