I have filed a complaint with Twitter, but now I must file a snail mail or faxed copy of my complaint directly to Twitter, which I plan to do.
No answer from Tweetree, and my content is still up. People may think that Twitter Tweets are insignificant and are hardly worth the effort. I mean, tweets are hardly great literature, and like most mine are particularly boring and lame.
However, I would disagreelame or not, it's still MY content; if Tweetree wants to stream other people's content, then they must get permission from rightful owners, not just simply steal it.
As a plaintiff in the writers' class action suit against Google, I am particularly sensitive to having my content usurped without my permission or even knowledge. About 20% of my book has been digitized! I nearly freaked when I found out and was glad that a class action suit had been filed.
The Tweetree situation has me particularly worried because of the potential for having one's password phished and stolen; if one signs in on the Tweetree site (using Twitter info), then they could steal your Twitter account. Not only has Tweetree taken my content, but also my avatar and background graphic (also my original work), so the page is also a look-alike site. If one is in a hurry, one could mistake it as being the genuine Twitter.
Now I don't know this company's intent, but I wouldn't trust any company that would simply take one's content.
This situation has made me think about how to protect my content and identity, so I'll pass it on to the rest of you. 1. When going on what you think is the correct site, always check the URL before logging in. These days, this should be second nature and only takes seconds to do.
2. About once a month, Google yourself and your user IDs; it's NOT vanity to see how you appear in the search engines. I discovered this problem by Googling "Ms Domainer.".
3. Never sign into unfamiliar sites with a user ID and password from another site. Even with trusted sites (e.g., Open ID and JibJab), this is a questionable practice.
4. If you find a problem, take the time to report it. Demand that the content be taken down. (My next step will be a C&D letter, and if that doesn't work, a letter to both domain owner and NetSol from legal counsel).Just like TM holders enjoy certain rights, so do writers, and domainers need to take proper measures to protect their identities and content from thieves.
Based on Twitter's TOS I don't think there is much you can do about it. This is not the only service that re-publishes tweets. The only thing you can actually do is set your twitter profile to private...
A "service"? Seriously?.
They are rip-off artists.
Just because my account is public gives this company no right to republish my tweets without my permission.
Here in the US, writers still have the right to decide whether to grant republication permission of their content. Even Google has to pay the piper for it's decision to digitize parts of writers' work without permission.
And these con artists do NOT have my permission, nor will they EVER have my permission.
You think this pissy little newbie retweeter company can withstand challenges when Google could not?.
When you post on a forum, on twitter, on your myspace, whatever, you're publishing the content online. You're naive to think this would never happen, if you're uncomfortable with somewhere else taking the data you publish, DON'T PUBLISH IT. They've done absolutely nothing wrong, as long as they're not selling your "tweets" to anyone, they're doing nothing legally or morally wrong.
Get over it. This is the nature of the internet, if you dislike it, leave...
Just fyi, pretty sure they do this to every public Twitter account. Just type: tweetree.com/yourtwitterusername/.
It seems like this service has been featured on a number of blogs, and can't find anyone except you who has a complaint about it.
While I can't name any off the top of my head, I wouldn't be surprised if a number of other sites used the Twitter API to republish other tweets as well in a similar fashion.
Like an above poster suggested, the only real "solution" I could think of for you is to set your profile to private...
Furthermore, if at no point do they claim ownership of your content, they break no laws whatsoever. Branding them as scam artists is ridiculous and can be harmful to businesses. Get over it. Post added at 02:08 PM Previous post was at 02:07 PM I had a legitimate reply to this, however I'm quoting your reply and that means I'm copying your content and you haven't told me I can, can I have permission to quote your post please? (The one you published online!)..
Anyone posting their content on facebook, myspace, twitter, flickr, linkedin, etc shouldn't be surprised to see it publicly viewable / copied by others even when not intended.
Social networking sites are NOT designed with privacy in mind; the privacy settings are little more than window dressing - best to assume any content uploaded will be seen, copied, etc by the public at large.
