Note: The initial response, and a follow up comment from TNI, are included in at the bottom of this post. I thank them for taking the time to chime in.
I’m a fan of Traveler’s Night In, (#TNI) a well organized weekly Twitter chat that covers a variety of travel related topics. And I’m crazy for Twitter, the 140 character chat with the world interface. I recently learned that the folks that run #TNI, the ladies behind a travel web site called Zip Set Go, had compiled their favorites from the chat sessions and self-published a book — you can buy it from their web site. I’m sure it’s funny and surprising, just like my Twitter pals.
I don’t know if I’m quoted in the book or not, though I have participated in #TNI. I like to think I can hammer out a razor sharp 140 character message with the best of them, but I know for a fact I’m not the only one blessed with the ability to create a witty rejoinder. It turns out I care if one of my remarks made the book, but not because I’m looking for validation of my wit. It’s because I care about this: Who owns the stuff I write on Twitter?
The Traveler’s Night In page has a disclaimer that states the following (emphasis mine):
* By participating in Travelers’ Night In (#TNI) weekly Twitter event, you understand that your tweets or tweeted pictures may be used in an article, recap, blog or book by ZipSetGo.com and you agree to release and authorize the use of such content without compensation (except as prohibited by law).
I had never laid eyes on this disclaimer before I learned about the book. I’ve never seen a link to it during the the #TNI chat sessions — this doesn’t mean the hosts never posted a link to the disclaimer, I don’t know if they have or not, I’ve just never seen one. I had no idea that by joining this party, I was consenting to have my contributions used for publication. See, the chat takes place on Twitter, and the disclaimer is on their site. I don’t have to log in through the Zip Set Go site to join the chat. I don’t have to visit the site to join the chat. It exists in a completely different environment than the chat. I had absolutely no idea that my contributions could be collected and resold for commercial purposes. None.
My friend Eva Holland (who’s also an editor for World Hum) contacted the #TNI crew directly. She asked if they were concerned that probably, a lot of people shared my ignorance of the #TNI disclaimer. The response she received said that it wasn’t necessary to let everyone know — content on Twitter is public according to Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS).
I’m not sure this is correct. From Twitter’s TOS page (emphasis mine):
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).
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.
The additional research I did to find out if the #TNI approach was legal was… inconclusive. Interestingly enough, ABC recently settled with a photographer who sued when they used photos he’d posted via Twitter without his permission. (Here’s the full story.) In search of an educated opinion, I contacted Susan Getgood, a specialist in ethics and disclosure. We’re still trading email as she researches the issue.
World Hum, a publication I love, runs a “Great Travel Twitter Tweets” column on a fairly regular basis — it’s a handful of 140 character travel stories culled throughout the month. I know I’ve been in that list because they’ve linked to me — but I did not receive any direct communication telling me I’d be quoted. World Hum doesn’t post photos, though — as a former blogger for World Hum, I had to check public photos to make sure they were in line with World Hum’s Creative Commons restrictions.#TNI does a series of round up posts of their favorites from the chats, those are always fun to read and they’re similar to the World Hum round up. As with the World Hum posts, I’ve never been notified in advance that I’m included on the #TNI round up.
It’s almost always flattering to be quoted and included. But something about the Traveler’s Night In book as a commercial venture is bugging me, and I can’t pin it down. Maybe I’m mad because I’m not in the book and I have sour grapes. (Again, I don’t know if I’m in the book.) Maybe, by pulling the words off the web and selling them back to me, I feel like some kind of fuzzy social contract has been broken. “Um, did you sell my stuff?” Maybe I feel taken advantage of — I had no idea that there were terms, after all, I’d never seen them during the chat — I only discovered them after the book had been mentioned on Twitter.
I love community driven efforts and the funny chatter that the web can create but I’m fairly controlling about where my work shows up. You won’t see me in a lot of popular places because I’m a terrible, terrible snob. This means I don’t get out much, not in a publishing kind of way. Also, I like to be compensated for my work, especially when it’s used for commercial purposes. In the land of fake internet currency, if I’m quoted on the World Hum or the Zip Set Go web round up, I get a link of some kind. It’s also easy, because it’s the web, to request that my work be removed should I make that choice. But if my words get locked away in a book, I get…I’m not sure what I receive in compensation. The delight of discovering I was included?
Something isn’t sitting quite right with me in this situation, and perhaps you, readers, can help me figure out if I’m just being overly territorial with my words and pictures or if there’s a genuine issue at hand here. With that in mind, I have questions, as follows:
- Do you participate in #TNI?
- Did you know that they were collecting your words and images for use in a book?
