Read on Twitter
Just submitted the DMCA counter-notice, so let's talk briefly about how @TEGNA is abusing the DMCA on behalf of their Seattle news station @KING5Seattle, and how I look forward to them suing me in MDNC so I can curbstomp them
[THREAD]
![Just submitted the DMCA counter-notice, so let's talk briefly about how @TEGNA is abusing the DMCA on behalf of their Seattle news station @KING5Seattle, and how I look forward to them suing me in MDNC so I can curbstomp them[THREAD]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcIjO6VXkAErtxu.jpg "Just submitted the DMCA counter-notice, so let's talk briefly about how @TEGNA is abusing the DMCA on behalf of their Seattle news station @KING5Seattle, and how I look forward to them suing me in MDNC so I can curbstomp them[THREAD]")
[THREAD]
As part of the Police Brutality Mega-Thread, you've probably noticed we have a lot of entries from Seattle
One of them was at this entry numbered
You can't see it right now because of that DMCA takedown request
One of them was at this entry numbered
You can't see it right now because of that DMCA takedown request
But if you're paying close attention, you might notice there's a link embedded in that tweet
That's part of Twitter's "Tweet This Video" function – basically a quote-tweet for video https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1279624331631431680
That's part of Twitter's "Tweet This Video" function – basically a quote-tweet for video https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1279624331631431680
Turns out you can type in that URL yourself and see where it takes you!
It pulls up this tweet from @MichaelReports
https://twitter.com/MichaelReports/status/1278307571799977985 https://twitter.com/michaelreports/status/1278307571799977985
It pulls up this tweet from @MichaelReports
https://twitter.com/MichaelReports/status/1278307571799977985 https://twitter.com/michaelreports/status/1278307571799977985
Somehow – I honestly don't know how, because it's a *really* dumb thought – but somehow someone named Ian Hill, identified as @TEGNA's Director of Digital Audience Development, somehow thinks using Twitter's own built-in functions is copyright infringement
You'll notice the "link to original work" in the DMCA notice is...
::drumroll::
...the exact same URL as that @MichaelReports tweet https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1279626284054822913
::drumroll::
...the exact same URL as that @MichaelReports tweet https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1279626284054822913
And Ian Hall of @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle didn't just file a false DMCA strike against me
They also filed one against @2h0o5, @izabela73584, @KristopherR, and @chipfranklin as part of the same notice
They also filed one against @2h0o5, @izabela73584, @KristopherR, and @chipfranklin as part of the same notice
And what makes it a "false" DMCA strike?
The sort of thing that pretty much guarantees @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle will not only lose but also waste a bunch of money on an attorney in the process?
Twitter's own Terms of Service
The sort of thing that pretty much guarantees @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle will not only lose but also waste a bunch of money on an attorney in the process?
Twitter's own Terms of Service
You see, Twitter is a social media company
And like most social media companies, they've given some thought to making sure they don't get sued for your content
The Twitter TOS is even easy to understand! Especially Section 3 https://twitter.com/en/tos
And like most social media companies, they've given some thought to making sure they don't get sued for your content
The Twitter TOS is even easy to understand! Especially Section 3 https://twitter.com/en/tos
Without delving too deep into the law, by tweeting something – like @MichaelReports did with his video – you grant a license to Twitter to reuse and sublicense that content as they see fit within the Twitter ecosystem
(Someone should tell Ian Hill at @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle)
(Someone should tell Ian Hill at @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle)
Notice the language in the Twitter TOS:
"You agree that this license includes the right ... to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other ... individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content"
"You agree that this license includes the right ... to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other ... individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, Retweet, promotion or publication of such Content"
The Twitter Terms of Service end the case
@MichaelReports, his employer @KING5Seattle, they're owner @TEGNA (and their minion @ianhillmedia) gave Twitter – and through Twitter, me – a license to retweet their video the instant it was uploaded to Twitter
But let's pretend not...
@MichaelReports, his employer @KING5Seattle, they're owner @TEGNA (and their minion @ianhillmedia) gave Twitter – and through Twitter, me – a license to retweet their video the instant it was uploaded to Twitter
But let's pretend not...