In regards to the OPs situation, complaining to Twitter may work, but likely a more effective approach is to send a DMCA take-down notice to Tweetree hosting provider.
You are wrong, samuelhr.
Yes they are doing something wrong! They have NO RIGHT, legal or ethical, to reprint my intellectual property without my permission.
If I ask them to take my work down, then, LEGALLY, they must do so.
It doesn't matter if they're making money or not.
I am NOT ashamed of anything I have written, but I AM interested in protecting my content.
One does not give up one's rights just because it's the internet.
ADDED: One can quote a partial piece of a work to make a point or commentary, but they are publishing my entire tweet stream on a site that looks like my twitter account AND they are offering "members" to login using their Twitter ID and password.
To me that smells like a scam.
It won't do anything, it's like DMCA'ing namepros host because I post this - which ev publicly posted. Post added at 03:03 PM Previous post was at 03:00 PM You can't pick and choose; if you write an article and someone thinks it's brilliant, so they post it on their blog and credit you, then it gets thousands of people saying "whoa, brilliant article!" you wouldn't complain, you'd be pleased something you wrote was appreciated. The only time they're doing something wrong is when they claim ownership or profit.
That site, tweetree, is using the twitter service, when you submit a tweet you're uploading to the twitter service, the API allows access to this data. By uploading to twitter you're consenting to anyone with access to the API using it...
If I write something "brilliant" and if someone wants to reprint it, then legally it's MY decision to grant permission. I may decide that I'd want to be paid, maybe I'll offer reprint rights gratis (and, if asked, I'm more likely to do this), but it's illegal for some webmaster to take it upon him or herself to just snatch my content without asking first.
The argument that I should just roll over and die just because it's the internet is not valid. Electronic rights are just as valid as print rights. Writers, by and large, are poorly paid as it is, and we need to to fight for our legal rights, just as domainers need to protect their property from scammers and overreaching TM holders.
What does it take to ask a writer for permission?.
Here on Namepros, if I quote someone's post, it's clearly in context of the conversation at hand (and I don't mind if someone quotes me on a thread); however, if the poster I have quoted asks me to delete their content or delete parts of it, I do so promptly and gladly. I would never quote it anywhere else (on my blogs or on another forum) without asking the original writer for permission.
I remember a controversy few months ago, right here on this forum, in which a popular rss feed was republishing articles from blogs in their entirety, thus denying the original posters the opportunity to draw visitors. There was a lot of whining and carrying on, and rightfully so.
How is my case different?.
ADDED: Believe me, writers are tired of being told how "brilliant" we are, while some publisher is trying to weasel free content out of us. While platitudes are nice, we'd like, for our efforts, to see them back up with some "green.".
It's different because they were profiting and not crediting. The point of twetree is to take twitter conversations and make them easier to read, seriously. They're not taking your content, they're not distributing it, they're simply running it through the twitter API.
Are you saying that anything but twitter.com cannot show your tweets? If you don't like it, don't use the service; the point of twitter is to be open. The twitter API provides these "tweets" for the website to display, if you have any problem with it don't use twitter...
Twitter is the place for my Twitter tweets, and anywhere else I deem appropriate. Had Tweetree asked my permission, I might have said yes (but without the login option).
To be honest, what is the difference between Twitter and Tweetree's formats? Other than clearer links, it's just a mirror site and a deceitful one at that.
Other API's seem to be opt-in situations.
Tweetree seems to have started up in December 2008. At some point, they'll be wanting to be making a profit. What's to stop them from slipping in some adsense blocks?.
Is this thread really serious?.
Isn't Twitter just a platform for twits to twaddle out tweets to twinks - with a PUBLIC broadcast?.
You are actually serious that you think your tweets are somehow protectionable art that you somehow retain all rights as to who views them or not and how?.
Tweetree has simply utilized the twitter API to enable simplified viewing of ANY public Twitterer's tawdry toots...
This is nothing at all like Google digitizing a book. This starts with a PUBLIC BROADCAST... and you're upset that it is publicized?..
Stop using twitter than, as simple as that.