- Do you think this is a problem? If so, or if not, why?
- Have you been quoted in the online round up posts? If so, do you think this is different than being quoted in a for sale print book?
- Do you care what happens to the words you post to Twitter?
I welcome your thoughts. If you’d like to remain anonymous in your response, that’s okay — make up a name and leave the website field empty. Please use your real email though — it does not get shared and it will help me rescue you when I check the spam filters. Oh, and be nice. Anything that can be construed as a personal attack will not be approved.
From the Zip Set Go Team:
Thank you for allowing us to provide our viewpoint on your blog!
The #TNI book was never intended to upset anyone nor was it intended for financial gain. As the creators of the Travelers’ Night In #TNI twitter chat, our intent has always been to bring together avid travelers and learn about the world from each other – the book was just an extension of that idea.
Similar to the weekly recaps of #TNI that have been created by several travel bloggers, the book simply summarizes the event in a fun, easy-to-read format for those who happen to miss a week or just want to relive the discussion. The difference between print vs. internet is negligible, as significant readers have forgone hard copy reading for digital blogs, articles and books and incidentally most blogs are intended for financial gain through advertising or other revenue sources.
We did not embark on this project without a great deal of short phrase copyright law and public domain research, as well as legal advice regarding our responsibilities. In fact, we did reach out via Twitter to those who were included and received no negative feedback – most were very excited to be a part of it.
We appreciate your feedback and that of your readers and will certainly take all this into account before producing any further editions. Thank you again for posting our response!
On this response:
I think a lot of what’s stated here is irrelevant, regardless of if I agree with it or not. With regard to the relevant points, I have questions.
- If the book isn’t for financial gain, why isn’t it either free or to benefit a non-profit organization?
- It’s unclear, but the statement about reaching out to those included doesn’t say when that happened. Was that before or after the book was made available for sale?
Follow up from ZSG, pulled from the comments:
The #TNI book has been removed from publication and will not be published in the future. For the record, there were only 19 copies published and 7 of which were ordered by our team. All profit will be donated to charity. As stated earlier, the intent of the book was only to further share the fun and informative chat that #TNI has become, however this discussion has removed anything “fun” about it.
Those who seem most bothered by our actions are not even in the book and seem to be fighting for a much bigger issue over intellectual capital. That being said, we hope that all who are championing this cause find solace in winning this tiny battle you have undertaken.
Update, January 14: If you make it through all the comments, I have a sort of FAQ here in response to a few top level issues. Also, it’s come to my attention that TNI pulled the terms disclaimer from their site.
I usually participate in TNI, having missed probably only 3 since the first week. I’ve even been a co-host. While I knew about the book – I didn’t know that they were profiting from it (was under impression money went to a charity) PR that they profit from TNI every week using sponsors. Also, I don’t remember seeing the supposed disclaimer.
I have to be honest, this information does upset me. As some who is a full time freelancer and who literally depends on my photography and writing to make a living … I’m unhappy that someone else is profiting from my hard work. It may not take much time to type a single tweet. BUT – overall involvement in twitter and especially TNI (1 & 1/2 hrs each week) does add up. Someone is profiting from my time and that person isn’t me? No, it doesn’t sit well w/ me. I’m thankful you’ve brought this up Pam. It’s certainly made me think.
I’m getting in on this late, and will answer the original questions:
I have participated in #TNI. It’s fun, it’s on twitter, and I like connecting in the group.
I did not know about the disclaimer. Never saw it mentioned *anywhere*.
I don’t mind that my #TNI tweets are quoted in a post as long as my username is linked.
I’d be really pissed if I found out that my tweets were included in a commercial publication without specifically asking me first. If my images were included I’d be doubly pissed – and I’d point the ZipSetGo folks to my donate button.
Will I participate in #TNI after finding this out? Probably not.
I was one of the first cohosts and will continue(I HOPE)to be a frequent cohost during #TNI.
To the best of my knowledge, the disclaimer was not always on their website, it only appeared after they began to monetize TNI with the sale of their book and sponsorship.
To be fair to ZipSetGo, I hear the Library of Congress is compiling our tweets too.
No, I wasnt informed prior to ZipSetGo’s publication that my tweets would be included or which tweets. The only thing that I find disheartening is the statement that the book is not intended for financial gain… well,if you are charging for the book and not donating 100% to a non profit charity, it is for financial gain! Though I have my doubts that it will be much. I doubt the rights will be sold and an Oscar nominated film will be made either, but who knows?
I agree with Melvin and Willy, no, I don’t like ZipSetGo is now charging sponsors a substantial amount of money and not paying the hosts a penny who helped develop the following, reach and impressions which is basically what they are selling. They wouldnt have it to sell without cohost participation. To be truthful, I am surprised that sponsors pay more than a prize.
