Fair Use of Publishing a Screenshot of a Facebook Post

[yankees98a]

CA,
Is posting a screenshot of a facebook conversation on a facebook page legal?

In this case it was a conversation on someone's facebook page of a plot to take unbecoming/bad pictures of someone. I posted a screen shot excerpt of the posts on a website with an article to criticize this practice. I believe it's legal under fair use standard but want to confirm.

 

[LdiJ]

CA,
Is posting a screenshot of a facebook conversation on a facebook page legal?

In this case it was a conversation on someone's facebook page of a plot to take unbecoming/bad pictures of someone. I posted a screen shot excerpt of the posts on a website with an article to criticize this practice. I believe it's legal under fair use standard but want to confirm.

Was the page public or friends only? If it was friends only, then at a minimum you violated the Facebook TOS. Taking something that was private and publishing it for the whole world to see also might be a crime in some states.

 

[quincy]

Actually, you may have infringed on the rights of the copyright holder (the creator of the content).

And fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, not permission to use someone else's rights-protected material.

Whether or not your taking an excerpt of someone's Facebook writings to criticize the content would be judged a fair use of the material would be a matter for a court to decide - and a court would only hear the matter if the copyright holder takes exception to your unauthorized use and files suit against you, which is probably pretty unlikely.

But the copyright holder could potentially get the material pulled from your Facebook page with the filing of a complaint against you, and you could potentially find yourself without a Facebook page of your own.

Lotsa luck.

 

[CdwJava]

I can't think of any crime that would apply in CA.

All the more reason people should never post anything to the internet that they do not wish to be seen by the rest of the world. Even a discussion on a "private" Facebook page is seen by others, and the more that see it the more likely it is that the content of those posts will get out. Plus, it would not be unlawful at all for a party to the conversation to relate it to the rest of the world.

Facebook TOS might be a problem, but I don't think so.

 

[quincy]

Uh, copyright infringement, Carl.

 

[CdwJava]

Uh, copyright infringement, Carl.

I don't see it being prosecuted here at all. The police would ignore it, the DA would pass, and given the nature of the content it would not get much more than a very short write-up by any who wanted to pursue it.

And the feds? Good luck getting them to respond to an image of a Facebook conversation which would be a fuzzy issue, at best, since it appears to be a part of a conversation involving others as well as the OP.

One can argue THEORY all day, but the fact of the matter is that absent some tangible harm, this is not going to be a criminal matter and will likely not be worth attempting to pursue in civil court, either.

And, as I seem to recall, the copyright belongs to Facebook, not necessarily the user. And do you really think FB is going to spend many thousands of dollars over some juvenile copy and paste of a screenshot?! I don't.

 

[quincy]

It would be a civil action. The copyright holder can sue.

Ahhh. Never mind. You were answering the "criminal" part of LdiJ's post? No one will get arrested.

And I said a lawsuit was unlikely - but that does not make copying someone else's material any more legal.

 

[CdwJava]

Yeah, if there were suits or requests for criminal charges made for these technical violations of forwarded email, images and forwarded FB posts, etc., we'd bankrupt the system. Fortunately, discretion and cost cull the herd so that these do not occur.

I am not exaggerating when I say that every week we get reports of this sort of thing from juveniles - particularly girls ... okay, ALWAYS girls. They complain that their private messages were passed on through copy-and-paste or screen images, that they were harassed and called names, ad nauseum. It has truly become a rather time-consuming affair here and we are seeking some assistance with our DA to add social media restrictions to restraining orders and probation conditions when/if any of these cases (with greater related offenses than the FB ones) get to court.

Social media and the prevalence for people to post all manner of things they want to keep private onto the great big internet is causing all manner of headaches for individuals and agencies. Bottom line is and remains: If you do not want to see it on the front page of the electronic issue of the NY Times, do not put it on the internet. A phone can be used for something other than texting ... and the conversation is harder to forward.

 

[quincy]

Yeah, if there were suits or requests for criminal charges made for these technical violations of forwarded email, images and forwarded FB posts, etc., we'd bankrupt the system. Fortunately, discretion and cost cull the herd so that these do not occur.

I am not exaggerating when I say that every week we get reports of this sort of thing from juveniles - particularly girls ... okay, ALWAYS girls. They complain that their private messages were passed on through copy-and-paste or screen images, that they were harassed and called names, ad nauseum. It has truly become a rather time-consuming affair here and we are seeking some assistance with our DA to add social media restrictions to restraining orders and probation conditions when/if any of these cases (with greater related offenses than the FB ones) get to court.

Social media and the prevalence for people to post all manner of things they want to keep private onto the great big internet is causing all manner of headaches for individuals and agencies. Bottom line is and remains: If you do not want to see it on the front page of the electronic issue of the NY Times, do not put it on the internet. A phone can be used for something other than texting ... and the conversation is harder to forward.

