How To Piss People Off: Publish A Book Using Their Tweets Without Asking Them First
from the common-courtesy dept
A few years ago, when Twitter was starting to take off, we questioned whether or not Tweets were covered under copyright. While technically tweets could definitely be covered by copyright, it's still a little bit murky, especially with the "retweet" as an integral part of Twitter culture. That said, there's no doubt that people feel ownership over their tweets, especially those who lovingly craft wit and humor into each of the 140 characters. Recently, the editor of the book Tweet Nothings, a book of curated Tweets, sent an apologetic letter to the people whose Tweets were included in the book -- after the book had already been published in December:Dear Mr. Barnes,While the apology is an admirable step, the anger seen in the reviews of the book on Amazon is not unexpected. This is not a "fair-use versus copyright" issue at all. This is a "doing the smart, right thing" issue. Whether or not we think that people should feel ownership over their "ideas" is moot -- the issue here is that they do, and as such, to ignore that is short sighted. Books have successfully been assembled using Tweets before. For his book, Twitter Wit, editor Nick Douglas did a good job working with Tweet authors, who had to explicitly submit their best Tweets to be included in the book. As a result, not only was his book received favorably by the Twitter community, every one of the included authors, who are supposedly the most witty on Twitter, each became a promoter for the sale of the book -- a winning promotional combination.
We sincerely apologize for using your Tweet in our "Tweet Nothings" book without contacting you prior to publication! I wrote the introduction and compiled quotes from Twitter for the book at the direction of the publisher. I do not make any money from this work. We did want to contact each person quoted in the book; the publisher's legal advisors said it was not necessary under fair use guidelines. We sincerely view this book as a celebration of Twitter, and an introduction to some of the best and brightest people to follow. We are very sorry if you or anyone is offended or upset by the book.
I would be more than happy to send you copies of the book. Please accept my apologies.
Sincerely yours,
Suzanne Schwalb
So, by not involving the Tweet authors in the publishing of Tweet Nothings, the publishers not only attracted the ire of the wronged authors, but also missed out on a huge opportunity for free, viral promotion. After the exchange with Barnes, the publisher, Peter Pauper Press, issued an official apology in which it said:
We regret that we did not contact the people whose quotes we used in advance. We will be contacting each one with an apology. In the meantime, we are ceasing to sell the book in all venues and will not resume sales until everyone quoted in the book is satisfied with our response.If that's the case, and if the publisher stays true to their word, then they may never be able to sell the book again. After all, Merlin Mann, one of the wronged Tweet authors, seems irrecovably pissed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, ideas, social mores, twitter
Companies: peter pauper press
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So original. How do you do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But pubic tweets clearly have nothing to do with privacy. Hence why they're called "public"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
UM, unless he dramatically changed the spelling of his name, the masnick didn't write this article, so why are you trying to drag his name into it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please
Look, the idea that every bon mot that drops from your mouth (or fingers) is worth the weight of the state defending is a pretty recent one. (See Mickey Mouse Copyright.)
In a fair and just world, anyone who is concerned about this would be required to add a copyright notice to their tweets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please
So, even though you may be legally "in the right" it doesn't necessarily mean that you should blindly proceed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please
Masnick often makes a point of saying those "wronged" when their material is appropriated shouldn't feel wronged, but should instead see it as an opportunity for more free exposure.
I agree the publisher could've involved the tweeters and had some free promotion as a result. The fact still remains that they didn't do anything wrong or against these people. They even credit them (via twitter handle) as the sources. What is wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please
Publisher didn't have to ask anyone, but could have informed them beforehand to set up a way to promote th book.
Meanwhile, said people included could use it as a viral feature "I was in a book!" etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please
But people *are* angry by the way they handled it, and it was shortsighted on the part of the publisher (who should know how authors think) to not realize that people would be pissed..
The fact that they said:
"We did want to contact each person quoted in the book; the publisher's legal advisors said it was not necessary under fair use guidelines."
Was a bit lame -- really? Hiding behind what your lawyers told you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please
It's the same thing Mike says about the RIAA lawsuits: Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please
Um, OK. So it's an outrage issue. *opens tiny violin case*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please
Damn, how do I keep missing that stuff? I guess I get post happy when I see a topic I know about.
