Is it legal to livestream GW2?

[scandragon.3974]

I've been asking this on Twitter a couple of times, but received no reply.

With the new European copyright laws, I've had to take down everything on my channel while I figure out which games I can safely stream.

 

Basically I need permission from license holders to use the content, or I risk losing my channel for good.

 

I've scoured through the EULA, and I can't find anything that answers this.

[Dawdler.8521]

Didnt article 13 dictate a filter *before* you actually have a chance to show the "illegal" material? I mean yeah it could get your channel banned, but to worry about that is redundant when the entire streaming site would get banned for allowing your stream through? Could be worth risking it for twitch. Just saying.

 

I am fairly sure Anet would say yes though. Mostly because I dont see how streaming a game can fall under copyright violation if actually legally pursued in court. But I'm not a lawyer. Plus if you use a US based streaming service, they dont have to follow EU law (worst case, they cant show it to EU peeps).

[scandragon.3974]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> Didnt article 13 dictate a filter *before* you actually have a chance to show the "illegal" material? I mean yeah it could get your channel banned, but to worry about that is redundant when the entire streaming site would get banned for allowing your stream through? Could be worth risking it for twitch. Just saying.

>

> I am fairly sure Anet would say yes though. Mostly because I dont see how streaming a game can fall under copyright violation if actually legally pursued in court. But I'm not a lawyer. Plus if you use a US based streaming service, they dont have to follow EU law (worst case, they cant show it to EU peeps).

 

That's pretty much why I need an official answer. That way it will benefit everyone.

And twitch has to follow the same rules as youtube. I stream on both platforms

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

You may be looking for this: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-content-terms-of-use/

 

Good luck.

[scandragon.3974]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> You may be looking for this: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/legal/guild-wars-2-content-terms-of-use/

>

> Good luck.

 

Thank you.

Exactly what I needed!

:)

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Glad it helped. You can often find official/legal information in the 'Legal Documentation' sites (link below).

[kasoki.5180]

New eu copyright law isnt in force yet. So whatever happened was most likely breach of terms of use with anet or the platform

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> New eu copyright law isnt in force yet. So whatever happened was most likely breach of terms of use with anet or the platform

As a further note on that, I think EU countries have like 1-2 years or something to implement laws on it, if I remember correctly. Well, as soon as they figure out how the kitten they are going to do that I guess.

 

[ReaverKane.7598]

1) Article 13 isn't in law, there's still a 2 year period for countries to adopt it into national law (EU doesn't really have EU laws, Directives are like law templates that member countries must then transpose into their national laws, by penalty of heavy fines if they fail to do so);

2) Fair use still applies, what was legal to do before is still legal to do now. So content that you didn't fear to get a copyright strike on youtube still won't get copyright strikes now.

 

The main things that changed with Article 13 is that:

1) EVERY social media site that reaches a certain size, is responsible by law for copyright infringements within their own sites;

2) Member countries have to provide users an impartial means of appeal in case they get unlawful strikes. No more youtube referring the arbitration back to the copyright owners.

 

I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down. Also this all requires the copyright holders to tell the platforms their copyrights are being infringed and they want it to be dealt, it's not just the platforms saying everything goes, how it is worded, there must first be some dialogue between the platforms and copyright holders.

 

There's a lot of misinformation around this, and a lot of US lawyers that don't understand EU law and how it works making unfounded comments (like the main one is that there's a lot of ambiguity and whatnot, which is made on purpose, since it's a directive, not a law, it basically just has in place the points that each country must put into their law, but the wording and many of the specifics are left open (more than normal, laws can be pretty open to interpretation everywhere) since they're meant to be translated and transposed into national laws.

 

PS: I'm not a lawyer, i did take a semester in EU law because the line of work i studied for deals a lot with laws and regulations, so if someone else more specialized wants to pitch in, please do, misinformation is the scourge of the internet, and it's getting rampant as of the last 4-5 years.

[scandragon.3974]

> @"kasoki.5180" said:

> New eu copyright law isnt in force yet. So whatever happened was most likely breach of terms of use with anet or the platform

 

I wasn't asked to take anything down.