If we pretended Twitter had no Terms of Service at all – which of course they do, even if @ianhillmedia of @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle never bothered to read them – you'd then get into federal copyright law
Let's start with the 9th Circuit, where both Twitter and King5 are based
Let's start with the 9th Circuit, where both Twitter and King5 are based
The 9th Circuit heard a landmark copyright infringement case way back in 2007
Perfect 10 v Google et al., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)
@EFF has a deep dive here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/p10-v-google-public-interest-prevails-digital-copyright-showdown
Perfect 10 v Google et al., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)
@EFF has a deep dive here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/05/p10-v-google-public-interest-prevails-digital-copyright-showdown
The Perfect10 suit was about Google's use of image caching for its search results
Beyond the general public policy aspects of the ruling, the 9th Circuit got into the weeds on the technology being used
Beyond the general public policy aspects of the ruling, the 9th Circuit got into the weeds on the technology being used
In particular, the 9th Circuit noted that when you include a hyperlink, it's the 3rd party server that has the potentially infringing material and not you
Meaning a hypothetical copyright infringement claim would go to the server operator
https://casetext.com/case/perfect-10-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-1
Meaning a hypothetical copyright infringement claim would go to the server operator
https://casetext.com/case/perfect-10-inc-v-amazoncom-inc-1
Except, of course, @ianhillmedia of @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle can't send a copyright infringement claim to the server operator in this case
Because the server operator is Twitter
Who they gave a license to make available as Twitter saw fit in exchange for Twitter providing Twitter
Because the server operator is Twitter
Who they gave a license to make available as Twitter saw fit in exchange for Twitter providing Twitter
So even if Twitter's TOS didn't exist, @ianhillmedia / @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle would still lose a DMCA claim under Perfect 10's precedent
"But T.!" I hear you say, "you and TEGNA are both in the 4th Circuit and Perfect 10 doesn't control there!"
"But T.!" I hear you say, "you and TEGNA are both in the 4th Circuit and Perfect 10 doesn't control there!"
At which point we would mosey on over to the 4th Circuit, and have the lawyers for @ianhillmedia / @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle give a read to Brammer v. Violent Hues Prods., 922 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2019)
https://casetext.com/case/brammer-v-mico
https://casetext.com/case/brammer-v-mico
Brammer involved the wholesale reproduction of a photograph for a tourism listing
The 4th Circuit ruled that wasn't a fair use under copyright law, and it distinguished that versus other things that are fair use in the 4th Circ
Take a look, then compare to the infringing tweet
The 4th Circuit ruled that wasn't a fair use under copyright law, and it distinguished that versus other things that are fair use in the 4th Circ
Take a look, then compare to the infringing tweet
So even in the absence of the license that @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle freely gave to Twitter, @ianhillmedia's lawyer colleagues would still lose a copyright infringement lawsuit over my tweet regardless of whether the 9th Circuit's or 4th Circuit's case law controlled
Anyhow, we'll see what @ianhillmedia decides as part of the DMCA counter-notice
If he's smart, he'll have @TEGNA's lawyers call me before I get the urge to file another DMCA §512(f) claim like we did against the Traitor Tots
If he's smart, he'll have @TEGNA's lawyers call me before I get the urge to file another DMCA §512(f) claim like we did against the Traitor Tots
They were rolled together on appeal, 6 cases in all
Amazon got the official naming b/c it was first alphabetically, but Google was the defendant in 5 of the 6 trial level cases https://twitter.com/abacheme/status/1279639528391806977
Amazon got the official naming b/c it was first alphabetically, but Google was the defendant in 5 of the 6 trial level cases https://twitter.com/abacheme/status/1279639528391806977
On the unvarnished copyright law / fair use question, I agree
In terms of end result, this one is the easier slam dunk b/c of the license https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1279638663073333248
In terms of end result, this one is the easier slam dunk b/c of the license https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1279638663073333248
It's automatic. Someone files a DMCA claim, the content is removing pending notice to the poster
Poster then deletes or files a counter-notice. If counter-notice, content owner has 14 days to sue or content is restored https://twitter.com/susieusmaximus/status/1279627191702056960
Poster then deletes or files a counter-notice. If counter-notice, content owner has 14 days to sue or content is restored https://twitter.com/susieusmaximus/status/1279627191702056960
It's even simpler than what shows up in your tweet (a pic.twitter/.com URL)
Take the link to any tweet with a video, and just slap a "/video/1" on the end – that's what happens if you're on iOS and use the "Tweet this Video" link https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1279629238187053057
Take the link to any tweet with a video, and just slap a "/video/1" on the end – that's what happens if you're on iOS and use the "Tweet this Video" link https://twitter.com/questauthority/status/1279629238187053057
It's worse than that: @ianhillmedia / @TEGNA / @KING5Seattle are saying they'll abuse federal law to have your Twitter account shut down if you do https://twitter.com/trogdor8768/status/1279643137531621378
Agreed, but outside Twitter there's an ever-so-slight possibility for standard contract defenses to work (unconscionability, etc)
There's no coherent argument for Twitter not being able to share on Twitter what people give it to share on Twitter https://twitter.com/epinnoia/status/1279637880181325825
There's no coherent argument for Twitter not being able to share on Twitter what people give it to share on Twitter https://twitter.com/epinnoia/status/1279637880181325825
My honest-to-God guess is they're just too dumb to realize that views on embedded tweet are credited to the original media in the embedded tweet. So they think I'm "stealing" their audience or some such https://twitter.com/helluvvangel/status/1279650357673463808
QTNA: is @ianhillmedia dumb enough to DMCA himself? 
https://twitter.com/proguacvice/status/1279651274095341568
https://twitter.com/proguacvice/status/1279651274095341568
Also a distinct possibility that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest
If that's the case, though, they need to stop using social media https://twitter.com/ktetch/status/1279652496626143233
If that's the case, though, they need to stop using social media
https://twitter.com/ktetch/status/1279652496626143233
