Skip to main content
Law

Return to Question

deleted 313 characters in body
Source Link
Lance
Lance
  • 769
  • 6
  • 14

I see videos and images from Twitter feeds like Wonder of Science (which I love), and it isthey are full of stuff like this video on top of Mt. Everest from Ben Jones (no link to profile or realwithout copyright notice)notices.

This is just one small example, I see thousands of posts all with sound (such as a video of someone base jumping to Aerosmith's sweet emotion song, with millions of views), or video or images taken from somewhere else.

Sometimes these posts can be used to make money, however indirectly, such as increasing your following, which you can then serve ads to on your website or through YouTube ads, etc..

Youtube doesn't allow you to upload a direct song of a famous artist, and there are other copyright infringement blocking attempts made by Twitter and other platforms when you try and upload something.

But in general, what is the law here, is social media basically one big loophole in the law where you are allowed to use copyrighted material? Why couldn't you do the same thing but put your "posts" on your own website with ads? I don't see the difference. Hoping to understand why millions of people are allowed to essentially copyright infringe using social media, yet you aren't allowed to put the same images/sounds/videos on your own blog or website.

I see videos and images from Twitter feeds like Wonder of Science (which I love), and it is full of stuff like this video on top of Mt. Everest from Ben Jones (no link to profile or real copyright notice).

This is just one small example, I see thousands of posts all with sound (such as a video of someone base jumping to Aerosmith's sweet emotion song, with millions of views), or video or images taken from somewhere else.

Sometimes these posts can be used to make money, however indirectly, such as increasing your following, which you can then serve ads to on your website or through YouTube ads, etc..

Youtube doesn't allow you to upload a direct song of a famous artist, and there are other copyright infringement blocking attempts made by Twitter and other platforms when you try and upload something.

But in general, what is the law here, is social media basically one big loophole in the law where you are allowed to use copyrighted material? Why couldn't you do the same thing but put your "posts" on your own website with ads? I don't see the difference. Hoping to understand why millions of people are allowed to essentially copyright infringe using social media, yet you aren't allowed to put the same images/sounds/videos on your own blog or website.

I see videos and images from Twitter feeds, and they are full of stuff without copyright notices.

This is just one small example, I see thousands of posts all with sound, or video or images taken from somewhere else.

Sometimes these posts can be used to make money, however indirectly, such as increasing your following, which you can then serve ads to on your website or through YouTube ads, etc..

Youtube doesn't allow you to upload a direct song of a famous artist, and there are other copyright infringement blocking attempts made by Twitter and other platforms when you try and upload something.

But in general, what is the law here, is social media basically one big loophole in the law where you are allowed to use copyrighted material? Why couldn't you do the same thing but put your "posts" on your own website with ads? I don't see the difference. Hoping to understand why millions of people are allowed to essentially copyright infringe using social media, yet you aren't allowed to put the same images/sounds/videos on your own blog or website.

Source Link
Lance
Lance
  • 769
  • 6
  • 14

How is social media allowed to reproduce content, but you can't put the same content on a blog with ads?

I see videos and images from Twitter feeds like Wonder of Science (which I love), and it is full of stuff like this video on top of Mt. Everest from Ben Jones (no link to profile or real copyright notice).

This is just one small example, I see thousands of posts all with sound (such as a video of someone base jumping to Aerosmith's sweet emotion song, with millions of views), or video or images taken from somewhere else.

Sometimes these posts can be used to make money, however indirectly, such as increasing your following, which you can then serve ads to on your website or through YouTube ads, etc..

Youtube doesn't allow you to upload a direct song of a famous artist, and there are other copyright infringement blocking attempts made by Twitter and other platforms when you try and upload something.

But in general, what is the law here, is social media basically one big loophole in the law where you are allowed to use copyrighted material? Why couldn't you do the same thing but put your "posts" on your own website with ads? I don't see the difference. Hoping to understand why millions of people are allowed to essentially copyright infringe using social media, yet you aren't allowed to put the same images/sounds/videos on your own blog or website.