When you're submitting a tweet, you're submitting it to their service, not twitter.com, the twitter service. Complain all you want, this will never change. Why should people suffer because you're incapable of understanding that what you publish online isn't going to stay yours forever? Part of twitter is the access to everyones tweets given to developers, why should they be limited in what they can create? If you care so much, set your tweets to private. This is similar to telling google that they can't index any of your profiles or posts on websites, ridiculous.
I use tweetdeck, brilliant tool but you're saying "oh no, I didn't give them permission!!!", you'd complain more if you got hundreds of messages a day saying "can we please use your worthless messages that nobody cares about in our service???". If you dislike it so much, log out and don't use it again. Exactly this...
You can protect your tweets easily by making your twitter PRIVATE. Then nobody except your friends/followers can read them...
A book is public as well, especially an e-book. So just because it's publicly available, I should just give up my rights when someone, unknown to me, decides to appropriate my novel or short story collection for their website?.
What if I decided that I wanted to mimic one of your domains, so I decide to reg a look-alike domain and then rip off your content to put on it?.
Maybe you guys don't care much about your content, but you sure do care about your domains, which is understandableI care about mine as well, BUT I also care about the content I create for the sites I own. I may not care so much about my tweets, but it's a short jump to someone ripping off my content from one of my blogs and reposting it without my permission.
If you don't protect your content, who will? Don't depend on Google or anyone else but you and the laws regarding copyright.
If I owned "eggs.com" and had articles about eggs on it and you registered "oeggs.com" and copied all my articles but credited me and didn't make profit, I'd have absolutely no problem with it. This is exactly what they're doing, they're crediting you and not taking money for it. I see absolutely no problem.
How could anyone?..
There is a HUGE difference between indexing content and copying it word-for-wordapples and oranges.
By copying my words verbatim, Tweetree is lessening my standing in my content's indexing on the search engines, given that the search engines don't like duplicate content, so my work IS being diminished by Tweetree.
And why would someone reg oeggs.com and not want to make a profit from it? Sooner or later, some ads would appear on that site or it's a spam site.
Mostly, I don't set up sites without having some kind of profit motive in mind.
Even my war site (which is non-profit and will stay that way) does not post work without permission (unless it's public domain work, published 1923 or before) from authors or their heirs.
This is the law: one MUST get permission before posting someone else's work. Simply attributting authorship is NOT enough.
Here's the part you're not getting...
They are not "copying" your precious tweets. They are using the Twitter API to package your twaddle in what (supposedly) is a more readable format.
They do not need your permission to do this.
And your precious blurts of wisdom, your tweets... those are absolutely nothing like a book, ebook or otherwise. Nor is it even remotely like website content... remember, all it is - is your blatherings that you PURPOSELY transmitted to the ENTIRE WOLRD in bite sized, barely tolerable slices (can you tell that I think the entire twitter twaddle thing is an absurd waste of time?).
Your "tweets" are meant to be public, meant to be distributed to anyone and everyone that cares to see them - not only with your consent but by your command (you can make your nonsense private... gee, why not do that?).
Seriously, if you can't tell the difference.....
Per the Twitter TOS:.
"The Twitter service makes it possible to post images and text hosted on Twitter to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!). However, pages on other websites which display data hosted on Twitter.com must provide a link back to Twitter.".
Your use of Twitter constitues your agreement with their TOS. I guess your only resolution is to make your tweets private, or stop tweeting...
I give up, you clearly don't understand the most obvious of concepts. WHEN YOU POST A TWEET IT BECOMES PUBLIC DOMAIN.
This site DOES NOT take your tweets and claim them as their own, they do not profit from them, they PROVIDE FULL CREDIT TO YOU, they also link back to YOUR twitter page. They are formatted in an identical way to your twitter page. I hope bolding helps you out, but in case it doesn't, I'll repeat myself.
When you tweet you're posting information into the PUBLIC DOMAIN, you're providing your tweets - unless you protect them - to anyone who wants to view them, or manipulate them through the twitter API.
What do you expect them to do? I find that site useful.
