We have decided to have a look at the terms and conditions of websites, those pages we never read and always accept, to look up what they say concerning copyright.
On all social networks, we have often seen posts on urban legends saying that this or that network would (illegally) appropriate content or pictures that users post on their profiles.
Besides giving credit to who actually cited existing and made-up laws in their hoax posts, we decided to have a look at those pages no one ever reads and everyone carelessly accepts, to find what they say about copyright. We're talking about the terms and conditions, of course.
The result of our research is that social networks do not actually appropriate of what people publish or share on their platforms (who would have thought!).
We read the terms and conditions of about 10 social networks, including Facebook (obviously), Twitter, Tumblr, Flickr (included in the Yahoo! terms - author's note), Instagram, and we did it without any sort of legal consultation.
They all have mostly the same conditions on use of uploaded material:
So the moral is: whenever you publish something on your social network of choice, you make an (un)aware decision to grant other people the rights of use on your work. With just a click. Consequently, everytime you upload a photo or illustration on a social network, it is subject to the associated licen... wait, something's missing here!
Not all social networks allow their users to choose the licence they want to attribute to their work when uploading it, be it Creative Commons or generic copyright. Among the ones that do allow it (Creative Commons) are: Flickr, Deviant Art, Tumblr or 500px (for the photography world). Furthermore, the licence can't vary between social networks, so it's not possible to choose a Creative Commons licence on one website, and a generic copyright licence (all rights reserved) on another for the same work.
These social networks, however, have a rather important formal issue. User authentication is done via e-mail address, and within the terms and conditions is a number of rules that can be summed up like this:
We know all too well that this rule is hardly ever followed. Anyone can take another person's work from one social network and publish it on their own profile in another. Even when the original Author is mentioned, the licence may differ (because people who aren't Authors are usually not very interested in these matters). This creates a situation which makes it really complicated to find the Original Work.
When content is published online, all portals, social networks, or sharing websites (including ours, even though our main goal is not sharing but rather giving the licence a point of origin) have one or more clauses requiring explicit approval to share and reproduce the content without limitations.
It is necessary to keep this into consideration when publishing content over which you want to hold either some (with a Creative Commons licence) or all rights (Copyright).
One last thing to consider is that these terms and conditions of these social networks are subject to changes. These can happen for several reasons, commonly privacy (and sanctions). When a change is made, it is retroactive, meaning it also applies to content that was published prior to the change, and it replaces any term that was changed. So when a big player, such as Yahoo! (just to give a random name) decides to stop providing a certain service, there's not much we can do.
But what if this was the service used as a reference for the copyright of an Artwork?
Last update 2018-05-09
#Termini, #Condizioni, #Copyright, #Authorsrights, #Licence, #Creativecommons
by Luca Donnarumma, 2018-12-13
We're glad to introduce you to one of the first events that Rights Chain will organise in 2019 together with the association OchaCaffé
by Luca Donnarumma, 2018-12-11
Today we released an update to our platform which adds three buttons under each picture in our gallery.
by Redazione Rights Chain, 2018-12-10
Giorgia Lanza talks with us about her experience on solving an incident where her copyright was being infringed
by Luca Donnarumma, 2018-12-05
Tumblr isn't just deleting porn, it's removing the roots of digital art; maybe it's not that important however, after all there's so much lewd art online that we'll have forgotten all about these artists in a few days.
by Luca Donnarumma, 2018-12-03
Did you know that there is a very simple way to check the status of your artworks on the Internet
by Sebastian Zdrojewski, 2018-11-27
What happens to our rights over our content if it is removed from the web for any reason?
by Redazione Rights Chain, 2018-11-22
What does the Berne convention say about this?
by Luca Donnarumma, 2018-10-08
A number of linked elements can lead to a well-designed character, if the final objective is clear.
by Sebastian Zdrojewski, 2018-10-01
What's the worth of fandoms for entertainment giants? Nintendo allows us (once again) to realise how heavily the fanart "market" can influence the success of companies.
by Sebastian Zdrojewski, 2018-09-12
A short reflection after the Fumettopolis 2018 event organised by Indieversus in Novara.