Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
japantimes.co.jp
Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
1–10 of 98 posts
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#2Url changed from https://thenextweb.com/insights/2020/07/22/twitter-copyright..., which points to https://torrentfreak.com/warning-for-twitter-users-in-japan-..., which points to this. Submitters: the HN guidelines call for original sources (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), so it's best to follow the trail like this when submitting.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#3The original photo showed up if viewers of the retweets clicked on the trimmed photo, but viewers was not able to see the photographer’s name unless such action was taken, the ruling said.
Interesting. This is how Twitter works. On the other hand, it’s also true that it’s technically copyright infringement, since the reproduction is trimmed. I wonder if Twitter has a duty to enforce copyright in both trimmed and untrimmed cases.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#4I don't use Twitter so I could be wrong about what happened, but this seems crazy. Three people retweeted a photo that included the photographer's name. However, Twitter didn't show the name in the thumbnail because it cropped the image (but was still visible when enlarged).
Somehow, this led to the government mandating Twitter to release the identities of the retweeters? Does anyone know how a random image from 10 years ago that picked up nearly zero traction on Twitter made it to the top court in Japan?
Another thought: what if a website displays the image lower down on the page so someone has to scroll to see the bottom? Is that also an infringement?
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#5My understanding is:
Photographer published a photo on their own website.
Tweeter posted it on Twitter. Twitter trimmed it, removing the credit line.
Retweeter retweeted it. Photo was still trimmed.
Photographer sued Retweeter for distributing their work without proper credit.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#6Is there some special right for a photographer in Japan to have their name shown on an image, that determines whether a reproduction of it is an infringement? As far as I know, you acknowledge the service will transform your work as part of the ToS for uploading an image to it.
Unless, of course, the photographer wasn't the one who uploaded the picture to Twitter in the first place, but then why is the case hinged on whether the photog's name was cut off in the re-tweet, versus just the picture being copied by someone without permission?
And, going after the re-tweeters seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the service. They aren't really copying anything, that's all a mechanism of the platform.
If I were Twitter I'd be counting my lucky stars that my largest userbase is in the US where, as broken as our copyright system is, I can't imagine this wacky judicial reasoning prevailing.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#7>In 2018, however, Intellectual Property High Court ruled that an act of retweeting does not infringe copyright but breaches creators’ right to show their names and their works as they are. The court ordered the disclosure of the email addresses of the three retweeters.
So how would this work with sites that auto convert links to embeds? eg. you post a link to a photograph, but the site converts your link to an embedded photograph, are you now liable? What if this was done retroactively (eg. links to embed was added later as a feature)?
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#8Is there some special right for a photographer in Japan to have their name shown on an image, that determines whether a reproduction of it is an infringement? As far as I know, you acknowledge the service will transform your work as part of the ToS for uploading an image to it. Unless, of course, the photographer wasn't the one who uploaded the picture to Twitter in the first place, but then why is the case hinged on…
Two things in this case. Attribution (which was missing and that’s on Twitter), the other, copyright infringement (the Twitter accounts who used the photo image without permission).
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#9I don't use Twitter so I could be wrong about what happened, but this seems crazy. Three people retweeted a photo that included the photographer's name. However, Twitter didn't show the name in the thumbnail because it cropped the image (but was still visible when enlarged). Somehow, this led to the government mandating Twitter to release the identities of the retweeters? Does anyone know how a random image from 10 y…
Well, to be fair, the judge in the dissenting position (1/5) freed the 3 retweeters from blame because they did not cut off the photographer's name, but rather Twitter did in order to fit the aspect ratio displayed within the application.
I'm still confused though after reading the article.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#10Is there some special right for a photographer in Japan to have their name shown on an image, that determines whether a reproduction of it is an infringement? As far as I know, you acknowledge the service will transform your work as part of the ToS for uploading an image to it. Unless, of course, the photographer wasn't the one who uploaded the picture to Twitter in the first place, but then why is the case hinged on…
Two things in this case. Attribution (which was missing and that’s on Twitter), the other, copyright infringement (the Twitter accounts who used the photo image without permission).
Well, a retweet is intrinsically attributed, that's the whole point. Does it need to be in any specific format (e.g. label on the image) that the photographer desires? That doesn't seem feasible.
In the case that the original tweeter wasn't the photographer, I see that infringement as the (only) problem here. And the only information Twitter should be compelled to provide is of the original poster.