Copyrighting tweets
February 27th 2010 07:16
There appears to have been some idea recently that you can copyright Tweets on Twitter. Perhaps some people are confusing this with Creative Commons Licensing, which is somewhat different. If you send a tweet to Twitter saying: @tweetcc: I license my tweets under a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication at the tweetcc site, you can have claimed that you've allowed other people to use them. It's the same as the Creative Commons approach on flickr.com, which allows people to use the photographs in all sorts of non-copyright ways.
The only thing is that tweets aren't copyright in the first place, according to zeldman.com, who is very adamant that tweets, because of their restricted length, come under the heading of phrases, and phrases can't be copyrighted.
In US law, copyright doesn't extend to names, titles, or short phrases. There's some query as to whether it's different in other countries. I think in terms of 'names' it used to be. There was a time when you couldn't give a film the same name as another. That's long gone.
Zeldman argues that licensing tweets is a waste of time because you can't license them in the first place. He adds: If you write a clever Tweet and wish to assert ownership (and if money is no object), you may apply for a trademark. Good luck with that. You can take out an
extended service plan, you still won't be any better off. Zeldman says tweets are in public domain from the moment they're published.
Of course, there are dozens of comments, and a few naysayers, such as this: As a possible refutation, I refer you to the case of Mr Ashleigh Brilliant of California, who managed to get a 17-word “epigram” protected by copyright. Does that have any bearing on your case? It may be too old, but it’s not as old as the “no short phrases” clause if Wikipedia is to be believed.
Ashleigh Brilliant seems to have made a career out of writing epigrams that he claims copyright over, and he's won cases more than once. Whether he's correct, or merely being oppurtunist is another matter.
There have been at least two cases I can think of where a business has claimed some sort of copyright over its name - Christies of London was one who said that an antique business here on the other side of the world, a quiet little business that wasn't doing any one any harm, but which was also called Christies, had to change its name forthwith. That sort of nonsense shouldn't be put up with by the courts, but sometimes you have to wonder where justice stands in those sorts of situations. (I can't just recall the other case, but it also affected a New Zealand business.)
And that's in spite of this, in the copyright law of the UK: Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.
I'm not sure that Zeldman's insistent blog post is the end of the story. No doubt someone will find a loophole in it - if there's room.
The only thing is that tweets aren't copyright in the first place, according to zeldman.com, who is very adamant that tweets, because of their restricted length, come under the heading of phrases, and phrases can't be copyrighted.
In US law, copyright doesn't extend to names, titles, or short phrases. There's some query as to whether it's different in other countries. I think in terms of 'names' it used to be. There was a time when you couldn't give a film the same name as another. That's long gone.
Zeldman argues that licensing tweets is a waste of time because you can't license them in the first place. He adds: If you write a clever Tweet and wish to assert ownership (and if money is no object), you may apply for a trademark. Good luck with that. You can take out an
extended service plan, you still won't be any better off. Zeldman says tweets are in public domain from the moment they're published.
Of course, there are dozens of comments, and a few naysayers, such as this: As a possible refutation, I refer you to the case of Mr Ashleigh Brilliant of California, who managed to get a 17-word “epigram” protected by copyright. Does that have any bearing on your case? It may be too old, but it’s not as old as the “no short phrases” clause if Wikipedia is to be believed.
Ashleigh Brilliant seems to have made a career out of writing epigrams that he claims copyright over, and he's won cases more than once. Whether he's correct, or merely being oppurtunist is another matter.
There have been at least two cases I can think of where a business has claimed some sort of copyright over its name - Christies of London was one who said that an antique business here on the other side of the world, a quiet little business that wasn't doing any one any harm, but which was also called Christies, had to change its name forthwith. That sort of nonsense shouldn't be put up with by the courts, but sometimes you have to wonder where justice stands in those sorts of situations. (I can't just recall the other case, but it also affected a New Zealand business.)
And that's in spite of this, in the copyright law of the UK: Names, titles, short phrases and colours are not generally considered unique or substantial enough to be covered, but a creation, such as a logo, that combines these elements may be.
I'm not sure that Zeldman's insistent blog post is the end of the story. No doubt someone will find a loophole in it - if there's room.
| 101 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report