Why do I continue to particpate and cohost? Here I agree with Matt. I enjoy the #TNI travel chat, coming together around the world sharing information,experiences and laughs. I value the friendships I have made through TNI and twitter.I wont let what I dont like keep me from what I enjoy. At the end of the day, it is only twitter, but it is too bad some of the fun has been sucked out and it has lost participants by trying to monetize it. I am sure more participants will be lost as the word spreads too.
I dont mind being included in recaps, I usually find it a little flattering
I appreciate the link to my twitter and or website when I am quoted. -Thanks!
However, using photos without permission prior to publication is a sticking point with me, not that anyone to my knowledge has used my photos.
and by the way…I would like to clarify….
TNI didnt compile a recipe book, Tasty TwEats was a TNI inspired compilation of recipes for charitable contribution to Planeterra. All donations were made directly to Planeterra. It was an inspired by a TNI travel food chat.
@StarfishTravel and I (neither of us have any business relationship with ZipSetGo)solicited the recipes and ads from tweeps,followers and #TNI participants. Advertising donations and “sales donations” were made directly to Planeterra. No personal financial gain here. Almost $900 was donated via to help change lives around the world via http://bit.ly/ttweats for Planeterra projects worldwide.
The Library of Congress may be collecting tweets, but they aren’t profiting from them. Just like any library, they are collecting information to be used by the public free of charge. Totally different, in my opinion.
I’m so confused – has anyone seen the book? Who is in the book? (I see it’s been “pulled from the shelves” but what shelves was it on in the first place?)
And really, who *bought* one of these 19 published books of tweets? I am truly flabbergasted that someone would pay money for such a compilation. Are miscellaneous travelers’ tweets *that* interesting?!
According to the ZSG comment above, 19 copies of the book sold, 7 to the ZSG staff.
And Kara, I know you have a sharp, sharp brain, so I want to be clear — my primary issue is exactly as I titled the post — who owns your twitter noise? — and following on that, about the nature of proper disclosure. The methods used to compile the ZSG self-published book are a case study in those issues.
Surprised? People will buy anything!
I’m really weighing in on this late, but interesting comments and discussion. I’m probably one of the few freelancers that does come from a legal background (Paralegal & Claims Management for well over a decade handling civil litigation and contract law cases). I participate in TNI regularly (as often as I can) and while I never saw the disclaimer, I am sorta apathetic on the whole “book” issue.
Some interesting points have been raised – Jeremy already mentioned what I would’ve (regarding recaps). I would tell my attorney to make the same argument if we were defending a case like this – a blog that has advertisements is deemed commercial and therefore any recap done (credited or not) ultimately has the potential to produce a profit for the site owner. From ad clicks to increased traffic ranking – there are definable and measurable monetary benefits that can be realized from TNI recaps (Please note, I have been included in recaps numerous times and have no issues – I enjoy reading them – I am just pointing out a hypothetical argument).
Twitter’s TOS or TNI disclaimer – anyone can write anything until it is challenged in court. Now that tweets are actually being indexed into Google – does that change anything? In regards to the disclaimer – not sure when it was posted, but I am sure there’s an argument to be made that it can’t be retroactive. I would think any Tweets posted prior to the disclaimer would not apply and could not be used.
Since online freelancers are fighting to be recognized and treated the same as print writers, making the argument that online and print mediums are different could come across as hypocritical. (Not say it is, just playing devil’s advocate).
Photos being used without permission could be an issue. Any photo I post on Twitter is usually 600 px only and rarely edited in photoshop. The photos I use for my articles and blogs are the high mp and clean copies. I don’t post anything decent online that isn’t watermarked.
I don’t know the exact case, but there was a discussion a year or so ago about proper citing and quotes. I believe (not 100% sure) it is 50 words can be quoted or used and cited back to the main source (hence why many online publications may allow 50 words to be used and then linked back), but if it is 50 words, an entire Tweet is less than that. I think someone could try to argue that by quoting or citing back to the Twitter user, it’s no different than citing a source for a quote in a paper. You wouldn’t write to each publication you cite in an article, would you?
In the end, I don’t think ZipSetGo meant any harm or did this with the intent of getting rich off our Tweets. The online world is still a slippery one and it’s evolving faster than the law can keep up. (An ambiguous law was passed in CA a number of years back and it took 5 years before it made it to the appeals court for clarification). Despite what many people believe, copyright law is not black and white and it’s one of the law courses that made my head spin in school.
