"Ownership--Twitter is allowed to 'use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute' your tweets because that's what we do. However, they are your tweets and they belong to you."
Mr. Stone,
What, precisely, is the value of ownership in this context - beyond attribution?
The concept of ownership implies authority/control. Clearly, Twitterers have no control over their tweets beyond the ability to delete them from their own accounts.
Yes, Twitter requires a certain amount of freedom to republish/distribute tweets, but let's not play word games. Twitterers do not "own" their tweets.
Twitter tweaks terms of service
Summary
The microblogging site assures users that they own their tweets while leaving "the door open for advertising" opportunities.
Topics
Twitter posted changes to its terms of service Thursday, assuring users that they own their tweets while leaving "the door open for advertising" opportunities.
"The revisions more appropriately reflect the nature of Twitter and convey key issues such as ownership," Twitter co-founder Biz Stone wrote in a company blog. "For example, your tweets belong to you, not to Twitter."
In announcing the new terms of service, Stone also addressed the topics of abusive behavior and spam. These are four highlights Stone called out:
Advertising--In the Terms, we leave the door open for advertising. We'd like to keep our options open as we've said before.Ownership--Twitter is allowed to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" your tweets because that's what we do. However, they are your tweets and they belong to you.
APIs--The apps that have grown around the Twitter platform are flourishing and adding value to the ecosystem. You authorize us to make content available via our APIs. We're also working on guidelines for use of the API.
Spam--Abusive behavior and spam are also outlined in these terms according to the rules we've been operating under for some time.
The prominence of the advertising revision seems to suggest that the microblogging start-up is warming up to an advertising-based model, a dramatic change from comments Stone made in May.
"There are a few reasons why we're not pursuing advertising--one is it's just not quite as interesting to us," Stone said at the Reuters Technology Summit.
Certainly the ownership message is designed to avoid the user backlash created by a revision to Facebook's terms of use that some interpreted to mean that Facebook claimed ownership of user profile data and photos.
Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven. Talkback Most Recent of 5 Talkback(s)
-
josephmartins11th Sep 2009 -
What rights do you suggest?
So what rights do you suggest they need?
I'm all for creator rights, but give me a break, 140 characters of IP at a time.
Which of those specific rights can you leave out and still run twitter.
paulzag12th Sep 2009 -
I suggest none at all
Paul,
There's little point to any ownership of 140 character thought-bytes on a service such as Twitter. I have yet to read a single reasonable, defensible argument (beyond one of personal privacy) in favor of treating tweets as protected IP.
It would be nice if Twitter would respect privacy such that individuals who are not in a Twitter race for followers can be assured that their tweets will remain private - to the extent that their followers respect their privacy. Should followers choose to RT that's not a Twitter problem.
Other than that, Stone should simply tell Twitter members, "Look, it's a free service. You're not paying a cent for it. Use it at your own risk and understand that what you write is out of your hands once you choose to publish it."
That, after all, is the reality of the Internet where public and semi-public words, images and videos are backed up, replicated, and often redistributed without permission.
As an aside...
Frankly, other than "private" comments to followers about topics such as the condition of one's health or perhaps strategic business/military maneuvers, the value of most tweets as personal IP approaches zero.
I get the impression that much of the uproar over ownership of tweets comes from those who believe they should be compensated for the reuse of their already-published thought-bytes. To them I say, stop using Twitter to freely convey IP if you believe it has monetary value. Publish it on Twitter at your own risk.
As tech consultants, we certainly do not use Twitter to convey anything of real lasting value. And clearly neither do our competitors. We mostly treat it as a medium to share interesting links and comments related to our work.josephmartins15th Sep 2009 -
RE: Twitter tweaks terms of service
twitter can use my twits...but, if i own them and
'someone else' uses them...is twitter going to
back me in
protecting 'my' twits that 'it' has control of?
NO.
It's going to 'distribute/sell' MY twits...I
wonder if
I'll get compensation from the sale of MY
twits...haha
(not that I have anything interesting to 'twit'
about.)
dougm1966@...13th Sep 2009 -
RE: Twitter tweaks terms of service
I read that someone has written a novel consisting entirely of Twits. Does the author give up copyright by accepting these terms of service?
pizrround14th Sep 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
