21–30 of 78 posts
Sucks that companies do this but seems like it's inline with the law basically they're not going to get anything from Twitter with their army of lawyers but once you hosted it on your own website you became personally liable to hold a license for any images your site displayed.
Theyve been hitting YouTubers like Mohak Mangal, Nitish Rajput, Dhruv Rathee with copyright strikes for using just a few seconds of news clips which you would think is fair use.
Then they privately message creators demanding $60000 to remove the strikes or else the channel gets deleted after the third strike.
It s not about protecting content anymore it's copyright extortion. Fair use doesn't matter. System like Youtube makes it easy to abuse and nearly impossible to fight.
It s turning into a business model: pay otherwise your channels with millions of subs get deleted
[1] https://the420.in/dhruv-rathee-mohak-mangal-nitish-rajput-an...
#include In the US usage like this may be considered "Fair Use", however UK copyright law is less generous in its "Fair Dealing" and associated exceptions to copyright[1]. This is a problem when standards are pushed by US tech companies but don't consider the rest of the world. [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright
> In the US usage like this may be considered "Fair Use", however UK copyright law is less generous in its "Fair Dealing" and associated exceptions to copyright[1].
> This is a problem when standards are pushed by US tech companies but don't consider the rest of the world.
Similarly, the German analogue to the US-American copyright laws (Urheberrecht) has no concept of fair use (meaning that a lot of memes that are based copyrighted material are actually illegal under German law), but on the other hand, as far as I am aware (IANAL), there is more explicit permissions for citations (Zitierrecht) in Germany (instead of relying on "vague" concepts such as fair use), meaning that I conceive at least fictional situations (but IANAL) where it might happen that quotations of copyrighted material are legal under German law, but not considered to be "fair use" under US copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open graph essentially provides thumbnails and title data for a news article or publication as links, so the news article returned a header image that displays in the tweet "preview" In this case the Tweet would have been > TWEET > linked article with open graph image When exported the author then returned that same open graph info on their personal site, thus rendering a copyrighted image without a license.
Notably, Twitter also re-hosts opengraph thumbnail images via their image CDN (as would just about any other site or app that processes opengraph embeds)
Like imagine the thumbnail were fetched every time a link appeared in someone's Facebook/Twitter feed. That could be tens of millions of hits easy.
Displaying a thumbnail is considered fair use. You got fleeced.
The newspaper distributed the image. They said, "Here, use this image on the link to our story". They effectively sub-licensed it. If the 'owner' had a problem with that, they needed to take it up with the newspaper. As such, the OP was under the impression the image was free to use in that context. Only once they were informed that was not the case did they become libel. They could have then licensed the photo for t…
That can't be how it works. The OP had a responsibility to check the that images that the OP published were adequately licensed. The rights holder makes a claim against the publisher (the OP), and the publisher can make a claim against their supplier (the newspaper.) The judge would then divide the amount of responsibility between the two in some proportion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Notably, Twitter also re-hosts opengraph thumbnail images via their image CDN (as would just about any other site or app that processes opengraph embeds)
To elaborate with some context: large sites do this to avoid hammering a small site if posts containing the link go viral. Like imagine the thumbnail were fetched every time a link appeared in someone's Facebook/Twitter feed. That could be tens of millions of hits easy.
Displaying a thumbnail is considered fair use. You got fleeced.
The problem with paying ransoms is that even if it actually is the most cost effective solution in any one case, it just creates the incentive for more rapacious behavior. I think I'd be willing to pay $800 of my time to disincentivize that behavior.