Please do not think I am in favor of scraping, stealing, copying or whatever – for every 8 hours I spend writing, I spend another 4 trying to report my lifted content. I write for several publications that require 1 yr exclusive rights and of course, those are the articles stolen most often. (Doesn’t it figure).
I’ll just end this by saying that the whole thing could’ve been handled differently – perhaps in a way that was beneficial to those who were quoted in the book. Many bloggers do guest posts for exposure versus monetary gain, so had there been a little blurb about the users since it was in print and therefore not “clickable.” I agree that asking permission first would’ve been the best route, but unfortunately, what’s done is done. The book has been removed so it’s somewhat of a moot point, but definitely an interesting post to ponder going forward. Nice job.
I think Pam hits it on the nail with just a few points: We use Twitter according to THEIR TOS, not anyone else’s. No one can “own” a hashtag on Twitter.
Now, a roundup of interesting Tweets or republishing them on your own blog is not completely out of order (and one should be able to opt-out) but the users *never* give up their copyright nor the right to compensation without explicit, written permission.
These suppositions & interpretation of copyright are the offending matter, not that a book is being printed for profit. Ask for permission, explain compensation (or lack thereof) and allow content copyright owners to decide for themselves.
Badly done.
Wow Pam you certainly hit on popular topic
I guess I should wade in as I’m co-hosting #TNI next week and was very very excited before all this blew up. Unlike Gary I don’t feel like a cut and paste machine. I think there is a benefit to hosting and participating for everyone…depending on how pithy your tweets are.
I have participated off and on whenever I am “in.” I am also apparently in the book. I have no problem with someone using my tweets in a book. Using my tweets however they want. I was annoyed that I was told after the book was finished. I was also annoyed that I felt I had to buy the book to find what was quoted. To be fair I never raised my concerns nor asked how I was quoted.
Part of the reason I am not upset is because I figured no one would buy the book. I know I’m taking the easy moral judgment road out of this. My blog was recently linked to in a Japan book without my permission. I wasn’t upset with this either because the credit still is being given to me. I’m not getting paid but I still receive social credit and publicity. In print publicity might be out of favor with us bloggers but it is still nice, relevant and worth something.
I am still going to co-host #TNI next week (unless this response gets me kicked off
and hope that the rules get changed. Either way I love the community and am willing to allow people to learn from their mistakes.
I’ve just sold the concept of TNI to other social media sites! Now I’m off to a world around trip! lol I repeat: LOL It’s just a joke!
@Todd – will you still host if the rules don’t change, then?
@Melvin, please use some of that money to stop by Kosovo and buy me a beer
@Abi, yes I am still co-hosting. I told them I would host, I approached them and asked them if I could host, and regardless of what has happened over the past few days I gave my word and I plan to stick to it. Some people may think my “brand” is better served by pulling out.
For me my brand is only as good as long as people trust me and my judgement. I committed to something and I will follow through with it. However, I am thinking very very hard about what this means to me. Like Ronni I was able to look past the book issue, and them earning money from #TNI.
I am more bothered by the their response to the drama. But I still need to decide what this means for me and my blog. There is still value in #TNI, BUT I also think they should be sweating possible legal action. I would be. Morally, I moved past them not asking my permission to be in the book. Just because others suddenly have a problem doesn’t mean that I will change my stance to meet the masses. But I do think they misjudged their audience. They assumed it was the sponsors when in fact it was the community that participated. Not understanding the needs, desires and wants of your audience is a sure fire way of loosing them.
My biggest problem with reactions to this has been that people go with the “everyone makes mistakes” model.
I have not seen anything that makes it clear that they feel like ZipSetGo made mistakes.
They seem resentful of criticism and unwilling to take it seriously.
Hi Roni, I may be splitting hairs but I did say “[I} am willing to allow people to learn from their mistakes.” Like I said, I also did not like their reaction and it is what bothered me the most. But I have no idea what a learning from their mistakes would look like in a public forum. A blanket apology message like all the celebs?
I clearly said I’m willing to give them time to learn from their mistakes. Not that, oh well, every makes mistakes so who cares. Time will tell I guess. But I suspect it will be personal learning and won’t make it onto the internet (at least for me to be able to judge.
By the way, I did host last night, and I did have fun, and I did make new friends. But i won’t do it again and instead will promote the more open model with #TTT
Hey Pam, is it cool with you if I take your last 12 months worth of twitter posts and compile them into a book to sell on our website? …Oh, geez, why do I even bother asking — they’re on the web so of course I have the right to do that!
(See how freaky it would be if they just published one person’s tweets?)
Anywhoo.
