ABSTRACT
From amateur creativity to social media status updates, nearly every Internet user is also a content creator-but who owns that content? Policy, including intellectual property rights, is a necessary but often invisible part of online content sharing and social computing environments. We analyzed the copyright licenses contained in the Terms of Service of 30 different websites where users contribute content, then conducted a survey to match perceptions of copyright terms to the reality. We found that licensing terms vary in unpredictable ways, and that user expectations and opinions differ by license and by type of website. Moreover, the most undesirable terms, such as right to modify, appear more frequently than users expect. We argue that users care about how their content can be used yet lack critical information. Site designers should take user needs and community norms into account in creating and explaining copyright policies.
- Yannis Bakos, Florencia Marotta-Wurlger, and David R. Trossen. 2009. Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Testing a Law and Economics Approach to Standard Form Contracts. New York University Law and Economics Working Papers Paper 195. Retrieved from http://lsr.nellco.org/nyu_lewp/195Google Scholar
- Rainer Bohme and Stefan Kopsell. 2010. Trained to Accept? A Field Experiment on Consent Dialogs. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Buhrmester, T. Kwang, and S. D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6, 1, 3–5.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mary J. Culnan and Thomas J. Carlin. 2006. Online Privacy Practices in Higher Education: Making the Grade? Communications of the ACM 52, 2, 126–130. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia B. Earp, Annie I. Antón, Lynda Aiman-Smith, and William H. Stufflebeam. 2005. Examining Internet Privacy Policies Within the Context of User Privacy Values. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 52, 2, 227–237.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Casey Fiesler and Amy S. Bruckman. 2014. Remixers' Understandings of Fair Use Online. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Casey Fiesler, Jessica Feuston, and Amy S. Bruckman. 2015. Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15) Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathaniel Good, Rachna Dhamija, Jens Grossklags, et al. 2005. Stopping Spyware at the Gate: A User Study of Privacy, Notice and Spyware. Proceedings of Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathaniel Good, Jens Grossklags, Deirdre K. Mulligan, and Joseph A. Konstan. 2007. Noticing Notice: A Large-Scale Experiment on the Timing of Software License Agreements. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). Google ScholarDigital Library
- J.K. Goodman, C.E. Cryder, and A. Cheema. 2013. Data Collection in a Flat World: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 26, 3, 213–224.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark A. Graber, Donna M. D'Alessandro, and Jill Johnson-West. 2002. Reading Level of Privacy Policies on Internet Health Web Sites. The Journal of Family Practice 51, 7, 642–5.Google Scholar
- Sara M. Grimes. 2006. Online multiplayer games: A virtual space for intellectual property debates? New Media & Society 8, 6, 969–990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Christopher M. Hoadley, Heng Xu, Joey J. Lee, and Mary Beth Rosson. 2010. Privacy as Information Access and Illusory Control: The Case of the Facebook News Feed Privacy Outcry. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9, 1, 50–60.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steven J. Jackson, Tarleton Gillespie, and Sandy Payette. 2014. The Policy Knot: Re-integrating Policy, Practice and Design in CSCW Studies of Social Computing. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anne Jamison. 2013. Fic: Why Fanfiction is Taking Over the World. Smart Pop, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
- Carlos Jensen and Colin Potts. 2004. Privacy Policies as Decision-Making Tools: An Evaluation of Online Privacy Notices. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Kay and Michael Terry. 2010. Textured Agreements: Re-envisioning Electronic Consent. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick Gage Kelley, Lucian Cesca, Joanna Bresee, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2010. Standardizing Privacy Notices: An Online Study of the Nutrition Label Approach. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jialiu Lin, Shahriyar Amini, Jason I. Hong, Norman Sadeh, Janne Lindqvist, and Joy Zhang. 2012. Expectation and Purpose: Understanding Users' Mental Models of Mobile App Privacy through Crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '12). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Lombard, Jennifer Snyder-Duch, and Cheryl Campanella Bracken. 2002. Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human Communication Research 28, 4, 587–604.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ewa Luger, Stuart Moran, and Tom Rodden. 2013. Consent for All: Revealing the Hidden Complexity of Terms and Conditions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew Lynley. 2012. Why the Web is Freaking Out Over Instagram's New Terms of Service. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/18/why-the-web-is-freaking-out-over-instagrams-new-terms-of-service/Google Scholar
- Trina J. Magi. 2010. A Content Analysis of Library Vendor Privacy Policies: Do They Meet Our Standards? College & Research Libraries 71, 3, 254–272.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine C. Marshall and Frank M. Shipman. 2011. The Ownership and Reuse of Visual Media. Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Catherine C. Marshall and Frank M. Shipman. 2015. Exploring the Ownership and Persistent Value of Facebook Content. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Aleecia M. Mcdonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2008. The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 4, 543–565.Google Scholar
- Stephanie Teebagy North. 2011. Twitteright: Finding Protection in 140 Characters or Less. Journal of High Technology Law 11, 2, 333–364.Google Scholar
- G. Paolacci, J. Chandler, and P.G. Ipeirotis. 2010. Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5, 5.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joel R. Reidenberg, Travis Breaux, Lorrie Faith Cranor, et al. 2015. Disagreeable Privacy Policies: Mismatches Between Meaning and Users' Understanding. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 30.Google Scholar
- Martin Robbins. 2014. Does OKCupid need our consent? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/jul/30/does-okcupid-need-our-consentGoogle Scholar
- Willem E. Saris, Melanie Revilla, Jon A. Krosnick, and Eric M. Shaeffer. 2010. Comparing Questions with Agree/Disagree Response Options to Questions with Item-Specific Response Options. Survey Research Methods 4, 1, 61–79.Google Scholar
- Oshani Seneviratne and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2010. Remix Culture on the Web: A Survey of Content Reuse on Different User-Generated Content Websites. Proceedings of Web Science Conference (WebSci '10).Google Scholar
- Anna C. Squicciarini, Mohamed Shehab, and Joshua Wede. 2010. Privacy Policies for Shared content in Social Network Sites. VLDB Journal 19, 6, 777–796. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian Stelter. 2009. Facebook's Users Ask Who Owns Information. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Janice Y Tsai, Lorrie Cranor, Serge Egelman, and Alessandro Acquisti. 2010. The Effect of Online Privacy Information on Purchasing Behavior: An Experimental Study. Information Systems Research 22, 2, 254–268. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hui Zhang, Munmun De Choudhury, and Jonathan Grudin. 2014. Creepy but Inevitable⿯? The Evolution of Social Networking. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14). Google ScholarDigital Library
Reality and Perception of Copyright Terms of Service for Online Content Creation
Recommendations
Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities
CSCW '15: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social ComputingCopyright law is increasingly relevant to everyday interactions online, from social media status updates to artists showcasing their work. This is especially true in creative spaces where rules about reuse and remix are notoriously gray. Based on a ...
Copyright terms in online creative communities
CHI EA '14: CHI '14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsA key usability problem for websites is the complexity of their terms and conditions. Within the HCI community, attention to this issue to date has primarily focused on privacy policies. We begin to build on this work, extending it to copyright terms. ...
"I Am Not a Lawyer": Copyright Q&A in Online Creative Communities
GROUP '14: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group WorkOnce referred to by the Supreme Court as the "metaphysics" of law, many parts of copyright policy are historically confusing. Therefore, it isn't surprising that in communities where amateur content creators work within a legal gray area, copyright is a ...
Comments