Japan desperately needs a competent organization that can stand up for the digital rights of its people now. They lack organizations like the EFF that are willing to do this.
Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
41–50 of 98 posts
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#42My 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. An obvious question would be if Photographer asked them to delete the tweet(s) first, and why they chose to sue Retweeter not Tweeter. I'm gue…
[deleted]
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#43Japan desperately needs a competent organization that can stand up for the digital rights of its people now. They lack organizations like the EFF that are willing to do this.
In this article the rights of a photographer was successfully defended, so the system is a least working in some cases. The bigger problems here are web design and forms that impose specific characters in some fields.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#442020: Where pressing a single button on a website or app can get you into trouble with the law.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#45Japan desperately needs a competent organization that can stand up for the digital rights of its people now. They lack organizations like the EFF that are willing to do this.
In this article the rights of a photographer was successfully defended, so the system is a least working in some cases. The bigger problems here are web design and forms that impose specific characters in some fields.
[deleted]
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#46I 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…
This reminds me of a question I asked before on Wikipedia [1]. Some of their pictures on Commons, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belgium_-_Location_Map_(2... , are from UNOCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). UNOCHA specifically asks their work to be 'Credit as follows: "Credit: OCHA"', but obviously Wikipedia don't do it on their article page if you just embed the pic…
The linked CC licence states (and it appears to be confirmed that this is the licence that applies[1]):
> If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author [...]; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and (iv) , consistent with Section 3(b), in the case of an Adaptation, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). The credit required by this Section 4 (b) may be implemented in any reasonable manner
As the licence states that attribution must be reasonable to the medium and in any reasonable manner, having the attribution details on an information page would appear to be acceptable - the CC wiki[2] and FAQ[3] seem to support this:
> There is no one right way; just make sure your attribution is reasonable and suited to the medium you're working with. That being said, you still have to include attribution requirements somehow, even if it's just a link to an About page that has that info.[2]
> Additionally, you may satisfy the attribution requirement by providing a link to a place where the attribution information may be found.[3]
This is also made explicit in version 4.0 of the licence[4]:
> For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.
Regarding removing the watermark, it does not appear to be a copyright notice, so the right to do so would seem to be implied by the right to make adaptions.
[1] "Wikimedia Foundation has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2014031410007248."
[2] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/best_practices_for_att...
[3] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#How_do_I_properly_attribute...
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's one of the main reasons I never use Twitter, as silly as that is. It is annoying to see a picture that is cropped that sometimes obscures (or even changes if an important part is missing) the actual point being made because it isn't in the preview. It just seems like a really poor design. Is it really that hard to click the picture before viewing it? It seems like a necessary evil to me. If you don't do the thu…
It's just that the context is frequently misleading (combined with the character limit to describe the images). If this part is designed so poorly, it makes me less interested in the rest of the product which may have other similar issues. I recognize it is a fairly silly (and trivial) opinion. Is there a reason the whole image couldn't be scaled down? Or at least be done proportionally. That's how thumbnails work in…
To have the image fill the entire available width, you really do need to crop from the top and bottom or else someone could put an image with a 1:1000 aspect ratio and scrolling through the tweet would take forever.
Not filling the available width would leave negative space -- similar to "black bars" -- on the sides of the image. You don't have to agree, but many people dislike such negative space and cropping is the solution.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#48Japan desperately needs a competent organization that can stand up for the digital rights of its people now. They lack organizations like the EFF that are willing to do this.
In this article the rights of a photographer was successfully defended, so the system is a least working in some cases. The bigger problems here are web design and forms that impose specific characters in some fields.
I think the person you're responding to might possibly have meant the rights of other internet users.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's one of the main reasons I never use Twitter, as silly as that is. It is annoying to see a picture that is cropped that sometimes obscures (or even changes if an important part is missing) the actual point being made because it isn't in the preview. It just seems like a really poor design. Is it really that hard to click the picture before viewing it? It seems like a necessary evil to me. If you don't do the thu…
It's just that the context is frequently misleading (combined with the character limit to describe the images). If this part is designed so poorly, it makes me less interested in the rest of the product which may have other similar issues. I recognize it is a fairly silly (and trivial) opinion. Is there a reason the whole image couldn't be scaled down? Or at least be done proportionally. That's how thumbnails work in…
> Is there a reason the whole image couldn't be scaled down? Or at least be done proportionally. That's how thumbnails work in basically everything else.
At that point the attribution may no longer be visible, in all cases, because of the reduction in the number of pixels. Which would hit the same problem again.
Re: Japan top court tells Twitter to disclose retweeters' info
#50Japan desperately needs a competent organization that can stand up for the digital rights of its people now. They lack organizations like the EFF that are willing to do this.
In this article the rights of a photographer was successfully defended, so the system is a least working in some cases. The bigger problems here are web design and forms that impose specific characters in some fields.
> In this article the rights of a photographer was successfully defended
The rights of the photographer was respected from the very beginning. The attribution was still there for anyone to see. The “problem” was that it wasn’t included in the thumbnail, because it unsurprisingly didn’t fit in.
> so the system is a least working in some cases
No, this case represents a spectacular failure to protect people’s right to privacy and fair use. Why this is the case is already explained throughout this thread, so I don’t think we need to repeat this here.