I participated in something on Twitter called “Six Word Memoirs” put on by Smith Magazine (and published by Harper Perennial) a year or two ago and it was chosen to be included in their book compilation.
When it was chosen I received an email linking to a personalized page asking for my consent for them to have non-exclusive rights to publish my tweet. They did not pay, but provided a link from Smith Mag’s website to all who were published and a free copy of the book.
Sure enough when the book was published, I received a copy in the mail along with a schedule of readings and was invited to read at them if available. They gave the link just like they said they would, and the book is well done.
They took all that action/precaution/permission-asking to publish ONE of my tweets. (And the same action/precaution/permission-asking for every other single tweet they published.)
That is a much better example of how to handle this sort of circumstance in my opinion.
Uh, actually, it’s NOT okay, but thank you for asking.
Too bad. I did it anyways. You can find your tweets next month for 79.99. It’s my new ebook. Buy it!
Pam,
Thank you thank you for this post. I had the same sinking feeling when I heard that the TNI book had been published. And, while I have enjoyed being included in many a #TNI round-up on various sites, I’m starting to wonder…”what’s in it for me?” The way you so eloquently and succinctly explained the situation has me rethinking my participation in #TNI altogether.
Thanks, again.
Melanie
Um…it would have been easy to see this as an oversight or misunderstanding until I read the ZipSetGo comments!
In answer to the original questions:
1) Yes – and I hosted it once.
2) No, no idea
3)Yes, I care. I make my living through my words and photos. This IS part of a bigger issue. ZipSetGo are influential – here’s a great opportunity for them to set the record straight about intellectual property (and educate a number of online content managers while they’re at it.) Is that their responsibility? Of course not. It would just be a good thing to come out of all of this…
So, come on ZipSetGo! Here’s your chance to mend bridges, improve the way the internet works and emerge even stronger than before.
People have already covered so many points here that there’s not much left to add. I don’t really understand, though, how you can trademark a hashtag. Say ZipSetGo are lying in a dark room with a migraine after all this and don’t want to do it any more…people can still use #TNI, can’t they? Or am I missing something.
This makes me sad. I have participated in TNI for months because it’s fun. Not so much now. It is out of integrity to make money off someone else without letting them know. I read here that the sponsorships are costly. Why are we helping someone else make money without being informed or agreeing? The fun is our of it for me.
And the book. You need a signed release from someone to use their work. A disclaimer is worthless. It has to be legal and to be held to one, the person issuing it needs you to at least check that you agree to terms of service.
I would love to see someone, and I would be willing to help, start a just-for-fun travel chat with maybe some prizes as the cost of sponsorship. And it was for fun- make that fun and profit. If it’s fun offer it as free down-load or give 100% of the profit to charity as the TNI Cookbook did. The only effort for this now controversial TNI Tweet book is the editing- the book itself was written by the Tweeters.
Glad I got this off my chest.
Just for clarification on the recipe book thing: Please read this.
From 2nd ZSG response above:
“Those who seem most bothered by our actions are not even in the book….we hope that all who are championing this cause find solace in winning this tiny battle you have undertaken.”
If that isn’t an “eff all y’all” response, I don’t know what is.
Editor: Trimmed, Sheila, I’m sorry. First line? Critique of the response. Meets the bar. Line I cut? Mmmm, gray area. Thanks for understanding.
No problem, Pam. Just trying to say that the feeling was mutual.
RE: the Library of Congress: I do not mind that the Library of Congress is keeping its own database of tweets. I think they are doing it for historical purposes and I don’t have a problem with that.
Does Twitter have a position on this? It would be interesting to get their take on things.
I’m really late to the conversation, but as a regular participant and previous host I have to join in…
Like most people who’ve commented here, I had no idea that the ZipSetGo crew were using tweets from #TNI nights for a book which they were then profiting from without (essentially) letting those included in the book know. And like most people who’ve commented here, I definitely have a problem with it. So before I got to ZipSetGo’s comment stating that they wouldn’t be publishing it any more, I decided that if I was ever going to take part in TNI again, it would be via my website’s twitter handle, rather than my own personal one. I thought to myself if they were benefitting from my tweets in a book, I might as well benefit too and get my website’s logo and most of the url in a book for free.
I’ve always really enjoyed #TNI, and have been regularly taking it part in it for a long time now. I love meeting new travellers on a weekly basis, and overall find it a fun way to talk about your travels for 90 minutes every Thursday night (I’m based in Ireland, 5 hours ahead of most of you guys). I’ve also hosted it a couple of times under my website’s twitter handle, have promoted my website’s blog, and was asked to sponsor it twice. I decided against sponsoring as I didn’t feel the ROI would be worth it. I don’t see any problem with them looking for sponsors though. Most people are out to make a buck at the end of the day, be it by banner ads, affiliate partnerships etc, so don’t’ see why they shouldn’t try to make money through sponsorship, unlike the book which isn’t right at all.