I had to, because I wanted to protect myself. Mainly because I don't speak legalese.

 

Might as well take advantage of this to do a full channel reboot..

Get rid of the lower quality content from the first year, and focus on new higher quality stuff.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"ReaverKane.7598"

Thanks for the analysis. That was very useful.

[Elrond.9486]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> .

>

> I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

 

And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > .

> >

> > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

>

> And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

 

It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

[Elrond.9486]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > > .

> > >

> > > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

> >

> > And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

>

> It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

> Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

> But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

 

Wasn't being sarcastic btw! I think we really do need countries to band together to be able to one day fully protect everyone on the internet, that can only happen with the introduction and proliferation of these kinds of laws. Anyone that thinks this introduces a slippery slope or provides precedent for more and more government control/intervention of a medium like the internet is just plain paranoid and misinformed! This will be safer for everyone in the long run.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

> > >

> > > And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

> >

> > It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

> > Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

> > But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

>

> Wasn't being sarcastic btw! I think we really do need countries to band together to be able to one day fully protect everyone on the internet, that can only happen with the introduction and proliferation of these kinds of laws. Anyone that thinks this introduces a slippery slope or provides precedent for more and more government control/intervention of a medium like the internet is just plain paranoid and misinformed! This will be safer for everyone in the long run.

 

Cool! Well, in regards to this last non-sarcastic post, i'll just put a few things forward:

This directive, changes NOTHING in terms of censorship or content control and manipulation as far as the final user is concerned, in fact it improves that experience, because until this law if you posted something owned by someone else, you were liable for that, now it's the platforms that are liable. This is the crux of Article 13. It effectively puts responsibility onto the shoulders of the party that profits the most from the content, because, right now content creators have all the risk, but only a marginal profit, in some cases, no profit.

 

If someone thinks that propaganda or opinion manipulation isn't already in effect, boy.... I've got some news... Heck all the negative press on Article 13 is exactly that!

Finally, if anyone thinks that there's a "slippery slope" required to control and restrict the internet, they need to, idk look up, like China, and other places like that...

This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

[Elrond.9486]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > > > > .

> > > > >

> > > > > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

> > > >

> > > > And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

> > >

> > > It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

> > > Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

> > > But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

> >

> > Wasn't being sarcastic btw! I think we really do need countries to band together to be able to one day fully protect everyone on the internet, that can only happen with the introduction and proliferation of these kinds of laws. Anyone that thinks this introduces a slippery slope or provides precedent for more and more government control/intervention of a medium like the internet is just plain paranoid and misinformed! This will be safer for everyone in the long run.

>

> Cool! Well, in regards to this last non-sarcastic post, i'll just put a few things forward:

> This directive, changes NOTHING in terms of censorship or content control and manipulation as far as the final user is concerned, in fact it improves that experience, because until this law if you posted something owned by someone else, you were liable for that, now it's the platforms that are liable. This is the crux of Article 13. It effectively puts responsibility onto the shoulders of the party that profits the most from the content, because, right now content creators have all the risk, but only a marginal profit, in some cases, no profit.

>

> If someone thinks that propaganda or opinion manipulation isn't already in effect, boy.... I've got some news... Heck all the negative press on Article 13 is exactly that!

> Finally, if anyone thinks that there's a "slippery slope" required to control and restrict the internet, they need to, idk look up, like China, and other places like that...

> This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

 

Agreed! It's just too bad how much this will favor mega corporations. An infraction for a struggling solo developer of a platform would be devastating, whereas an Amazon or Google has teams of the best copyright lawyers around and the finances to back them. On the other hand though, that broke indie dev was probably "primarily profiting" (although breaking even can be a miracle for Indies) so his users should def be protected from him. Wonder what the chances are that this will actually put a dent into the biggest offenders like YT? ?

[Danikat.8537]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

 

A lot of people know copyright laws exist but really don't understand them.

