My tweet was in the paper! Wait… am I okay with that?
On Tuesday I was informed that one of my tweets from the previous day had been published in the Calgary edition of Metro Daily.
“That’s cool,” I thought. And it escaped my mind for the rest of the day.
On my way home I started thinking about some of the conversations I’ve had with Metro editor Darren Krause over the past year, as I pondered “Why that tweet?”. And slowly I began thinking about Canadian copyright law.
I’m a big proponent of the Open Data movement, but I’ve never really jumped on the ‘net neutrality’ bandwagon or the participated in discussions earlier this year and last about the proposed changes to the Canadian copyright laws. The concept never really ignited a passion in me as other technology issues have. But here I was wondering to myself if someone just stole my work.
It’s important that I note I’m not upset Metro reprinted my tweet. I probably wouldn’t be opposed to them doing it again. (Hopefully something less innocuous.) But hear me out as I chart my own journey into the world of the internet and copyright.
So, the first question I asked myself was: “Did they have a right to re-print my tweet?” I’ve often thought of Twitter as being a way of sharing information – whether it be an important link or something goofy that happened to me – with my ‘followers’. When I thought about Metro re-printing the tweet, I found I had this feeling that a communication between me and my ‘followers’ – a formal, structured relationship that comes with certain understandings – had been violated. Suddenly there are other people paying attention.
But Twitter by nature is a public forum. There is nothing stopping the casual observer from simply going to my Twitter page on a regular basis and reading what I’ve written. In fact, if one were to do this you would see much more content than any official ‘follower’ because of the limitations of Twitter’s @replies introduced a few months back. (A follower will only see an @reply I send to another follower if they themselves are following the other person. It sounds more complicated than it is, but I digress.) So the question begs, “Did Metro really do anything that the average person would not have been able to do by facilitating the stumbling across of my comment?”
I did however post my comment in full knowledge someone might stumble across it online. I also had the knowledge this had a very low likelihood of happening unless the tweet were about something specific that person was searching for. In which case I would probably welcome their attention as completely in context. This is where the idea of ‘permission’ comes in. By posting a tweet I have given my permission for people to read it in any one of these potential situations. But permission was not ‘given’ – expressly or indirectly – to Metro, or Metro readers, to read what I wrote.
This of course leads to the big question: How would someone feel if it wasn’t just a 140 character sentence Metro published? What if it was an entire article used without obtaining the author’s permission first?
Knowing Darren and many others in the print media, this is the kind of thing they would not stand for. It is the single most repugnant and offensive of thoughts to writers and editors. As a group they value their product – their writings – more than you could possibly imagine. What they write is their livelihood and it bears the kinds of protection you would place on your own job. They certainly would not have reprinted, say, a blog post I wrote. It would be sacrilegious. So why is it okay to reprint a tweet?
Do I even own the words I wrote?
I suppose I could turn to the Twitter terms of service to answer the latter question. In the post from Biz Stone, Twitter co-founder, that came with the recent update to the user terms, he says in no uncertain terms, “your tweets belong to you, not to Twitter”. However the terms do say:
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).
You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.
By my reading that means Twitter, the company, can do most anything with my content, even though I own the thought behind them. But under what terms do I allow others to view or use my tweets/writings/thoughts? This is not part of Twitter’s terms of service as near as I can find.
Twitter is often described as ‘micro-blogging’, so perhaps I can look to how I might tackle a similar issue if the information being reprinted was coming from there instead of Twitter. On my blog I have no confusion in this area at all. I have added a Creative Commons license that appears on every page of the site. If a reader clicks on it it let’s all readers know that they are welcome to share or adapt my work so long as they attribute the work to me.
So does this mean that by Metro highlighting my tweet as by “@djkelly”? Or that the Calgary Herald could reprint a blog post by saying “by DJ Kelly”? I’m not sure.
I found myself eventually wondering if my tweets and blog posts are more like a comment made at a town hall meeting by a politician being reported in the paper the next day. Certainly the politician did not expressly give permission for his words to be reprinted, but there is an understanding that once it is in the public domain it may be repeated and attributed to him or her. Good, bad or otherwise.
As you can tell, I’m just “thinking out loud” here. I don’t have any answers, just as I’m not complaining about Metro re-printing a tweet. What I’m trying to sort out is how I feel about where we are heading as a society as more and more information becomes more and more easily accessible. Who owns my thoughts? What processes should be followed to ensure what we are doing is ‘right’ or ‘moral’?