By far the thing that baffles me the most about this whole affair is that the ZipSetGo crew thought that their disclaimer (which hardly anybody seems to have seen) was worth anything, taking into account that you don’t need to physically (or virtually?!) agree to it take part in TNI. I mean actually tick a box agreeing to Ts+Cs before being able to join in. I also agree with Dave from the Longest Way Home in that by pulling the book from publication and donating all proceeds to charity, they’re making themselves look guilty as hell. Like they’ve just been caught red handed doing something they shouldn’t have. Personally, I would’ve liked to have seen the book. Wish they decided to make it free rather than stop publishing it altogether.
Will I take place in TNI again? Probably, although not tonight. Funnily enough it just started 45 minutes ago (albeit by accident), but will resume again in 25. I think the book itself was a cool idea – just selling it isn’t. Shame they didn’t decide to make it free.
1. Do you participate in #TNI? No
2. Did you know that they were collecting your words and images for use in a book? No
3. Do you think this is a problem? If so, or if not, why? No, see below.
4. Have you been quoted in the online round up posts? If so, do you think this is different than being quoted in a for sale print book? No
5. Do you care what happens to the words you post to Twitter? Yes. I’ve always in mind what I tweet will be there (somewhere) for eaternity. So I let many 3 second instances pass without a tweet.
Now let me elaborate a bit. I have lurked at this post when there were only 20 or so comments, was distracted subsequently and was mulling over a reaction.
1) My first reaction is. Why are you making such an issue out of this? I have a feeling on your side of the pond not asking permission to publicise is more of an insult than a prerequisite. On my side of the pond, at least the Continental side, I have a feeling it is much less of an issue. Being polite seems more important than the commercial implications.
2) If you don’t want to be abused, don’t be on the World Wide Web. Same with uploading photos. Once I had a request for the use of one of my Vienna Cake photos (one of those, Pam, you might remember)for some inflight glossy, but had to accept Californian law in the release form, so I didn’t sign that and the photo wasn’t published.. For a Dutch newspaper I gave permission to publish with credit and they forgot the credit (which they repared after I reminder them)
3) Now that I read their answer, I wonder why they didn’t simply produce and e-book…
4) My concern is more the abuse for instance Google makes from scraping al sort of content from all over the WWW without getting any permission only to “enhance the search experience of you and me”…on the other hand if your government feels about it, it will weigh down on Google and make it dissappear….like the Twitter subpoena in the Wikileaks matter….
5) Good to see you hitting a nail on the head Pam.
I really liked this from Melvin “Is it OK that TNI got paid by sponsors? The community who gave the success to the event? Is it ZipSetGo with a great idea or the people taking part in it? Is it the Twitter team or is it the people using Twitter?”
All these are fundamental elements, as if it were a value chain in benefit of the community. Remove any element and the community loses. I don’t think it’s so much about the book, selling it could have been justified as covering the costs of putting it together in the first place. The book may have well been a step onwards for community building – what is the price of not having it published and going around? I believe that pulling the project off is not a wise decision. As someone who’s missed out on 99% of TNI events, buying a copy perhaps would have been a good way to participate on my own terms – as long as the book captured the essence of what the community is worth (meeting, exchanging and knowing). Scrapping content and monetizing content is decidedly tricky, and I think that the community eventually should have a bigger say as to how it gets to live on, but then again who’s running the show anyway? This discussion Pam, shouldn’t be about the book and the legal terms behind the tweets as it would equally be an error for the TNI girls to dismiss the discussion as a cause not worth being championed. Who’s show is it anyways?
[...] came to my attention that illustrates this beautifully and brings up a whole slew of new questions. You can read the full post here but the nutshelled version [...]
I actually recall seeing a tweet a while back about the book saying I was included. I responded to that tweet asking what of my tweets was included. NO response. Never heard a word before, during or after the book was published. That alone makes it a shady business if you ask me. Throw in the violation of Twitter’s TOS as well as the Creative Commons Copyright, and it becomes a bigger problem. Maybe I didn’t spend hours crafting my words, but they are still MY words.
I think this all goes back to what you’ve touched on ever and over again, Pam: intellectual property rights on the Internet. It’s tricky ground, isn’t it?
Almost a year ago, I posted a couple photos on my blog from a trip to Rwanda while I was on the road. Huffington Post pulled a couple of them and reposted without my permission. Then Refinery 29, Blackbook mag and several other websites reblogged from them. They all gave proper credit and linked back to my blog, so I didn’t really think a thing about it and let it slide.