 

I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to people at work that "in the public domain" is not the same as publicly available and that being able to find an image in a Google search and copy or save it does _not_ mean it's legal to use it. And no, it doesn't matter if you got it from a very similar website using it in the same context and no that's not what 'fair use' means and it doesn't matter if you think the creator wouldn't mind...and so on.

 

Copyright is confusing, especially online. A lot of people, even those familiar with computers and the internet, really struggle to understand that digital media is still a product and that it can be owned and sold and stolen.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

>

> A lot of people know copyright laws exist but really don't understand them.

>

> I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to people at work that "in the public domain" is not the same as publicly available and that being able to find an image in a Google search and copy or save it does _not_ mean it's legal to use it. And no, it doesn't matter if you got it from a very similar website using it in the same context and no that's not what 'fair use' means and it doesn't matter if you think the creator wouldn't mind...and so on.

>

> Copyright is confusing, especially online. A lot of people, even those familiar with computers and the internet, really struggle to understand that digital media is still a product and that it can be owned and sold and stolen.

 

LOL

What i love is when people use images from shutterstock with the watermarks on them... It's like someone wearing a sticker on a stolen car with the real owner's name!

Yeah, and thankfully Article 13 will make sure that it isn't the less informed user that pays the penalty for his lack of understanding, but the platforms.

> @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > > > > > .

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

> > > > >

> > > > > And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

> > > >

> > > > It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

> > > > Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

> > > > But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

> > >

> > > Wasn't being sarcastic btw! I think we really do need countries to band together to be able to one day fully protect everyone on the internet, that can only happen with the introduction and proliferation of these kinds of laws. Anyone that thinks this introduces a slippery slope or provides precedent for more and more government control/intervention of a medium like the internet is just plain paranoid and misinformed! This will be safer for everyone in the long run.

> >

> > Cool! Well, in regards to this last non-sarcastic post, i'll just put a few things forward:

> > This directive, changes NOTHING in terms of censorship or content control and manipulation as far as the final user is concerned, in fact it improves that experience, because until this law if you posted something owned by someone else, you were liable for that, now it's the platforms that are liable. This is the crux of Article 13. It effectively puts responsibility onto the shoulders of the party that profits the most from the content, because, right now content creators have all the risk, but only a marginal profit, in some cases, no profit.

> >

> > If someone thinks that propaganda or opinion manipulation isn't already in effect, boy.... I've got some news... Heck all the negative press on Article 13 is exactly that!

> > Finally, if anyone thinks that there's a "slippery slope" required to control and restrict the internet, they need to, idk look up, like China, and other places like that...

> > This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

>

> Agreed! It's just too bad how much this will favor mega corporations.

Not really! The directive is actually designed to shift the onus onto the corporations.

> An infraction for a struggling solo developer of a platform would be devastating,

Small platforms are excluded from the directive...

> whereas an Amazon or Google has teams of the best copyright lawyers around and the finances to back them.

So what? If they own the copyright they own it, if they don't, no amount of litigation will change that. Same thing with fair use, which under the latest review i read was explicitly exempt. Which means that there isn't much room for litigation.

Copyright law isn't new, these littigations happen all the time, including now.

In fact now, copyright owners are granted full power by google. Actually not even copyright owners, but companies that are created only for rights management. Just like the case of a youtuber that asked permission from Lucas Films to do a fan film of Darth Vader, he was forbidden to monetize it or finance it through crowdfunding. He created the content himself, although with likenesses and terms that are copyright and trademarks of Lucas, who authorized it. It also featured a musical score that was composed for that film by a guy the youtuber hired. BUT, to give it some meaning, it had the "Darth Vader theme" which is basically the most well known notes of the Imperial March, kind of like on GuildWars, they always put the "guild wars theme" into most music of the soundtrack.

Because it had those few notes on the soundtrack, which play for like 3 seconds of the, i think like 15 minute video, the company that manages music digital rights for disney put a copyright claim on the video and monetized it for themselves.

All this was happening with Lucas Film saying that they didn't want that, and the guy could do the video, and it took pressure from Lucas Film for the copyright to be taken down.