These are all important questions that need to be answered. But for now I’m going to just think about how cool it is that Metro is printing tweets. Awesome.
Please feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.
PS – I purposefully did not include the text to the tweet in question because it has little bearing on my thoughts around this issue. However if you are insatiably curious like I am, here is a link to the reprinted tweet.
Someone can’t do basic math
On August 13 Naheed Nenshi wrote a column for the Calgary Herald titled “Labels confuse our political understanding” in response to a comment Wildrose Alliance leadership candidate Danielle Smith made. Smith herself responded in print on August 16. (Shane over at Calgary Rants has his take on the exchange.) While this conversation is a good – and interesting – one that I normally would be happy to enter into I wanted to instead comment on something that grew out of the ensuing conversation that occurred on Twitter.
Jeremy at PolitiCalgary beat me to the punch a little bit by publishing the text of the Twitter conversation (although he is missing a few of the comments in the exchange). I agree with him that it was a bizarre conversation between Naheed Nenshi defending his position and someone only identifying themselves as “Alberta Conservative” arguing the need for political labels. I entered the fray at this point. I shouldn’t have but I did, because I feel political labels (not to be confused with party labels) add a layer of annoyance to the political process that hinders a lot of citizens’ ability to discuss the issues on their individual merit. Especially at the municipal level where there are no parties. I immediately tried to exit the conversation as it went in a bizarre direction I wasn’t interested in following. But I digress.
At one point in the conversation, long after the original debate had been abandoned in favour of speculation about conservative and liberal slates for the upcoming 2010 Calgary municipal election, Alberta Conservative mentioned, “@Nenshi If Calgary adopts civic parties like @RicMcIver may do your chances would be very slim in 2010.” Naheed then replied with “@ABConservative PGIB [Progressive Group for Independent Business] ran a slate for years and elected no one, BCC [Better Calgary Campaign, of which Nenshi is part of] had all but 2 endorsed candidates win last time (inc. Mciver – I’m a fan)”.
Now, and this is what this blog post is ACTUALLY all about, Craig Chandler, who is a part of the PGIB entered the conversation with this tweet:
@nenshi PGIB ran a slate once and in that slate Ric McIver was elected. We have endorsed since and all have won every time! Do your Homework
I couldn’t bite my tongue at this comment. Having just finished some reading on the 2007 election a few days earlier I saw this interjection for what it was: a lie. This kind of political hyperbole is something I just can’t stand. If you are going to make a comment as direct and challenging as that, the least it should be is accurate. In my opinion it is comments like this that make people outside politics have such distaste for people inside politics. It is what Stephen Colbert would call “truthiness”. If you say something that sounds true, with enough emphasis and determination, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not because people will begin to believe it. I’m not about to let that happen. So I interjected with:
How does “every time” equate to 2 for 7 in ’07? RT @ChandlerRadio: @nenshi We have endorsed since and all have won every time! Do your Homework
.@ChandlerRadio And here’s MY “homework”. In the future, please know your own record before throwing it in someone’s face http://bit.ly/qekg
I know I shouldn’t be surprised that it is Craig Chandler who undertook such a tactic (he doesn’t have a great track record with staying on people’s good sides). But this is the kind of thing we need LESS of not MORE of.
A surprising number of people have been trying to encourage me to run in the 2010 election. I’ve been saying the whole way along I’m not convinced I want to run. But if the rumours are true and Chandler is eyeing up an aldermanic seat, I’m half-ways convinced to run against him. Wherever he may run. If anything just to make sure this kind of rhetoric stays as far away from our council chamber as possible. No, make that three quarters convinced to run. (As you can tell, I really don’t like this kind of commentary.)
Our council has been bitterly divided on too many issues these past three years. False comments like this from from an alderman would be the exact opposite of the kind of camaraderie and cooperation we need to help Calgary fix the issues we are facing. Let’s pray that doesn’t happen because the results could be disastrous.
By the way, in case you are wondering, Chandler hasn’t replied to my “homework” yet. It was sent four days ago. I’ll provide an update if he does.
The 6 o’clock news is a 1950s department store
For my CBC Wildrose column today I chose to speak about ESPN and the Southeastern Conference (NCAA)’s new social media policies. (You can listen online here.)
As the host, Donna McElligott points out toward the end of the interview, what we are really seeing here in sports organizations is they are struggling with the same issue newspapers and other news organizations are facing: what happens when users can reproduce content at a fraction of the cost?