THEN a few days later I got an em from a friend who reads Perez Hilton’s site. He had posted my same photos without so much as asking me or giving me credit. I contacted his copyright department and told them they better either add my name or take it down entirely or they’d be hearing from my lawyer. The next day, my name was up.
But should I have been OK with the others doing it without my consent? is the bigger question. I guess at the time I was doing it for the linkbacks, but bottom line, it was a topic these sites knew would drive traffic, they knew people would click on the headline so they WERE doing it for financial gain and I hardly even got a spike in my own Web traffic as compensation. (The only $$$ I got out of it was when the Toronto Globe + Mail contacted me to reprint the photo and paid me for the right.)
But where do you draw the line? As a journalist of 10 years who also has a blog, I’m finding this new online landscape terribly difficult to navigate.
To answer your first question Pam, I do. I own my internet noise. Thank you for asking.
[...] think that’s it. Comments are open here, until such time as I see fit to close them. Thanks for maintaining a civil tone, staying on topic, [...]
I’m very late to the conversation but I can see why folks are bothered by the omission from ZipSetGo. As Kim Mance described there was a much more professional, ethical and courteous way to handle this.
Even Facebook has declared with their New Profile that the content we put up is ours and we can take it down (some of it or all of it) if we want to.
But when sites like HuffPost rely on unpaid writers, swipe copyrighted photos, and mills like Demand Media pay slave wages, the bar is lowered for all of us – on both sides.
What I don’t approve of is not disclosing the fees paid for sponsorships. That’s a lack of transparency that the community had a right to know about. As well as any paid tweets by individual bloggers. Both may even become something the FTC may want to look into.
Whenever money surreptitiously enters the picture, it ruins everything.
TNI is not a good program. Very frequently untruthful in their messages.
I am so baffled by this. Even if everyone involved had seen the disclaimer, isn’t the disclaimer still a load of crap? Or can I just write up a disclaimer claiming rights to publish certain content posted on Twitter, and poof! Those rights would be mine because I said so?
In that case, I hereby claim the right to publish anything posted on Twitter in my upcoming book, tentatively titled “Cool stuff I found on Twitter.” I’ll let you know when it’s for sale.
I have never participated in TNI but I’ve been aware of its existence (but not of the people behind it) for a while now. I thought it seemed kind of interesting, and hoped to participate some day. Now? I’m pretty turned off.
Pam, I found out about this 2 hours before #TNI and tweeted to say that I wouldn’t be taking part until they removed their small print. They did and I took part.
The issue has opened a can of worms as far as I can see, as ZSG were not the only ones using third party tweets in blog posts. Then we come to another issue. These few words I post here. Are they now owned by you?
I think this is a great question. I don’t know the answer from a legal standpoint, but I can tell you that I would ask you were I to use this in any context outside this blog.
1. Do you participate in #TNI?
occasionally
2. Did you know that they were collecting your words and images for use in a book?
kind of suspected it (words). images, did not know.
3. Do you think this is a problem? If so, or if not, why?
on the fence. I figure anything on Twitter (not just #tni) is public domain.
4. Have you been quoted in the online round up posts? If so, do you think this is different than being quoted in a for sale print book?
Yes, I believe so (round up). Yes, different.
5. Do you care what happens to the words you post to Twitter?
Definitely care. I consider it public domain so I think before I tweet (usually).
This is wrong. It’s not even the fact that they’ve secretly collated all the tweets; but the fact that they never (to my knowledge) brought it up during the weekly #TNI event.
“Hey guys, before we kick this off, we’re thinking of collating and publishing a book of your tweets — what do you think?”
Wouldn’t that have been nice? People could have opted in or out.
It reminds me of those Celebrity Sex Tapes all of my friends have seen. Where the celebs are up in arms (pun intended) about their casual hobbies being exploited. Everyone benefits, but there’s something quite cheap and nasty about it.
If I had ever contributed (which I gladly haven’t), I would be invoicing #TNI right about now for my freelance services.
I believe in the USA you’re governed by some FSA (?) rules whereby you have to be overtly honest about your financial dealings with regards advertising on your blogs etc.; perhaps they should add a paragraph.
It’s the FTC, that’s who governs this stuff. TNI claims that they did their homework on the legal part, I’m inclined to take that statement as a fact. And there are two different questions here: Was this legal? And was it right?
The very fact that they even had to do any homework on the legalities, should have told them it was going to annoy a lot of people.
