Lawsuits Over Who Owns Tweets?

from the omgstop dept

Thu, May 19th 2011 1:11am — Mike Masnick

It had to happen eventually. Apparently, there's a lawsuit going on over the "ownership" of a Twitter account that goes by the name OMGFacts, which (as you might have guessed, posts a bunch of random facts). It has nearly two million followers. Not bad. But there's now a federal lawsuit over who actually owns the feed. Apparently, there were two people who ran the account -- a 17-year-old student who started it and his 24-year-old "business partner" whose job it was to help develop the feed and get it more attention. The argument covers a bunch of ground on both intellectual property issues and contract issues. Basically, it seems like a business dispute where the end result is that perhaps neither party comes out of it happy. The Twitter angle just makes it that much more twisted. As Eric Goldman notes in a quote in the article:

"We've had 600 years to develop the rules on books," Goldman said. "We've had less than five years to develop how those rules apply to tweets."

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: omgfacts, ownership, tweets

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 2:00am

Easy: terminate the account and create a "OMGFacts1" and an "OMGFacts2" (or something like it) that both contain the content from the original "OMGFacts". Give one account to each of the whiners.

Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 2:35am
  
  Re:
  Yeah. Give them the full "Solomon." Added bonus: it usually leaves both greedy parties unsatisfied.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ade Oduyemi, 20 May 2011 @ 1:21am
  
  Re:
  There is something rather unsatisfying about this Solomonesque solution - pity is I can't quite put my finger on it. One thing I know though, once the lawyers get involved, everyone has lost.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cory Vanderyacht, 20 May 2011 @ 2:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well...everyone except the lawyers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 2:56am

Twitter owns the tweets... Just read the TOS

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 6:08am
  
  Re:
  The phrase "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license" indicates Twitter does not in fact own the tweets, but only uses them under licence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dan J. (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 8:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Additionally, this lawsuit isn't over who own's the tweets. It's over who owns the account. Not the same thing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 19 May 2011 @ 4:53am

Ownership
I think there's something to be said for who can flick a switch and stop the "tweeting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:28am

Per Contract law....
If its here in the US I do believe that no contract can be entered by a child unless the legal guardians sign it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: Per Contract law....
  please correct me if I am wrong...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris in Utah (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:41am
    
    Re: Re: Per Contract law....
    I think the exception may be just that you can divorce your parents.
    
    If your parents are keeping you from running a business IMO that's just cause for me... though in this case I might fight it as a parent for the sure stupidity of the claim.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 6:38am
    
    Re: Re: Per Contract law....
    I have heard something like this, however there can be a catch. If a minor does enter into a contract and upholds their side, the other party cannot void the contract because it is with a minor.
    
    I may be wrong too, but contracts with minors are somewhat "one-way" enforceable. If the minor doesn't uphold their side, it's your fault for making a contract with a minor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 6:58am

OMGFacts
They tweet (imagine huge air quotes here) "facts".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chuck, 19 May 2011 @ 7:06am

All of your Tweets are belong to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jes Lookin, 19 May 2011 @ 7:43am

It's called Broadcast
The concept of Broadcast seems to be a common brain-lock in 'IP' thinking. Common sense says that if you put something out on a Comms media that anybody can receive - it's 'out there' for whatever 'fair use'. In pre-corporatocrasy days, that meant whatever non-money-making thing the receivers wanted to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 8:22am

"We've had 600 years to develop the rules on books," Goldman said. "

and those rules turned out to be a complete failure. ie: look at 95+ year copy protection lengths.

"We've had less than five years to develop how those rules apply to tweets."

I hope the rules on tweets don't turn out to be nearly as much of a failure as the rules on books, but I won't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2011 @ 12:00pm

"Your Rights
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed)."

The twitter TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]