It’s been a long time since Twitter plans to introduce Super Follows, a user monetization mechanism, by the end of 2021.
Super Follows means that only the followers who pay for it can read certain content. Is you close to youtube’s “membership” function?
Currently, there is no way to make money directly on Twitter, and there is only a way to make money directly by using other content while promoting on Twitter.
For some users, in addition to “Super Follows”, “Ticket-based Space” that provides “space” for live audio distribution for a fee has also begun to be introduced!
Now, when these monetization methods are in place, it’s the copyright community that’s going to get excited.
With a direct revenue-making measure in place, some users will work hard to make a living from it, so we expect an increase in the number of users trying to increase impressions even if they use other people’s content without permission.
As a result, it is possible that the crackdown will become stricter due to cheating being discussed in the news etc.
If you’re looking to monetize your Twitter account with “Super Follows” or something like that in the future, it’s no loss to know what to look out for around copyright.
So this time, I will introduce five things that you should pay attention to copyright when using Twitter.
- 1. Unauthorized reproduction, Paktui is NG
- 2. Unauthorized use of other people’s pictures and photos in profiles and header images is NG
- 3. Notes when retweeting or quoting
- 4. Pay attention to the moral rights of the author
- 5. Be especially careful when uploading music!
1. Unauthorized reproduction, Paktui is NG
Unauthorized reproduction → NG
Uploading screenshots of images, photos, and cartoon frames picked up on the Internet is a unauthorized reprint.
It will be a violation of the “right to transmit public” as used in copyright law.
Note that even if the Tweet is not seen by anyone, it will be copyright infringement if you make it “accessible to an unspecified or large number of people”.
In addition, when uploading with processing in a state where you know what the original image or photo is, it is necessary to be more careful because it not only violates the “public transmission right” but also “unauthorized modification”.
Paktui → NG
Copying or intentionally arranging someone else’s Tweets as they are is is called “paktui” as if you were writing them.
If the tweet was not a copyrighted work, leave any other issues behind and, of course, it will not be copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement is when the text of a Tweet itself is considered a copyrighted work.
There is no problem with ordinary conversation sentences such as “good morning” or “it’s hot today”, facts such as “There was such an incident” or just information, but among the 140 characters that are the upper limit of one tweet, you may be able to express something creative (= copyrighted work) such as short poems and haiku.
Arranging and tweeting such tweets as they are or in a state where the original material is unders been made is a violation of reproduction rights, adaptation rights, etc.
However, in the case of Twitter, because of the short number of characters that can be posted, I think that you may unintentionally tweet similar to other people’s creative Tweets.
If you don’t know the original content and happen to be similar, leave it to me if you can prove it or not, and it’s not copyright infringement, so it’s fine to tweet with your heart.
* On the other hand, knowing the content of the original tweet, it is said that it is “relying” to make it similar with intent, and in this case, it is copyright infringement.
“Quote” → OK. (However, is it difficult on Twitter to meet the conditions?) ）
If only a part of the work is posted as a reference, and the following conditions are met, it will be a “citation” and will not constitute copyright infringement.
(1) It is a published work
(2) Conform to fair practices
(3) To be carried out to the extent justifiable for the purpose
(1) It is a published work
Note that works that meet the conditions of (2) and (3) but have not been published (for example, quoting a passage from a book that has not yet been published) are not considered“citations”.
(2) Conform to fair practices
The expression of this condition is quite ambiguous, but “specifying the source (to specify “quoting from”) and “do not modify the content” are included in this condition, and it is a good point to suppress it.
(3) To be carried out to the extent justifiable for the purpose
This condition is also part of several elements.
When others see it, you need to be able to distinguish where is a quote and where is not. (Clarity)
For example, you can enclose only the quoted part with “”, or italic only the citation part.
It must also meet the requirement to quote.
For example, if you want to give your impressions about a sentence that came out in a novel, there is a need to quote that sentence, but it is subtle that it is necessary to quote even illustrations, so if you put an illustration, it may not be recognized as a quotation.
In addition, in order to be recognized as a citation, the body must be the main and the source is sub, and so on. (Main relationship)
For example, if the source work accounts for more than the text, it will not be considered a citation because the source appears to be the main source and the body is sub.
However, in the case of Twitter, I think that it is difficult to strictly meet the conditions of the main relationship due to the character limit.
Therefore, I think that there is a great possibility that the “quoted Tweet” introduced below does not actually meet the conditions of this quote, but it is OK for another reason, so if you want to use other people’s Tweets as a reference, use the “Quote Tweet” function.
“Retweet” / “Quote Tweet” → OK
If you use the familiar “retweets” and “quoted tweets”, basically no problem.
* Please be aware of the points introduced in “3.Citation tweets, caution when retweeting” and “4.Beware of moral rights of author” 2019.
In essence, is it the same as unauthorized reproduction or paktui? You may feel that way.
In fact, twitter and you have the following terms and conditions, and you are likely to be allowed to use other users’ use of Twitter features for what you post in tweets:
You may use, copy, reproduce, process, modify, modify, publish, transmit, display and deliver such Content in any medium or distribution method, whether known or future developed, by transmitting, posting or displaying content on or through the Services. You grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive license (along with the right to sub license) free of charge (for clarification, these rights shall include, for example, curation, deformation, and translation). This license allows you to allow us and other users to view your Tweets worldwide.Twitter Terms of Service Quotes from
I think that all users agree with these terms at the start of the service, but I think that few people are reading them properly, so there is a discussion about the validity of this convention, but it seems likely that it will be recognized effective for now.