Just as news groups struggle with the emergence of aggregators and “citizen journalists” (aka bloggers, Twitterers, etc) who break news before they can and slowly eat away at their audience, we can see these two large sports organizations struggle with average people – as well as their own staff – eating away at their audiences by providing much the same services. Only more quickly, or in more detail, or on a more personal level, etc. This is horrible news for these groups as it puts billions of dollars in advertising at risk.
It is another business model that is at risk.
This parallel was quickly noticed following the interview and a discussion with host and producers ensued. It’s clear many people are scared of the uncertainty of the future of these industries. But let me be clear: your industry, even your job, are not going anywhere. Just your employer. Here’s why:
I compare the current state of the news economy to that of the decline of the department store and the rise of the shopping mall. When the general store entered onto the scene it was, as the name implies, everything to everybody. If you wanted something you had to go to town and get it at the general store. This worked great for many years. Eventually the landscape shifted and more and more people began living in cities. As a response the general store became larger and larger – eventually becoming what we know as the department store. Still everything to everybody. Their business model was threatened by they found a way to make it work but changing how they do what they do slightly. At this time, convenience was the number one concern.
Over time as convenience became less of an issue (everyone started buying cars and could now get anywhere in a city they wanted) niche players slowly began entering the market and eating up much of the department store’s business. It’s a well documented fact that niche markets almost always win out. (In effect, we, as a society, trust specialists more than generalists.) The final nail in the coffin for many of the department stores was when a large group of these niche retailers banded together to share their best skills and began forming shopping malls. Now you could get all the goods you wanted in one place AND from a specialist. The days of the department store were numbered, beaten at their own game.
The 6 o’clock news is a 1950s department store.
First news small local organizations formed larger conglomerates in response to the changing landscape. And now we are starting to see evidence of individual specialists nibbling away at the network news’ market share; this is what broadcasters are complaining about when you hear them shout that “the sky is falling!”.
It won’t be long before we see individual specialists coming together for mutual benefit. But what will be the news’ ‘shopping mall’? Only time will tell.
The reason I bring this up is because there is actually little to fear. There are still dollars being spent on items that used to be purchased at a department store. There are still just as many people employed in retail, perhaps more. The same thing will happen with “news” as happened with “retail” given enough time. “Shopping” survived the closing of the majority of department stores just as “news” will survive the closing of the majority of main-stream media networks. Advertisers will always want to be where the audience is; just as people will always need to purchase goods.
I know change is a scary thing but we all have to learn to embrace it because nothing stays the same forever.
And yes, some department stores have even survived.
Calgary City Council saves face by embarrassing themselves: ward boundaries solved!
Watching Calgary City Council debate the ward boundaries for the 2010 election last night was one of the funniest moments I think I’ve seen in that hallowed chamber. I mean funny as in sad. Like a comedy of errors. A comedy of people so deep in trouble the only way out was to thoroughly embarrass themselves further.
It was a debacle for council to even keep straight what each motion was, whether it took eight or 10 votes to pass or reject it, and what the implications were for voting for or against that particular motion. At one point the mayor even apologized to members of the media awaiting their final decision for how convoluted the whole process was.
My favourite quote of the night could have been this one:
Mayor: “Is everyone clear on the question”. Several aldermen: “No!“
But instead it is from this exchange between Alderman John Mar and Mayor Bronconnier:
Ald. Mar: “It’s somewhat murky here.” Mayor: “Murky began months ago.”
Murky did indeed begin months ago when council decided they wanted to add one more direction to the returning officer’s mandate (a mandate first approved in 1990): keep five wards on the east side of Deerfoot Trail. (Why they couldn’t have thought of that six months earlier before they set her to work is beyond me.) Then things got really murky when council didn’t wait for her to do her job and decided to start drawing their own boundaries. A process called gerrymandering. You can read all my thoughts on how we got to this point here, here, here, and here.
I live tweeted the whole thing and you can follow that via the #yyccc hashtag on Twitter starting at about 8pm last night.
What were the results? Everything was thrown out. Council admitted failure, apologized to the returning officer and passed only minor boundary changes from the current ones.
Here are the new boundaries for 2010:
As silly as it all seems, I’m happy council admitted the error of their ways and made the best decision they could have given the mess they created for themselves.