The computer crimes committed that will result in a successful prosecution, and the libel or invasion of privacy or copyright infringement that occurs online that can be supported well enough to be successful, are certainly not as frequent as the inquiries made by people interested in pursuing them.

 

[justalayman]

And, as I seem to recall, the copyright belongs to Facebook, not necessarily the user. And do you really think FB is going to spend many thousands of dollars over some juvenile copy and paste of a screenshot?! I don't.

just for information and not intended to add to the debate:


From Facebook TOS:

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

but to the issue of whom has access to your postings:

When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

So, basically, when you post using a public setting on your privacy settings, you have agreed to a license to allow anybody anywhere to use your postings in apparently an unrestricted fashion. If so, that would mean that, if obtained from a page with "public" access, it wouldn't even be a copyright violation.

So, the only possibility of it being a Facebook TOS violation is if the OP somehow circumvented a security restriction to obtain the page. Even then it isn't clear that even that would be a violation although since Facebook has the gold, they get to make the rules and can change them as they desire.


Hmmm.

 

[quincy]

I actually don't think Carl and I were debating. I misunderstood his first post, but I agree with everything he said so, if we are having a debate, it's not a very good one.

I am interpreting the "Facebook access to postings" quote you provided, justalayman, as saying that the public has access to the information and can use the information they accessed, but the public has not been given any rights in the content (ie, cannot reproduce it, distribute it, etc). They can merely pass on the information.

But my interpretation may be wrong.

And, whatever the case, it would not be considered private information once published, whether the settings were private or public.

 

[CdwJava]

And, if a party to the discussion posts it elsewhere, is he technically infringing on a copyright of some kind? Is it owned by ALL the contributors?

Personally, I am thankful that most people lack the resources to try and make cases out of all of that falderall as it would be convoluted and terrifying as it would pretty much stifle debate in a lot of quarters.

Again, the adage ... if you don't want to see it online everywhere, don't post it.

 

[justalayman]

quincy;3156906]I actually don't think Carl and I were debating. I misunderstood his first post, but I agree with everything he said so, if we are having a debate, it's not a very good one.

just meant I was tossing out the TOS for informational purposes. Didn't want it to be seen as argumentative to anybody's position.

I am interpreting the "Facebook access to postings" quote you provided, justalayman, as saying that the public has access to the information and can use the information they accessed, but the public has not been given any rights in the content (ie, cannot reproduce it, distribute it, etc). They can merely pass on the information.

is not reposting it "passing it on"?

When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

but seriously, it does say access and USE that info. I would think what OP did was use that info.

But my interpretation may be wrong.

less often than mine I am sure.

And, whatever the case, it would not be considered private information once published, whether the settings were private or public.

I believe that issue would only be pertinent to the TOS of facebook and as such, while I see it as a license granted to anybody to access and use the info, it is limited, per Facebook TOS to that obtained from a page with a "public" access setting.

 

[quincy]

Carl, technically everyone who creates content and contributes to a written exchange would own what they contributed - or could be considered coauthors in the whole of what was created. But it would be extremely unlikely that any sort of lawsuit would be filed over published conversations of the type found on Facebook pages. It would not be so unlikely if it is a conversation between two famous people or an interview published by, say, a magazine or newspaper.

The words of most people are just not valuable enough to support the costs of an infringement action over emails or letters or printed conversations. Copyright law would cover these words, though, if they were original and creative enough.


The part you quoted, justalayman, says: "When you publish content or information. . .you are allowing everyone. . . to access and use that information. ."

I read that as the content remains rights-protected but, once the content is accessed and the information is read, the information is yours to pass on (by telling others what you read, not by reprinting it). Just like reading a book - you can pass on the information in the book but not reprint the book. The content still belongs to the creator of the content.

I am not seeing that any legal action would be pursued against yankees98a based on what he has written here, but, legally, he would be infringing on copyrighted material. But, if the creator of the content decided to sue for copyright infringement, he could try out his fair use defense.

 

[justalayman]

The part you quoted, justalayman, says: "When you publish content or information. . .you are allowing everyone. . . to access and use that information. ."

I read that as the content remains rights-protected but, once the content is accessed and the information is read, the information is yours to pass on (by telling others what you read, not reprinting it). Just like reading a book - you can pass on the information in the book but not reprint the book. The content still belongs to the creator of the content. T

as I said, I am sure you are in error much less than I. In my defense though, the reading of the book is not a proper comparison unless there is a license agreement that states one can access and use the information contained. I suspect, before all is said and done, it would take a court to define "use" and its intent.

I am not seeing that any legal action would be pursued against yankees98a based on what he has written here, but, legally, he would be infringing on copyrighted material. But, if the creator of the content decided to sue, he could try out his fair use defense.

I was reading a bit about DMCA take down notices. Apparently the host can ignore a claim of fair use and comply with the take down notice. The poster (alleged infringer) can dispute it but if they wish to do anything, they are relegated to litigating it in the courts. Didn't know there was a possible penalty for those that improperly claim a right of control when filing the DMCA notice.