If you change your point of view, you should be careful if you are using Tweets.
When you post a Tweet on Twitter, it’s hard to stop other users from retweeting or quoting tweets, even if the content contains copyrighted material, so you should accept it as a risk to use Twitter.
Tweets from SNS share → OK
Social media share buttons may be placed on news sites and blogs.
This is intended to be shared by the copyright holder, so it seems that the copyright holder has implicitly licensed it.
However, it is difficult to say that you are allowed to share to SNS without a share button or to modify the article title or heading, so let’s use the generated Tweet as it is by pressing the button.
In addition, if there are separate terms and conditions for how to use the share button, follow them.
“Reflect” → OK
When you add a photo or video to a Tweet, even if it was taken by yourself, you may unintentionally capture something that is considered a work of art, such as a stuffed character or a poster.
In this way, if the work is unintentionally copied, it will not be copyright infringement.
However, it is important to note that this may be considered a violation if it is intentionally captured for eye-attracting purposes, or if the captured work occupies a large part of the screen, even if it is not intentional.
In addition, when shooting in a place overflowing with copyrighted works such as amusement parks, rules for uploading to SNS may be decided for each facility, so let’s check it.
2. Unauthorized use of other people’s pictures and photos in profiles and header images is NG
I often see anime character images and accounts that use celebrity photos in my profile picture or header image.
However, this is inherently a copyright infringement act.
Earlier, in twitter’s terms of service, I mentioned that there is no problem with using Twitter’s functions for uploading copyrighted works to Twitter, but this is limited to “when a person or corporation who owns the copyright of the work uploads it legitimately”.
Setting an image copied without permission to a profile picture or header image without permission is the same as reprinting without permission at that time, so it will be NG.
Currently, these actions do not seem to be strictly policed, but if your account monetizes, you may be cracked down on, so be especially careful.
3. Notes when retweeting or quoting
I mentioned earlier that retweets and quoted Tweets can be a good thing if they contain copyrighted work, but there are actually caveats.
Retweets and quoted Tweets that contain a work are allowed if the original Tweet was “legitimately tweeted by the person or legal entity who copyrighted the work.”
Unauthorized reproduction of the original Tweet may result in complicity or 100-part infringement.
It can be difficult to determine if the original Tweet is legitimate, but it’s a good idea to be careful.
4. Pay attention to the moral rights of the author
In addition to copyright, there is a “moral right of author” as a right related to a work.
The moral rights of an author are the right to protect the honor of the author, consisting mainly of the following four:
(1) Right to public announcement
(2) Right to display names
(3) Right to maintain oneness
(4) Right to retain honorary voice
Each description is omitted here, but for example, (2) the right to display the name of the author is the right to be decided whether the author’s name is displayed or not, and whether it is a real name or a strange name.
“Moral rights of author” are characterized by not being able to transfer to others, different from “copyright”.
There is a famous legal precedent related to Twitter where this “moral rights of author” became a problem, so I will introduce it.
Past Precedents: Retweet Cases
It’s a lot easier, but I’m below the outline of the case.
・ A photographer’s photo was reprinted on Twitter by Mr. A without permission.
・ The photographer’s name was displayed in the photograph reprinted without permission.
・ Several people including Mr. B retweeted Mr. A’s tweet.
・ When B and his family retweeted it, the twitter specification did not show the entire photo on the timeline, and the photographer’s name part was not displayed. * By the way, when you click or tap on a photo, the entire photo is displayed and the name is displayed.
★, a photographer sued Twitter over the matter.
However, the Supreme Court decision recognized the following points:
(1) Copyright infringement (public transmission rights infringement) of unauthorized reproduction of photos by Mr. A
(2) Infringement of moral rights of author by Mr. B and others (infringement of name display rights)
(1) is a clear unauthorized reproduction act, so I am satisfied.
However, since (2) is a specification of Twitter, it can be said that it is a helpless problem even if B and his people are careful, but the name display right infringement has been recognized.
This ruling is still controversial and some are critical, but if you retweet and have the author’s name on your photo, it’s a good idea to remember this incident and stay and think about what to do.
5. Be especially careful when uploading music!
Twitter has no blanket agreement with JASRAC or NexTone
As for Youtube and other products, thanks to the service platform’s comprehensive agreement with music rights management organizations such as JASRAC and NexTone, you can create and publish content covering existing songs such as “I tried singing” and “I played” without having to negotiate directly with the rights holder of the song.
For other platforms that can do this, please refer to the following:
Major UGC services are usually included, but twitter is not included in this. (As of June 15, 2021)
Therefore, it is NG to attach videos and audio covering existing songs to Tweets.
It is currently NG to play or play music even in the audio distribution of “space”, except when permission is obtained from the right holder or when you make your own music.
Music-related activities are particularly stricter than in other fields, as management organizations such as JASRAC and NexTone are active.
If you check this flowchart, you will be asked to complete the licensing process if you are profitable, even if you do not upload video data directly to the site you want to view and link the videos uploaded to Youtube in embedded format.
If your account monetizes in the future, and Twitter still doesn’t have a blanket agreement with a copyright control organization at that time, tweeting cover content for existing songs can be risky.
Here are five things you should be aware of copyright when using Twitter.
In the future, if you can make money directly on Twitter, you may be more strict about copyright, so it will not hurt to know the five that I introduced.
Especially if you’re thinking of monetizing your Twitter account, we hope this article is helpful.
Thank you for reading this far.
* The information described is current at the time of posting the article and is subject to change in the future.
“Twitter” is a registered trademark of Twitter, Inc. or its affiliates.