What are the next steps however? That is the big question. There is some thinking that these changes MAY put the City in violation of the Municipal Governance Act but I don’t think it does. Taking a look at the council agenda attachment showing the deviation of population between each new ward, everything looks a-okay on that front too.
Either way, expect two major things to come out of this:
- Expect a council policy to allow an outside group determine ward boundaries in the future, so council won’t get their fingers in the pie and make a mess of things like this again. This is pretty much exactly what they have done for determining their salaries and I think it has worked well. Ald. Farrell tried to pass a motion to this effect last night but as several members of council didn’t like her wording and 9:30pm was fast approaching, it was referred to administration to wordsmith and come back with a proposal in September.
- The next major redistricting – which normally happens every nine years (2010 being the ninth year) – will probably happen in time for 2013 now. With more time available between now and then I fully expect council to explore the possibilities of increasing the number of aldermen to created a more fair balance of representation. And a more manageable workload. You can read my thoughts on this topic here.
Stay tuned. Hopefully the next steps will be more steady than the last ones.
Doug Elniski: how to do it right
My blog post from yesterday about MLA Doug Elniski’s comments about women and equality made on his blog, and about participants at the Pride Parade made via Twitter quickly became the most viewed post in this blogs history. (Practically doubling from the previous high!)
That post was particularly popular with Government of Alberta officials – at least that’s what the stats tell me. Or at least it was popular enough that I was invited to be a guest on both CBC Radio One’s Calgary Eyeopener and Edmonton AM to talk about my thoughts around Doug’s use of social media and what he said. Once the interviews are posted (if they’re posted) you’ll probably be able to listen to them online at those links.
The interviews were both quick and and I didn’t necessarily get to say everything I wanted, so I thought I’d share those thoughts here.
- While I don’t agree with Doug’s comments I fully support him. He said something dumb and he knows it. He’s human, we all say dumb things from time to time. I’m impressed with his handling of the situation however; he did an excellent job apologizing with the openness and honesty that made his Tweets and blog so refreshing in the first place. It wasn’t simply the standard empty apology one has come to expect from a politician. I wish I had an audio link to it so you could here it. It’s worth a listen.
This is the main reason why I don’t think he should have deleted his blog. His honesty and engagement provided through the blog and Twitter – up until this point at least – I think should have allowed him a fair bit of patience from the public in this situation. If he would have apologized online and allowed us to see the process he was going through to make amends, I would not have been surprised to see come out on the other side with more supporters than before.
I really do think we want politicians who represent us and are willing to communicate and engage in what concerns us. We don’t need another “walled off politician”. I hope Doug won’t become that because of this error in judgement.
- I also hope this won’t discourage other politicians from communicating with constituents via these newer tools. As you can here in the Calgary interview, host Jim Brown mentions the Alberta PC party may be coming out with guidelines to monitor their party members online communications more closely. This concerns me a little.You can make as many guidelines or memos as you like to control a party’s members on the internet, but when it all comes down to it the only point guidelines will really set out is “don’t say dumb things”.
I would argue that is the same advice you would give to them if they are talking giving a speech, writing a newsletter, or talking casually to friends.
The point here isn’t that an MLA said these kinds of things online. The point is that he said them period. Social media is not the culprit in this situation. I hope the PC party doesn’t make the mistake of not seeing it the same way.
The only other option is to not allow your party members to converse with consituents at all. And I think that is a terrible choice.
- I did get to touch on this in Calgary interview, but for me when it comes down to it I want my elected officials to be engaged. I want them to hear what I and others are saying, and then make the decision they feel is in the best interests of their constituents. Social media provides direct access that no town hall or newsletter in a mailbox could ever give.In the future this kind of engagement will be expected of our political leaders. Currently about 40% of the population of Alberta is under the age of 30. These are the people learning to expect to know what their friends are doing on a regular basis. This is happening via text messages and status updates. There is no stopping it as it has become rooted in our culture. In 10 years about one third of the voting public will fall into this category and expect to know what politicians are doing on our behalf on a regular basis. To get elected you will NEED to master these tools. Our elected officials may as well lead the way and start on this course now. After all we elect them to be leaders.
PS – Please don’t just have a staffer update your accounts. We can tell the difference and will ridicule you and penalize you for your lack of transparency. Social media is about dialogue. If you are not responding you obviously don’t get it and don’t want to. And at the end of the day, remember this: who wants to elect a person who is non-responsive?
Subscribe
-
Like Minded