"So, even though you may be legally "in the right" it doesn't necessarily mean that you should blindly proceed."
Well, yeah, there's the law, and then there's what's right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please
Funny thing the copyright would be longer than the tweet ...
"Look, the idea that every bon mot that drops from your mouth (or fingers) is worth the weight of the state defending is a pretty recent one."
This sense of entitlement is pretty disturbing and disgusting to me. This "I said that first you cant use it" mentality is the stupidest thing and it is only getting worse. Personally I would have gone down the there is no such thing as bad publicity route and totally hazed these idiots. It would have caused a ton of blog entries, hate mail and tweets, people tweeting dont buy this book, etc, all free publicity. Mike talks about things back firing for people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please
I can only picture twelve-year-old girls shouting "Stop copying me!" when I hear this crap.
Unfortunately, our legal system seems to have devolved to the level of twelve-year-old girls over the past few decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please
The thought police have issued a thought warrant for your thought arrest....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh please
I cant decide if this is the schools going LCD over the past 20 years, something in the water, the first visible sign of a nanny state, or if people are just being born stupid recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh please
Mike talks about things back firing for people this is a perfect example of where you can use a screw up to your advantage. The streisand effect is a double edged tool. After all we are talking about this book here on techdirt. We just need to fan the flames and get these twits (is that what you call a person who tweets?) to do our advertising for us....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please you act like they are writting a great work of literature. They are throwing out one liners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Was that more than 140 characters?
Copyright won't cause any trouble or problems in the 21st century. Nope. Not going to happen. That's absurd!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
~111 characters with the period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Its the Tux the penguin is wearing isnt it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, IP fails logic.
No offense, but this isn't even a "right thing" issue. It's another attempt at a "It's mine!" issue by those who felt their "tweets were stolen" for a book.
It's an asinine approach, copyright or not, permission or not. Seriously, what the hell are people thinking when they're placing content in the public domain then bitch when someone utilizes it for a completely separate project.
Any twitter user who is upset their tweets were used in the book, and are complaining, are doing nothing more than fueling the problem of ownership via "intellectual property".
Do note my use of the word "intellectual" is against my will, as there's no intelligence to be found in issues like the one presented in this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again, IP fails logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. But what’s yours is yours – you own your content."
Suzanne Schwalb, can't you read TOS? Bitch please. Fair use would be excerpts of a tweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A person's timeline isn't a novel from which you can cherry pick the best quotes, it's a collection of 140-characters-long distinct, separate "works".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That being said, I still stick to the assertion that a Fair Use discussion is likely moot in regards to most of the tweets at issues since short phrases aren't protectable by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It appears that double standards are alive and well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
paper vs digital
i think that people still view their online info as being secure and their own ......
it is difficult for people to accept that their words can be used by anyone anytime .... hey it happens all the time when we speak and then tell someone else that someone else said this ....
or is it all about the $
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: paper vs digital
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Connect with your fans and reap the benefits. Use innovative business models to show the market why your product is better. Don't cling to outdated and broken ideas like royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By passing up this chance to increase their own revenue, the Twitter users are proving that they are not at all concerned with using innovative business models to improve the market. They are just looking for something to be outraged at and they found it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The appropriate response is to realize you can do better and then: Blow them out of the water with an even better business model and make enough money to build your own version of Scrooge McDuck's money bin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He calls himself defender of fair use and such but is bitching major time when someone fair use his stuff? Time to act what you believe in.
If he's a true believer in fair use, he wouldn't be this angry over this incident. Pissed maybe, but not angry. Yeah it's in poor taste to not ask first, but the law does not require you to ask. Obviously this guy's "sense of entitlement" has a real clash with his fake belief of being a "defender of fair use".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would it have been the right thing to do for the publisher to contact the authors? Absolutely. Was it infringement for not doing so? Likely not.
Anonymous Coward: Yes, the book itself would have a copyright as a compilation. This would give the author of the book the rights to the order and selection of the tweets, but not to the tweets themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it ain't no cool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]