Copyright issues in Twitter and Flickr: when is it OK to reproduce?

By coincidence, two articles on the issue of copyright in journalism have landed in my inbox today: one by Joel Postman in socialmediatoday concerning the legal and ethical issues of live tweeting from conferences and events (where Twitterers effectively publish a portion of the speaker’s presentation), and the other From Steve Myers at Poynter Online, about a recent case of an image from Flickr sourced by the Chicago Tribune.

As a moderation agency, eModeration adheres to very strict guidelines regarding copyright. Images (photos, logos), quotes from news stories, video, pirated software – thousands of these items have to be removed from the UGC sections of our clients’ sites every year. And whilst in many cases, it is obvious what is and what is not subject to copyright, there are still grey areas, exemplified by these two cases.

In the first article, Joel takes a good look at best practice for reproducing copyrighted work. How much is reasonable to reproduce when reporting? Do you need permission to reproduce just a small portion? Does it depend on the nature of the work itself? The Fair Use provision of U.S. copyright law says:

“The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. In other words”, says Joel, “fair use is in the eyes of the beholder. The government will not rule on what is or isn’t fair use, leaving it the judgment of the individual, and in some cases, the courts to make the ultimate determination.”

In the case of conferences and events, which may well charge hefty ticket prices, is it fair to tweet live and share the information you’re receiving? If the speakers release their presentations to the guests, is it ethical to pass those on? Who are you potentially defrauding – the speaker or the conference organisers?

Joel concludes: “A practical approach is to simply ask yourself, does the speaker want his or her work reproduced and distributed free of charge? Some may, some may not. The right, and the ability, to freely share information is such a cornerstone of Web 2.0, that I think most conference organizers and speakers in the Web 2.0/social media sphere are happy to have their talks live tweeted and live blogged. Either practice is more like reporting than reproduction, and would involve the “copying” of relatively small percentages of the content.”

Web 2.0 is about the sharing and aggregation of information: blogging, Twitter, open source software, Wikipedia, crowdsourcing. Most of us are basically trying to get our voices and our work out to as many people as possible. But consider the case of re-tweeting a tweet from a private Twitter account – one that requires owner approval before you can ‘follow’. Is that ethical? Whilst she owns that “open Twitter accounts are a matter of permanent public record and fair game for journalists” Julie Posetti thinks private Twitter accounts are not, in a piece on the PBS MediaShift blog, Rules of Engagement for Journalists on Twitter.

The issue of the picture of the child crying at Santa Claus’ graveside which was posted in the Chicago Tribune photo gallery ‘Awkward Tombstones’ is more clearly an error on the part of the news media. It was sourced from Flickr, an image available under the Creative Commons license. But the problem was that the poster of the picture didn’t actually have the rights to distribute it because he didn’t create it. Apparently it was a composite made using a stock image, and have been received via a chain email. Had the Chicago Tribune checked with the Flickr user source, he would probably have told them exactly that.

"News organizations need to realize they are taking on trust a license that may or may not be valid" if they use such images without contacting the user, said David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University. "Probably most of the photos uploaded to those sites are by the original photographer, but not all.

"We're learning what 'verify' means in this context," Ardia continued. "Does it mean taking at face value what someone says on their Flickr account, or does it mean more than that? For news organizations, I think verification probably means more than that, from a journalism ethics standpoint."

So. Use discretion, common sense and politeness when it comes to tweeting and blogging other people’s work. And images? Tread extremely carefully indeed, and always check sources.
Whilst writing this post, I have to admit I’ve been secretly delighted about the internal contradiction of republishing the authors quoted here. But please note that they have all been fully credited : ) And in case you’re wondering if I’m breaching copyright law by reproducing the Chicago Tribune picture, I’m reassured by Steve Myers, quoting David Ardia, who says that “using the photo to illustrate copyright issues would probably be allowed”. Phew.

Update 21st July 2009:

A rather timely row has erupted over the reproduction of high res images of London's National Portrait Gallery paintings on Wikipedia. Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8156268.stm for the story.