There was quite a lot of response to my piece “On Facebook Status Updates and Copyright“. Let me say up front that the response and comments were so diverse in their content and style, in their emotiveness and reservedness, in their judgement and observation that even an “seasoned veteran” like myself lost his head and reading and rereading these couldn’t decide how to sum it all up. 

 

But I must summarize — I promised, after all.

 

Analyzing the entire diversity of the comments left here and on my Facebook wall, we see two main viewpoints, with their variations: 

 

A. Facebook status updates and notes are publicly made statements, thus anyone can use them with a link how and where they want, without even asking the author. This is the radical view.

 

B. They can be used only after procuring an agreement from the author. 

 

There was also a third view, which is the derivative of the second in the sense that individual users were saying that their comments can’t be used; that is, they will never allow it. 

 

According to supporters of the second viewpoint, this isn’t quite correct as not every public remark can be taken and handed over to another community. Why? Because, as they say, Facebook updates are of a different style, a different lexicon, and so on.

 

In the opinion of Artur Khemchyan, who participated in this debate, “… the press and social networks are different platforms; they have their distinct characteristics, and that which I would say in a social network, I wouldn’t say in the press. Social networks’ platform gives much more freedom in terms of contact; you expound your thoughts more freely, you are more unconstrained in your assessments. For example, in social networks you might tell a joke which you wouldn’t in the press; you can be more informal than you would be in the press…

 

“Let me repeat, the issue is the difference in platforms. I behave one way at home, a different way with my friends, and a completely different way in official meetings. Likewise, the rules of the press are completely different and the change of platform requires the appropriate language. And if they begin to publish status updates without asking, we will be forced to restrict ourselves and write as we would in the press…”

 

Another, a friend who operates a news outlet, in verbal conversation said if he was asked, he would either allow its use or would say, if you’re interested in the topic, I can write an article for you, illustrating the same ideas, but the style will be different. And he’s right.

 

In any case, I think to cite as a reason that it is a public remark and to use it without the author’s agreement is wrong purely from an ethical standpoint. In the rules of ethics there are principles in working with sources which supposes honesty in the relationship with the source. 

 

I believe the same should apply here — isn’t the person posting a note on a social network likewise a source for those journalists who use that note (or comment or status update). Which, by the way, are used mainly for business purposes: aren’t the activities of mass media (irrespective of the medium) commercial activities, aimed at attracting readers and viewers and ensuring advertising revenue accordingly? 

 

And thus it turned out that apart from the ethical aspect, there exists also a legal one, which, however, corresponds with the opinion of supporters of the first viewpoint: that is, anything published on Facebook is public, thus open for any use.

 

Apropos, I asked for an explanation from expert on social networks, my friend Artur Papyan. Artur, who, by the way, agrees with me and supporters of the second view in the matter of ethics, quoted the following excerpt from Facebook’s official terms (which everyone agrees to when they register, but which few pay attention to):

 

“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.”

 

The fourth point in the “Sharing Your Content and Information” section reads: “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.”

 

Everything is written quite plainly and clearly: you are no longer the owner of your public remarks and anyone can use that information how and where they want. Thus, legal regulations are one thing; ethical, another. And I think that from an ethical standpoint it would be correct to come to an agreement with the Facebook user at least on one occasion. Though, I also understand that this isn’t always possible. 

 

Mesrop Harutyunyan

 

P.S. Thank you to all those who responded to my first piece on this topic and please forgive me for not individually addressing everyone’s comments.

The views expressed in the column are those of the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of Media.am.