There has been a lot of chatter lately in social networking circles regarding 1) right of privacy; 2) copyright; and 3) libel.
Right of Privacy:
If I post something on FaceBook®, MySpace®, Twitter™ or any other social networking site, do I have a right of privacy, such that my comments cannot be re-published? A California appellate court ruled last week that there is no right of privacy in our rants, praises, or anything else we post on social networking sites.
The Plaintiff, Moreno, posted comments on her MySpace page that were then picked up and re-published in the local newspaper. The plaintiff sued for invasion of privacy and intentional inflection of emotional distress.
The Wall Street Journal reported: "'The facts contained in the article were not private,' 5th District Court of Appeal Justice Bert Levy wrote. 'Rather, once posted on myspace.com, this article was available to anyone with Internet access.' Added Levy: 'Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.' He noted that Moreno’s 'potential audience was vast.'”
Here is a twist on a fact pattern. A lawsuit was recently filed for breach of the fair debt collection statute because a debt collector posted information on the debtors' MySpace. It is one thing for you to publish the information yourself, a different issue if someone else publishes the information. Keep reading below regarding libel concerns.
Copyright Infringement:
Why didn't the Plaintiff in the Moreno case sue for copyright infringement? I don't know.
A copyright arises in an original work when it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. This blog post is protected by copyright. What about my 140 character Tweets on Twitter? Are they protected by copyright? I start by saying 140 characters could be protectable. If you search Twitter for "#haiku" you will find many original works of poetry protected by copyright. If you are simply conveying facts, then it is unlikely there will be sufficient originality to protect that post.
The Twitter copyright question was raised recently in blog posts here and here. Part of the issue arose from Tweets posted by NBA Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban being republished on ESPN. I even participated in back-and-forth Tweets on this topic. If any of these Tweets rise to the level of originality required for copyright protection, I could argue the defense of fair use for including the Tweets in my article.
ElliFordyce@willconley777 What do U think? @tamerabennett Cpyrt Techdir-Copyright & Libel Questions Hit The Twittervers: http://tinyurl.com/djhj2o
@ElliFordyce Elli, this is interesting. Short answer, tweets could have sufficient originality to be protected by copyright law. Fair Use?
ElliFordyce@tamerabennett Like so many of these kinds of things: how can it ever be fully enforced and the big "so what" factor.
willconley777 @ ElliFordyce @ tamerabennett Just good info. I agree with the article. File under "zeitgeist" and forget. http://tinyurl.com/djhj2o
It makes me wonder. If there is not sufficient originality in one Tweet, could copyright arise in a series of Tweets? Twitter is often used for live blogging. What if I make 20 Tweets from a conference, would they be protected as a compilation? I could sure make the argument.
Libel:
Courtney Love was sued in Los Angeles Superior Court in March based on the theory her Tweets were libelous to her former fashion designer. According to the complaint, Love used Twitter to disseminate "an obsessive and delusional crusade" of malicious libel. The complaint goes on to state "Love's approach is not subtle. In particular, Love publicly made the menacing and disturbing statement that [Plaintiff] will be 'hunted til your dead.'"(bold in original)
Feel free to follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/tamerabennett. I might say something worth repeating . . . if you can.