5 ms·

Well, to be fair, the judge in the dissenting position (1/5) freed the 3 retweeters from blame because they did not cut off the photographer's name, but rather

Well, to be fair, the judge in the dissenting position (1/5) freed the 3 retweeters from blame because they did not cut off the photographer's name, but rather Twitter did in order to fit the aspect ratio displayed within the application. I'm still confused though after reading the article.

gruez 6y ago
>but rather Twitter did in order to fit the aspect ratio displayed within the application. This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it. Besides, I doubt anyone who cared about the image is going to be content looking at the low-res thumbnail. The reputational damage done to the photographer is negligible. Punishing the retweeters is also problematic because they themselves didn't crop the picture, twitter did. What does this mean for cropping that's done by the user-agent, or is otherwise device specific? eg. you post on the desktop site, where nothing is cropped, so you think everything is okay. Little do you know on the mobile site, all the images get cropped. Are you now liable as well?
- dylan604 6y ago
  Sounds more like the reputational damage is to the court system allowing this to occur.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- darren_ 6y ago
  > This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. The latter question comes down to how feasible it is for a person tweeting to know how their tweets are going to look on the main timeline w/regard to attribution, which seems like something it’s reasonable for a court to decide.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    what's bonkers is wanting to punish users for something they didn't do. judges not understanding technology strikes again.
    - aspaceman 6y ago
      I believe this decision punishes Twitter - not the users.
      - em-bee 6y ago
        to punish twitter they wouldn't need the identities of the retweeters. the only use for knowing the retweeters is to haul them into court.
        roblabla 6y ago
        To be fair, they could be asking for the identities in order to summon them as witnesses against twitter. I don't hold much faith that this is the intention though...
        em-bee 6y ago
        the thought crossed my mind, but wouldn't you do that after you sue in the discovery step?
  - gruez 6y ago
    >This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. >Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Does it mean that any sort of action needed to see the attribution constitutes "hiding" it, opening you to liability? What if the image was too big and I have to scroll down to see the attribution? What's the difference between having to click on a thumbnail to see an attribution, and having to scroll down? What if the attribution is too small to see at normal zoom levels, and you have to zoom in? Unless his name was plastered all over the picture (thereby ruining it), I doubt anyone on a phone is going to be able to read the authorship information. Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image?
nradov 6y ago
Regardless of the legal issue, I sure hate it when social media services like Facebook and Strava crop my photo thumbnails to fit a certain aspect ratio. They frequently end up cropping out important parts like someone's face. I wish there was an option to not crop, and instead add white space around the image to make it fit.

gruez 6y ago

>but rather Twitter did in order to fit the aspect ratio displayed within the application. This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it. Besides, I doubt anyone who cared about the image is going to be content looking at the low-res thumbnail. The reputational damage done to the photographer is negligible. Punishing the retweeters is also problematic because they themselves didn't crop the picture, twitter did. What does this mean for cropping that's done by the user-agent, or is otherwise device specific? eg. you post on the desktop site, where nothing is cropped, so you think everything is okay. Little do you know on the mobile site, all the images get cropped. Are you now liable as well?

dylan604 6y ago
Sounds more like the reputational damage is to the court system allowing this to occur.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
darren_ 6y ago
> This is bonkers. The attribution is still there, you just have click it This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. The latter question comes down to how feasible it is for a person tweeting to know how their tweets are going to look on the main timeline w/regard to attribution, which seems like something it’s reasonable for a court to decide.
- em-bee 6y ago
  what's bonkers is wanting to punish users for something they didn't do. judges not understanding technology strikes again.
  - aspaceman 6y ago
    I believe this decision punishes Twitter - not the users.
    - em-bee 6y ago
      to punish twitter they wouldn't need the identities of the retweeters. the only use for knowing the retweeters is to haul them into court.
      - roblabla 6y ago
        To be fair, they could be asking for the identities in order to summon them as witnesses against twitter. I don't hold much faith that this is the intention though...
        em-bee 6y ago
        the thought crossed my mind, but wouldn't you do that after you sue in the discovery step?
- gruez 6y ago
  >This means, almost by definition, that the most viewed versions of these photos on twitter, probably by a very high margin, have no attribution. >Why is this bonkers? The right to attribution is clear, and it’s not your place to judge whether or not the artist should be exercising it. Does it mean that any sort of action needed to see the attribution constitutes "hiding" it, opening you to liability? What if the image was too big and I have to scroll down to see the attribution? What's the difference between having to click on a thumbnail to see an attribution, and having to scroll down? What if the attribution is too small to see at normal zoom levels, and you have to zoom in? Unless his name was plastered all over the picture (thereby ruining it), I doubt anyone on a phone is going to be able to read the authorship information. Do we need modals in front of every image with the attribution, so we know for sure that the viewer knows who created the image?

nradov 6y ago

Regardless of the legal issue, I sure hate it when social media services like Facebook and Strava crop my photo thumbnails to fit a certain aspect ratio. They frequently end up cropping out important parts like someone's face. I wish there was an option to not crop, and instead add white space around the image to make it fit.