Hey Pam– just wanted to respond to your Q2-”If you don’t want your stuff splattered all over the place, why do you put it on the web?- I feel like this is the digital equivalent of “she was asking for it.”
I think there is a difference between acknowledging a situation and condoning it. I understand your position that content ownership should be respected. Placing content on the web is not an invitation to a free-for-all content grab. We don’t ask for it, we don’t encourage it, it’s just a fact that “looting” can happen. You don’t place content you value on Facebook because their changing policies make you wary. I think everyone needs to consider the conditions and context in which they place content on the web– “Be aware of your surroundings” is something women are told to help avoid rape too.
You know, Marcy, you are really smart and I appreciate the ways you have helped me think differently about the web, not just here, but in other conversations we’ve had too. I’m really thankful for that.
I think you have a point — and I think going forward, I will probably think differently about the virtual neighborhoods where I’m posting my digital stuff. Facebook has always seemed like Kandahar to me, you gotta wear a flak jacket there. I never thought of Twitter as a bad neighborhood, and certainly not under the auspices of TNI, but it turns out there’s a little Phnom Pehn about it — I loved Phnom Pehn, but at the same time, grappled every day with the exploitation I saw.
I’m still learning, and I’m learning some really good things from you. Thank you.
Eeeewww. I can see what some other commenters mean when they say they feel ‘violated.’ It’s a strong word, but for something that’s presented as a quasi-social interaction to be sold for profit without properly warning and consulting with the people involved… it’s kind of weird. As the TNI ladies say, they may have checked out the legality, but maybe this is one of those cases where legality and morality don’t completely mesh. If you were invited to a weekly meet-up in a pub (sorry, bar) of like-minded women and your conversations were taped, transcribed and flogged, and you only found out about it afterwards, how would you feel? Possibly not thrilled. Ick.
You know, and keeping in mind the non-apology posted midway through the comments above, it takes just as long to delete the terms off a webpage as it does to add a couple of lines outlining an apology to the people who made what TNI became.
I think it says a tremendous amount about the organisers’ attitude to this whole thing that only the deletion was made.
Yes, I think it should be made clear to folk providing quotes that they might make it into print. Unless you’re a tabloid journalist. And I think this is where your unease is coming from. The move from digital to print, and from non-overt profit to overt profit, without your permission.
That said, i can see why they did it, and why they don’t necessarily understand the concern…
“Unless you’re a tabloid journalist.” Wow.
I think they should know they’re being used for PROFIT. The print thing? It’s a detail that defines the situation but isn’t the key point.
Ok, I saved all my other comments for the end. I wonder if anyone else will read thru the 140+ comments. More comments, than characters
1) Do you participate in #TNI? – Yes; even co-hosted it
2)Did you know that they were collecting your words and images for use in a book? – I didn’t. Only afterwards.
3) Do you think this is a problem? If so, or if not, why? – Right or Wrong, if I am sourced I feel much better about it.
4) Have you been quoted in the online round up posts? If so, do you think this is different than being quoted in a for sale print book? – Yes, quoted. Actually, at first I did think it was different, but is it? When I look deeper, I am being quoted for someone’s published work that they profit off? It has more similarities than I originally thought.
5) Do you care what happens to the words you post to Twitter? – I care, but I also think what we tweet, we give for people to see and I guess even use….that is the essence of twitter. What you give, comes back greater in return, right?
additional thoughts.
I can’t but notice the ‘creativity.’ I may not be comfortable with all the actions (especially photographs) but I do admire the creativity to turn travel knowledge into revenue. When I original saw the sponsorships, I thought, the sponsors are getting tremendous knowledge from us….What an opportunity. Instead of protecting, I wish I could spend more time thinking of creative ways myself… perhaps that’s a new 2011 goal. Set that artist free.
Overall, I so appreciate everyone’s comments and insights… and of course the Pam for stirring this conversation. This was a hour well spent.
stay adventurous, Craig
I’ve participated in a few #TNI’s and did not know my tweets could be used in a book (I can’t say if I’m in the book or not). I think a lot of this debate could’ve been solved by simple manners. Directly tweeting those people that they wanted to include in their book and asking them permission. I’m sure if permission had been asked, many people would’ve said yes, assuming they were being credited properly. I know I’ve been in at least one #TNI roundup, but that doesn’t bother me as much. Perhaps because a book you have to buy directly to read. Whereas a blog is free, although money can be made from advertisers. It’s a tricky debate, one that doesn’t have any easy answers. But I’m glad this post has got people talking about it; discussion is always a good thing.
[...] the website). Pam Mendel was not comfortable with this potential use of her tweets and wrote an entry about it on her blog. The response was immediate and [...]