 

And this is just one example on a sea of copyright claims that happen everyday on youtube without barely any recourse from the youtubers, because they can't take it to court, and the arbitration system that google has in place basically relies on the goodwill of the copyright owners, who more often than not will jump at the chance of milking a few dollars from a youtuber's work.

With Article 13, there's at least a law that says that users must have an impartial venue of recourse. Whether it happens or not, is less a problem of the directive, but of each countrie's implementation of that article.

 

>On the other hand though, that broke indie dev was probably "primarily profiting" (although breaking even can be a miracle for Indies) so his users should def be protected from him. Wonder what the chances are that this will actually put a dent into the biggest offenders like YT? ?

It seems you don't really understand either the issue, the law, or the context. So i'll stop answering your "non-sarcastic" posts, and urge you to, maybe, if you're that interested, read the law, and read up on what's happening to youtubers when they get copyright claims.

 

[Elrond.9486]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > @"Danikat.8537" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

> >

> > A lot of people know copyright laws exist but really don't understand them.

> >

> > I can't count the number of times I've had to explain to people at work that "in the public domain" is not the same as publicly available and that being able to find an image in a Google search and copy or save it does _not_ mean it's legal to use it. And no, it doesn't matter if you got it from a very similar website using it in the same context and no that's not what 'fair use' means and it doesn't matter if you think the creator wouldn't mind...and so on.

> >

> > Copyright is confusing, especially online. A lot of people, even those familiar with computers and the internet, really struggle to understand that digital media is still a product and that it can be owned and sold and stolen.

>

> LOL

> What i love is when people use images from shutterstock with the watermarks on them... It's like someone wearing a sticker on a stolen car with the real owner's name!

> Yeah, and thankfully Article 13 will make sure that it isn't the less informed user that pays the penalty for his lack of understanding, but the platforms.

> > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > > > > > @"Elrond.9486" said:

> > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:.

> > > > > > > .

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think i've not read the latest revision, but the one i read also dictated that content must be reviewed by a human before being taken down. So, filters are not enough, someone with training must decide if it's fair use or not. They can still flag it with filters, but they need manual review before taking down.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And I'll bet those humans will be 100% trained and impartial, can't wait!

> > > > >

> > > > > It'll be magnitudes better than what's happening currently, that's for sure. Where there's neither humans, and when humans are involved it's never impartial, and if a content creator loses an appeal he gets a copyright strike, which after 3 you lose your channel. Which is basically a rule meant to dissuade appeals.

> > > > > Article 13 has provisions to reduce this from happening.

> > > > > But i guess misinformed people would prefer no change to a small improvement, because it isn't perfect.

> > > >

> > > > Wasn't being sarcastic btw! I think we really do need countries to band together to be able to one day fully protect everyone on the internet, that can only happen with the introduction and proliferation of these kinds of laws. Anyone that thinks this introduces a slippery slope or provides precedent for more and more government control/intervention of a medium like the internet is just plain paranoid and misinformed! This will be safer for everyone in the long run.

> > >

> > > Cool! Well, in regards to this last non-sarcastic post, i'll just put a few things forward:

> > > This directive, changes NOTHING in terms of censorship or content control and manipulation as far as the final user is concerned, in fact it improves that experience, because until this law if you posted something owned by someone else, you were liable for that, now it's the platforms that are liable. This is the crux of Article 13. It effectively puts responsibility onto the shoulders of the party that profits the most from the content, because, right now content creators have all the risk, but only a marginal profit, in some cases, no profit.

> > >

> > > If someone thinks that propaganda or opinion manipulation isn't already in effect, boy.... I've got some news... Heck all the negative press on Article 13 is exactly that!

> > > Finally, if anyone thinks that there's a "slippery slope" required to control and restrict the internet, they need to, idk look up, like China, and other places like that...

> > > This directive isn't about protecting anyone's safety, it's about updating copyright law to current technology... And if people just now found out copyright law exists... Well, bad news!

> >

> > Agreed! It's just too bad how much this will favor mega corporations.

