Though social networking and media sharing sites such as Facebook, Flickr, or YouTube have created a new “public” sphere for sharing information, these new forums are privately owned, and are therefore governed not only by federal copyright laws, but also through the contracts users agree to when signing up for each service. This can be problematic for content creators because each site has a different license agreement, and each treats content ownership differently.
Below you’ll find several questions and answers to help you determine what you can and cannot do with content on several social networking sites. Sites include Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, and Blogger. The questions will also discuss what these sites can and cannot do with your content. Note that these answers are based on the license agreements that were posted on these sites on 11/29/2010. This is meant to act more as a general guide; you should consult the most current versions of the licenses if you have any further questions or concerns.
Q: What, if any, of my content does Facebook own or hold the copyright to?
A: When you sign up for Facebook, you agree to the site’s license agreement. The agreement’s terms state
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.
However, the terms go on to say
you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP [Intellectual Property] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Basically, you own all of your content, but you grant Facebook a license to “use any IP content” that you post. The license does not say how the content will be used, just that Facebook may use it.
Other social networking sites have similar terms, and you should read them thoroughly before creating any content using their services.
Q: When I delete content from Facebook, does Facebook still have access to it?
A: Facebook’s terms state that a user’s deletion of IP content will still be backed up on Facebook’s servers for a “reasonable period of time” but will be unavailable to other Facebook users. The terms also state that the license ends when the user deletes content or their account. However, the content will not be deleted if the content has been shared with others, and they have not also deleted it.
Q: Am I liable if I link to infringing content from any of these sites?
A: This matter is still unsettled, though some recent court cases have ruled that websites cannot link to infringing content. If you link to infringing content, you may guilty of "contributory infringement."
Q: Can a Tweet be copyrighted?
A: Yes and no. It really depends on the content of the Tweet. Does it pass the {originality test link}? Then it might. Is it a title or a slogan? Then no, it probably is not copyrightable. When it comes down to it, it is probably more reasonable to expect copyright protection for a body of Tweets rather than protection for each individual 140 character statement. For example, the account holder for @shitmydadsays but together a body of tweets that he then expanded into a book, and later a sitcom. Granted, this expansion of content is probably what truly makes the work “fixed,” but at this point I believe the account for @shitmydadsays has a strong case for copyrighting his body of Tweets.
Q: Can a Tweet infringe on copyright?
A: In short, yes, it is possible for a Tweet (or Tweets) to infringe on copyright. Twitter’s copyright policy allows copyright holders to file a complaint and, if Twitter determines that the complainant has a case against the alleged infringer, they can remove the content from the user’s account.
However, it is important to remember that the Copyright Act does not prevent copyright infringement, rather, it provides authors the ability to sue the alleged infringer in federal court to stop any further infringement and seek damages. In this case, however, it may be difficult to prove that an infringing Tweet actually caused monetary damages to the copyright holder.
Q: I uploaded a video to YouTube that I did not create. Am I protected if I just write “No copyright intended” in the details section of the video?
A: This has become a problem ever since copyright holders started cracking down on infringing YouTube videos. The crackdown scared YouTube users, but didn’t really send the right message. Users who were afraid of being called out for copyright infringement started adding the statement “No copyright intended” to their videos, which means absolutely nothing and gives no legal protection. If you upload a video that is already subject to someone else’s copyright, then you may be held liable.
Q: I found an image on Flickr that I want to use for a book cover I’m designing, can I use it?
A: Flickr hosts a ton of images on their site, but Flickr’s users are the ones who ultimately determine if and how their images are used. When uploading an image, users are asked to determine the kind of copyright protection they want for their photos. It is easy to determine the availability of a photo on Flickr by looking at it’s licensing information on the far right column.
It’s also important to note that even if a Flicker user marks an image as having the least strict license, you should double check it if you intend to use it for a commercial project because it could easily be an image that was imported by someone other than the actual copyright holder. In this case, the Flickr user actually has no authority over the image’s copyright status, and could be infringing on the original copyright owner. Basically, be wary of any easy-to-come-by licensing terms on Flickr.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_liability
