This could get complicated very quickly.
Back in April, The New York District Court ruled against photographer Stephanie Sinclair who had sought to sue Mashable over an embed of one of her Instagram posts within a Mashable story, essentially re-publishing her work without permission.
The court deemed that because the image was embedded, the license for such remained with Instagram, and was therefore bound by Instagram’s Terms of Service, meaning that Mashable was essentially not liable for copyright violation because the image was still hosted on Instagram.
That makes sense, and aligns with the general understanding around embedding. But a new ruling this week could put that into question yet again.
The details of this one are important – as per Ars Technica:
“Photographer Elliot McGucken took a rare photo of an ephemeral lake in Death Valley. Ordinarily, Death Valley is bone dry, but occasionally a heavy rain will create a sizable body of water. Newsweek asked to license the image, but McGucken turned down their offer. So instead Newsweek embedded a post from McGucken’s Instagram feed containing the image.”
So, going on the Mashable ruling, Newsweek should be fine, even is this does seem like a fairly cheap tactic on their part.
Apparently not – despite using the Mashable case as precedent, the Southern District Court of New York ruled that there wasn’t enough definitive explanation within Instagram’s terms to dismiss the lawsuit outright.
And then Instagram added more fuel to the fire by issuing this statement:
“While our terms allow us to grant a sub-license, we do not grant one for our embeds API. Our platform policies require third parties to have the necessary rights from applicable rights holders. This includes ensuring they have a license to share this content, if a license is required by law.”
So Instagram’s saying that, indeed, publishers do need explicit permission from creators to embed their posts, which could mean that every embedded Instagram post across the web is liable for legal challenge, dependent on specifics.
That would be a significant ruling, and could put many website owners on notice. The full complexities are yet to be clarified, but if this holds, that could mean that you would no longer be able to embed any Instagram post on your website without direct permission from the post creator.
The rules around online copyright are often murky, with regulations designed for legacy media which don’t really fit in the digital sphere. Some laws have been re-shaped, in varying form, to fit social media content, but for the most part, websites have been able to re-share what they like via embeds without any concern. If a precedent is set for a change in that regulation, that could have extended impacts on Instagram’s parent company Facebook, and embeds from Facebook.com, and even other platforms like Twitter, based on the legal specifics.
In further notes, Instagram also told Ars Technica that it’s exploring options which would give users more control over embeds, which could potentially see the situation resolved with an option which enables users to approve or deny any embed requests. But that would also be difficult to implement, and would likely reduce embedding, either way. But still, if it protects the rights of creators from blatant exploitation like this, then it may be worth it.
Newsweek’s approach does feel like part of the problem in this case. It’s one thing to rule against the photographer for an unintended breach, as Mashable appeared to have made, but it’s another for Newsweek to so obviously contravene the artist’s wishes, by leaning on a legal technicality. The artist, of course, does always hold the option to remove the content, which would render the embed useless – and that actually may form the final basis for a definitive ruling. But even so, there’s a lot to consider in this, and in Instagram’s communicated stance on the legality of embed usage.
There’s still more to come – as Ars Technica notes, embeds are still technically covered under other elements of the law, though those provisions are also in some level of query. It’ll likely take some time to become a definitive legal position, but the case could have significant impacts in how embeds are used (or not).
Meta’s Developing and ‘Ethical Framework’ for the Use of Virtual Influencers
With the rise of digital avatars, and indeed, fully digital characters that have evolved into genuine social media influencers in their own right, online platforms now have an obligation to establish clear markers as to what’s real and what’s not, and how such creations can be used in their apps.
The coming metaverse shift will further complicate this, with the rise of virtual depictions blurring the lines of what will be allowed, in terms of representation. But with many virtual influencers already operating, Meta is now working to establish ethical boundaries on their application.
As explained by Meta:
“From synthesized versions of real people to wholly invented “virtual influencers” (VIs), synthetic media is a rising phenomenon. Meta platforms are home to more than 200 VIs, with 30 verified VI accounts hosted on Instagram. These VIs boast huge follower counts, collaborate with some of the world’s biggest brands, fundraise for organizations like the WHO, and champion social causes like Black Lives Matter.”
At first glance, you wouldn’t necessarily realize that this is not an actual person, which makes such characters a great vehicle for brand and product promotions, as they can be utilized 24/7, and can be placed into any environment. But that also leads to concerns about body image perception, deepfakes, and other forms of misuse through false or unclear representation.
Deepfakes, in particular, may be problematic, with Meta citing this campaign, with English football star David Beckham, as an example of how new technologies are evolving to expand the use of language, as one element, for varying purpose.
The well-known ‘DeepTomCruise’ account on TikTok is another example of just how far these technologies have come, and it’s not hard to imagine a scenario where they could be used to, say, show a politician saying or doing something that he or she actually didn’t, which could have significant real world impacts.
Which is why Meta is working with developers and experts to establish clearer boundaries on such use – because while there is potential for harm, there are also beneficial uses for such depictions.
“Imagine personalized video messages that address individual followers by name. Or celebrity brand ambassadors appearing as salespeople at local car dealerships. A famous athlete would make a great tutor for a kid who loves sports but hates algebra.”
Such use cases will increasingly become the norm as VR and AR technologies are developed, with these platforms placing digital characters front and center, and establishing new norms for digital connection.
It would be better to know what’s real and what’s not, and as such, Meta needs clear regulations to remove dishonest depictions, and enforce transparency over VI use.
