Copying and Copyright in a Collaborative Culture

The internet has made it more and more practical for people to collaborate.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, to which anyone can contribute. Open source software, such as the internet browser Mozilla Firefox, is common place. People share and modify each other's photographs via Instagram.

This online collaboration is no doubt beneficial. But it does raise a host of new ethical and legal issues, that must be pondered and addressed. Once more, technology and social evolution are daring the law makers to keep up.

One already well-canvassed example of this is last year's Harvard Cheating Scandal. The scandal revealed that collaboration is the norm in learning environments, and outmoded definitions of cheating need to be overhauled and reconsidered in light of today's norms. It makes little sense that someone can write a question on Quora and have it answered by a stranger (who is potentially an expert in the field) and it will not be considered cheating. Whereas if that same person uses an online forum such as Twitter or Facebook to ask a friend in the class (who is potentially no more likely to know the answer than the person asking the question), it will be considered cheating.

There are a myriad of other examples that are yet to blow-up in the media and so are less well canvassed. In this blog, I will address two such examples, both related to intellectual property protection over works generated through online collaborative sites.

Firstly: Twitter. Twitter is so commonly known and used that I assume it requires no explanation. Users are restricted to the use of 140 characters per tweet. While US copyright laws do not favor protection of short phrases, there is no minimum number of words required before a work is capable of being copyrighted material. In some cases, as little as 10 words will be deemed to be sufficient. In other cases, even 200 words might not warrant copyright protection. It is determined on a case by case basis, dependent upon the uniqueness and value of the words combined. Thus, technically, it is possible to claim copyright in a tweet and infringe copyright by a tweet. Indeed, Twitter has a copyright policy which reflects this. Still, it is hard for one to generate something so unique and original in 140 characters as to be able to claim copyright over it. But what would happen if one wanted to claim copyright over a series of tweets. Say, if the user posts a poem or even a short story via a series of tweets, over time. Would the series of tweets in combination be protected? Or would they each be considered to be separate works? Is there some time frame that dictates whether the separate tweets are considered one or more works? I would argue that irregardless of the timeframe, if there is any indication that the tweets are related, then they should be considered as a singular work, over which the tweeter may make a valid claim to copyright. But this is merely my contention. As it stands, the issue has not been addressed.

Secondly: Movellas. Movellas is an online community for teens and adults to share their stories with others, and to read and give feedback on stories that have been shared. Sites like this abound. Other examples include Wattpad. But I speak of Movellas specifically because (a) I have used it to publish my writing and (b) the operators of the Movellas site are currently beta testing a function called “chain”. In the chain function, a user has 140 characters to write a component of a story. Then, another user is free to add the next 140 character component, resulting in a “masterpiece” that has been contributed to by several readers. [It is curious that Movellas uses this same character limit as Twitter. It would seem that there is something magical about this number, from a copyright perspective. But, as discussed above, there is not. It is more likely that Movellas simply selected this number as the primary demographic for the site – the teen demographic – is familiar and comfortable with the 140 character limit due to years of Twitter use. It was also smart for Movellas to choose this limit as any copyright precedents that are established through suits against Twitter will clarify the law as it applies to Movellas, and in the event that any copyright suits are brought against Movellas. Movellas may be able to turn to Twitter as an ally, as Twitter has a vested interest in the outcome of any case regarding the copyrightability of a 140 character statement.]

One might think that, as with tweets, although it is technically possible to claim copyright in one's 140 character contribution to the chain, it would in reality be hard for one to establish that the brief 140 character contribution is so unique and original as to be copyrightable. But, assuming for an instant that a contribution is sufficiently unique and original. In such event, once it is added to the chain, is it still the reader's to claim ownership in anyway? A cursory reading of the Movellas copyright policy did not reveal anything in relation to copyright ownership over what is contributed to a chain. The policy merely states that “You or a third-party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Website and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.” This would seem to indicate that a great 140 characters is still the intellectual property of the writer and is free to be used by the writer again, in different contexts. This is well and good, until you consider the possibility that a resultant chain might really be, as Movellas calls it, a “masterpiece”. In such a case, like the Harry Potter series, it would be capable of being marketed for billions of dollars. Who then is entitled to the proceeds of this? Was each user's contribution intended to become “an inseparable part of the unitary whole” such that the masterpiece is a joint work protected under the US Copyright Act (in which case all of the contributors share equally in the profits)? Are the contributors then entitled to the copyright in their individual contributions but the contributors as a group entitled to copyright in the masterpiece as a whole? Is this even logically possible? Alternatively, does Movellas somehow have the right to claim ownership over the copyright in the masterpiece? It would seem logical to me that all of the contributors, together, have a greater right than the website itself, but the law does not always evolve as we would predict according to logic.

As revolutionary thinkers push the boundaries in the internet, they push the boundaries in our court rooms and houses of parliament. The law will always struggle to keep pace with the advancements of technology and societal norms. Maybe we need to throw a hackathon to get some new template legislation drawn up.