Oh, and btw, I run sites that don't make me any money, stop trying to back up your - frankly ridiculous - point by claiming they're after money. FURTHERMORE they're basically quotes. Are you suggesting that if I want to quote shakespeare I can't because he's dead, therefore I cannot contact him for permission? Do I have to go to Britney spears' house and say "Excuse me britney, can I quote something you said in an interview? It made me giggle!"...
I believe I said this in the beginning of this thread. Oh wait, I did:..
How long will it be before some guy successfully defends a stalking case with:.
Everywhere I looked, your Honor - I saw her proclaim "Follow Me on Twitter...".
What, everyone thinks they are The Pied Piper of Hamelin now or what?.
And just like like rats... they follow... blindly...
Many others (eg. some black hats) are scraping Twitter...
Shakespeare's work is in the public domain because he was published before 1923 (US lawmay be different in other countries), so one can post his work, even entire plays, at will. I have a few sites with public domain works on them.
However, when quoting Shakepeare, I still can't claim his work as my own. I still have to attribute with his name and publication dates.
Putting quotes around an entire work NOT in the public domain does not make appropriating a work acceptable. For commentary and review, you can quote excerpts, generally no more than 20% of a total work (though for short poems and long novels, it may be even lessthis is where copyright law becomes a bit fuzzy), so, yes, you can quote Britney's blatherings, but it has to be in conjunction with some original content of your own: an article about Britney or a review of her records. You just can't plop down 20% of someone's original work without adding context to it.
Quite frankly, I find that log-in box on the tweetree site highly suspicious, perhaps a good way to pharm Twitter passwords (knowing that some people don't change their passwords)? That really raises red flags for me.
If Twitter allows API developers to create password pharms, then Twitter could find itself in legal hot water, especially if Tweeters start complaining and Twitter ignores them.
That's what happened to Google when writers starting complaining and Google essentially ignored them. They digitized 20% of each work still in copyright WITHOUT review or commentary. They simply copied and got sued, and it's going to cost them millions, so even the big guys can run afoul of the law when they listen to incompetent lawyers.
It's true that I don't care all that much about my tweetsthey are definitely banal snippets of minutia (like most of Twitter, LOL), BUT I do care about having my content (tweets or otherwise) associated with a site that LOOKS as though it may be a password pharm.
Unfortunately, Twitter and Tweetree are both down at the moment (most likely related to the Susan Boyle newsshe came in second, BTW, for those who are interested in such things), so I can't take a closer look at the tweetree site.
BTW, samuelhr, I'd love to see your non-profit sites, and here's to hoping that you got permission for republishing any work still in copyright.
I'm stopping myself from swearing at you right now.
They're not password "pharms", they're nothing of the sort. Notice how if you use the username "MsDomainer" and the password "cats", it fails because your password isn't cats. Now, try it with your real password and it logs in, this is because they're connecting to the twitter API, they're not stealing or saving your password.
Furthermore, http://filebox.me/files/wkczjasuy_msdomainer.JPG totally not giving you credit, are they?..
I have resolved my situation to my satisfaction, and I consider this thread closed, at least from my perspective.
You might find this educational: "Twitter and Copyright Twitterlogical: The Misunderstanding of Ownership, by Brock Shinen, Esq...
Not to sound like an ass, but people theses days...
Finally realised what an ass you were being about it all? I'd like to know whether or not anything actually happened for you to consider it resolved..
This could be used to your advantage, maybe someone should code a content system based upon twitter feeds using keywords, maybe...dunno.
I guess you'll just have to keep wondering.
Suffice to say, it wasn't my Ms Domainer account that concerned me, and I have resolved the situation by taking proactive action.
A littel harsh, but I would suggest that the only ones who would copy and republish a tweet account would, actually, be gaining monetary results, perhaps from adding adsense to the tweet page, or something similar.
Companies do not, in general, take the time to copy and republish data philonthropically.....
Nuff said for now methinks.
Thanks all for an interesting debate.
Really? Other than the age-old adage of "if you bold something it becomes true," I'd love to know why posting something causes it to become part of the public domain.
(And yes, this is part of my series on Socratic "user education" )..