But then again, much of what you see on Instagram these days is not real, with filters and editing tools altering people’s appearance well beyond what’s normal, or realistic. That can also have damaging consequences, and while Meta’s looking to implement rules on VI use, there’s arguably a case for similar transparency in editing tools applied to posted videos and images as well.
That’s a more complex element, particularly as such tools also enable people to feel more comfortable in posting, which no doubt increases their in-app activity. Would Meta be willing to put more focus on this element if it could risk impacting user engagement? The data on the impact of Instagram on people’s mental health are pretty clear, with comparison being a key concern.
Should that also come under the same umbrella of increased digital transparency?
It’s seemingly not included in the initial framework as yet, but at some stage, this is another element that should be examined, especially given the harmful effects that social media usage can have on young women.
But however you look at it, this is no doubt a rising element of concern, and it’s important for Meta to build guardrails and rules around the use of virtual influencers in their apps.
You can read more about Meta’s approach to virtual influencers here.
Meta Publishes New Guide to the Various Security and Control Options in its Apps
Meta has published a new set of safety tips for journalists to help them protect themselves in the evolving online connection space, which, for the most part, also apply to all users more broadly, providing a comprehensive overview of the various tools and processes that it has in place to help people avoid unwanted attention online.
The 32-page guide is available in 21 different languages, and provides detailed overviews of Meta’s systems and profile options for protection and security, with specific sections covering Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
The guide begins with the basics, including password protections and enabling two-factor authentication.
It also outlines tips for Page managers in securing their business profiles, while there are also notes on what to do if you’ve been hacked, advice for protection on Messenger and guidance on bullying and harassment.
For Instagram, there are also general security tips, along with notes on its comment moderation tools.
While for WhatsApp, there are explainers on how to delete messages, how to remove messages from group chats, and details on platform-specific data options.
There are also links to various additional resource guides and tools for more context, providing in-depth breakdowns of when and how to action the various options.
It’s a handy guide, and while there are some journalist-specific elements included, most of the tips do apply to any user, so it could well be a valuable resource for anyone looking to get a better handle on your various privacy tools and options.
Definitely worth knowing either way – you can download the full guide here.
Twitter bans account linked to Iran leader over video threatening Trump
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meets with relatives of slain commander Qasem Soleimani ahead of the second anniverary of his death in a US drone strike in Iraq – Copyright POOL/AFP/File Tom Brenner
Twitter said Saturday it had permanently suspended an account linked to Iran’s supreme leader that posted a video calling for revenge for a top general’s assassination against former US president Donald Trump.
“The account referenced has been permanently suspended for violating our ban evasion policy,” a Twitter spokesperson told AFP.
The account, @KhameneiSite, this week posted an animated video showing an unmanned aircraft targeting Trump, who ordered a drone strike in Baghdad two years ago that killed top Iranian commander General Qassem Soleimani.
Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s main accounts in various languages remain active. Last year, another similar account was suspended by Twitter over a post also appearing to reference revenge against Trump.
The recent video, titled “Revenge is Definite”, was also posted on Khamenei’s official website.
According to Twitter, the company’s top priority is keeping people safe and protecting the health of the conversation on the platform.
The social media giant says it has clear policies around abusive behavior and will take action when violations are identified.
As head of the Quds Force, the foreign operations arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Soleimani was the architect of its strategy in the Middle East.
He and his Iraqi lieutenant were killed by a US drone strike outside Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020.
Khamenei has repeatedly promised to avenge his death.
On January 3, the second anniversary of the strike, the supreme leader and ultraconservative President Ebrahim Raisi once again threatened the US with revenge.
Trump’s supporters regularly denounce the banning of the Republican billionaire from Twitter, underscoring that accounts of several leaders considered authoritarian by the United States are allowed to post on the platform.
Expansion, Machine Learning & Core Updates
How Does Google Search Use Synonyms?
Google Asks Hosting Companies To Serve 500 Status Code On Robot Detection Interstitial
Google Autocomplete: A Complete SEO Guide
Daily Search Forum Recap: January 17, 2022
How To Use Amazon Attribution & Brand Referral Bonus Programs
12 Tools and Resources for Software Developers in Insurance
Google Search Console Updated With Desktop Page Experience Report
Google Search Ranking Update January 14th & 15th
The Secrets Of First-Party Data [Podcast]
WordPress 5.9 to Introduce Language Switcher on Login Screen
14 Top Reasons Why Google Isn’t Indexing Your Site
20 Tips and Best Practices
Pages That Look Like Error Pages Can Be Considered Soft 404s By Google
Here’s How Meta Is Changing Facebook Ads Targeting For 2022
Are Nofollow Links a Google Ranking Factor?
Critical Vulnerabilities in All in One SEO Plugin Affects Millions of WordPress Websites …
17 Actionable Content Marketing Tips for 2022
10 Things You Need To Know To Be Successful
How To Help Google Rank Products With Duplicate Descriptions
SEARCHENGINES3 days ago
Google Versatile Text Ads Are Responsive Search Ads?
SEARCHENGINES3 days ago
Microsoft Bing Testing Related Searches On Left Side Bar
MARKETING5 days ago
5 Social Media Strategies that Boost Your SEO
SEO7 days ago
25 Unique SEO Tactics That Deliver Big Results
SEO2 days ago
Are Local Citations (NAP) A Google Ranking Factor?
SEO2 days ago
Is It A Ranking Factor?
SEARCHENGINES6 days ago
Google Search Ranking Algorithm Update On January 11, 2022 (Unconfirmed)
SEARCHENGINES4 days ago
Google 1/11 Search Algorithm Update, Manual Actions Delayed, Core Update Specifics & Microsoft Bing IndexNow News