Local internet star wages cat fight over online copyrights; Monroe Journal, July 28, 2023

RAY VAN DUSEN, Monroe Journal; Local internet star wages cat fight over online copyrights

"After reporting the fake pages as infringing on her copyrights, she was previously able to have two of them taken down but said they have since reappeared online.

“That’s when the imposters started coming after me and started sending threatening emails to back off. When I didn’t back off, the imposters started reporting my videos as copyright infringement and said I was stealing my own YouTube videos from them,” she said."

Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram; Post and Courier, August 16, 2020

David Wren, Post and Courier; Volvo says copyright claim to photo of SC-made S60 doesn’t extend to Instagram

"The Facebook-owned photo- and video-tagging app has created a legal gray area by requiring its users to grant the social media site a copyright license for any images they upload. Instagram can then sublicense those rights to others. In a recent similar case, however, Instagram said anyone who reposts images also might need a license from the original photographer."

Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns; Vox, June 5, 2020

Theodore Schleifer, Vox; Facebook and Twitter took down a Trump campaign video over copyright concerns

"This is not the first time Twitter has removed content posted by Trump due to copyright reasons. But notably, this takedown comes shortly after a series of much more controversial decisions by Twitter to limit the reach of Trump’s posts because they either did not pass a fact-check or, in Twitter’s opinion, glorified violence.

Facebook has made different decisions, citing its commitment to free speech, and has been willing to leave Trump’s posts up.

Complaints about copyright violations are not uncommon in the world of social media."

How Ronda Rousey Clips Reveal Facebook’s Copyright Challenge; Fortune, 1/3/17

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; 

How Ronda Rousey Clips Reveal Facebook’s Copyright Challenge:

"The copyright conundrum arose in early 2015 after Facebook (FB, +1.52%) faced a barrage of criticism over the phenomenon of "free-booting" in which people make copies of clips they see on YouTube (GOOG, +1.86%) and elsewhere, and then upload them as their own to Facebook, where the videos can be seen thousands or millions of times.

In response to the criticism—including an essay called "Theft, Lies, and Facebook Video"—the company in 2015 said it took the intellectual property issues seriously, and that it was expanding tools to help copyright owners protect their content.

Based on the latest proliferation of Rousey clips, though, it's hard to see how Facebook has made much progress. Unlike similar clips that appear on YouTube, the Facebook fight videos don't come with advertising, which means the copyright owner is not making any money from them. (YouTube has long had a system called Content ID that flags infringing clips and either remove them or place ads one them)."

Facebook Developing Copyright ID System to Stem Music Rights Infringement; Billboard, 12/28/16

Dan Rys, Billboard; Facebook Developing Copyright ID System to Stem Music Rights Infringement:

"As Facebook continues to grapple with its role in proliferating "fake news" amidst the heated U.S. election this year, it has another showdown looming on the horizon -- this one with the music industry. In the wake of NMPA president/CEO David Israelite's op-ed in Billboard in October, in which he called out the social media giant for hosting videos with copyrighted music without securing licensing deals or paying creators, Facebook is working to develop a copyright identification system -- similar to YouTube's Content ID -- that would find and remove videos containing copyrighted music, a source tells Billboard. The story was first reported by the Financial Times."

Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter prevail in database patent appeal; Reuters, 9/12/16

Reuters; Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter prevail in database patent appeal:

"A federal appeals court on Friday knocked out all of the parts of two database search patents that were challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by social media sites Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter."

Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos; Huffington Post, 11/18/15

Huffington Post; Why Facebook Is Monitoring Your Private Videos:

"Parker Higgins, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains how Facebook's hunt for copyrighted material is playing out in users' private posts."

No, You Don’t Need to Post a Facebook Copyright Status; New York Times, 9/28/15

Daniel Victor, New York Times; No, You Don’t Need to Post a Facebook Copyright Status:

"In short: Your legal rights are determined not by any status you post, but by the social network’s Terms of Service, which all users agreed to upon creating an account. Information about how Facebook uses your information is available there and in the network’s data policy.

If you are concerned about privacy, you can adjust your settings by tapping on “More” and “Privacy Shortcuts” in the mobile apps, or, on a desktop, clicking on the lock near the far right of the blue bar at the top of the screen."

Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later; Forbes, 7/10/15

Jeff John Roberts, Forbes; Facebook's video plan? Grow like hell, deal with copyright later:

"The challenge of chasing down copyright infringers has led content owners, in general, to claim the safe harbor rules are too lax, and that platforms like YouTube should do more to take down unauthorized videos. Studios have filed a spate of lawsuits to argue that more websites should be liable under a “red flag” provision in the copyright law, which can strip a site’s legal immunity in the event they obviously should have known about the infringement, or if they are directly making money from it.

But so far those lawsuits, including a long-running one against YouTube, have not really changed websites’ responsibilities when it comes to copyright, according to Lothar Determann, a copyright lawyer with Baker & McKenzie in San Francisco. He added more broadly that the law’s larger goal of protecting tech platforms still applies, and courts will not order websites to conduct copyright investigations.

The freebooter issue for Facebook, then, appears to be less of a legal problem than a moral one. Video owners may come to blame Facebook – safe harbors notwithstanding – for using their content to get rich while flouting their copyright concerns. Such claims, whether fair or not, have dogged Google and YouTube for years, and led to legal and political headaches."

Facebook Withdraws Changes in Data Use, The New York Times, 2/18/09

The New York Times: Facebook Withdraws Changes in Data Use:

After a wave of protests from its users, the Facebook social networking site said Wednesday that it would withdraw changes to its so-called terms of service concerning the data supplied by the tens of millions of people who use it.

The about-face was made known to many users in a message posted on the Facebook home page saying : “Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

The posting invited users to click on a link to get more details."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19facebook.html?em

Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information, The New York Times, 2/17/09

Via The New York Times: Facebook’s Users Ask Who Owns Information:

"Reacting to an online swell of suspicion about changes to Facebook’s terms of service, the company’s chief executive moved to reassure users on Monday that the users, not the Web site, “own and control their information."

The online exchanges reflected the uneasy and evolving balance between sharing information and retaining control over that information on the Internet. The subject arose when a consumer advocate’s blog shined an unflattering light onto the pages of legal language that many users accept without reading when they use a Web site.

The pages, called terms of service, generally outline appropriate conduct and grant a license to companies to store users’ data. Unknown to many users, the terms frequently give broad power to Web site operators.

This month, when Facebook updated its terms, it deleted a provision that said users could remove their content at any time, at which time the license would expire. Further, it added new language that said Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated...

Greg Lastowka, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Law who is writing a book on Internet law, said Facebook’s language was not unusual. “Most Web sites today offer terms of service that are designed to protect and further the interests of the company writing the terms, and most people simply agree to terms without reading them.”

For Facebook, the ability to store users’ data and use their names and images for commercial purposes is important as it seeks to make more money from the virtual interactions of friends.

But balancing the desire for sharing with the need for control remains a challenge for Facebook as it turns five years old this month. “We’re at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out,” Mr. Zuckerberg wrote."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=facebook&st=cse