> Not really! The directive is actually designed to shift the onus onto the corporations.

> > An infraction for a struggling solo developer of a platform would be devastating,

> Small platforms are excluded from the directive...

> > whereas an Amazon or Google has teams of the best copyright lawyers around and the finances to back them.

> So what? If they own the copyright they own it, if they don't, no amount of litigation will change that. Same thing with fair use, which under the latest review i read was explicitly exempt. Which means that there isn't much room for litigation.

> Copyright law isn't new, these littigations happen all the time, including now.

> In fact now, copyright owners are granted full power by google. Actually not even copyright owners, but companies that are created only for rights management. Just like the case of a youtuber that asked permission from Lucas Films to do a fan film of Darth Vader, he was forbidden to monetize it or finance it through crowdfunding. He created the content himself, although with likenesses and terms that are copyright and trademarks of Lucas, who authorized it. It also featured a musical score that was composed for that film by a guy the youtuber hired. BUT, to give it some meaning, it had the "Darth Vader theme" which is basically the most well known notes of the Imperial March, kind of like on GuildWars, they always put the "guild wars theme" into most music of the soundtrack.

> Because it had those few notes on the soundtrack, which play for like 3 seconds of the, i think like 15 minute video, the company that manages music digital rights for disney put a copyright claim on the video and monetized it for themselves.

> All this was happening with Lucas Film saying that they didn't want that, and the guy could do the video, and it took pressure from Lucas Film for the copyright to be taken down.

>

> And this is just one example on a sea of copyright claims that happen everyday on youtube without barely any recourse from the youtubers, because they can't take it to court, and the arbitration system that google has in place basically relies on the goodwill of the copyright owners, who more often than not will jump at the chance of milking a few dollars from a youtuber's work.

> With Article 13, there's at least a law that says that users must have an impartial venue of recourse. Whether it happens or not, is less a problem of the directive, but of each countrie's implementation of that article.

>

> >On the other hand though, that broke indie dev was probably "primarily profiting" (although breaking even can be a miracle for Indies) so his users should def be protected from him. Wonder what the chances are that this will actually put a dent into the biggest offenders like YT? ?

> It seems you don't really understand either the issue, the law, or the context. So i'll stop answering your "non-sarcastic" posts, and urge you to, maybe, if you're that interested, read the law, and read up on what's happening to youtubers when they get copyright claims.

>

 

The type, age (of service), and amount of overall content seem to be what puts a company under this jurisdiction. And the point of that example is that there will not be equal resources to prepare for and then deal with the consequences. The small amount of pertinent text in the article is somewhat vague and short on specifics. The point is that some single point of failure deciding who is and isn't breaking some internet law doesn't seem like a good precedent to set. Bc if it's no longer the user's responsibility to not upload copyrighted material, you know they intentionally will try to break the filter and watch the platform face the consequences. Them saying that it'll be "case-by-case" is probably to show some kind of good intentions, but it really just opens it up to interpretation and misinterpretation. Which I think is the biggest weakness here. Good luck if you juuussst crossed the line into whatever arbitrary jurisdiction and don't have your filter implemented yet. Especially since the article literally says that once you're available for them to target:

 

> "irrespective of whether the best efforts were made and regardless of whether right holders have made available the necessary information in advance, the online content sharing service providers should be liable.."

 

You really don't see any openings for abuse there?

[Tiviana.2650]

Welp i wonder what will happen to twitter now. All those retweets do you have to get permission every time you retweet something? This will be a nightmare, as governments start to control the internet.

[Pirogen.9561]

> @"Tiviana.2650" said:

> Welp i wonder what will happen to twitter now. All those retweets do you have to get permission every time you retweet something? This will be a nightmare, as governments start to control the internet.

 

Is tweet under copyright? Yes.

https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_faq_post/tweet-protected-copyright/

 

Somewhere in the middle it says:

"... Based on this language, other twitter users are also licensed to copy and redistribute your posts by “retweeting” them. "..

 

Not a lwayer, so don't know if that stands in court.