An analysis of the fundamental tensions between copyright and social media: the legal implications of sharing images on Instagram

ABSTRACT

Copyright is inherently intertwined with the development of technology and none more so than the advent of the Internet and sharing technologies. More recently, social media platforms have become the latest challenge for copyright law and policy. This article builds on the literature that recognises the underlying conflict between copyright and social networking sites (SNSs); namely that the basic implication of copyright is the restriction of copying, whereas the ethos of social networking is the promotion of sharing. In particular, this article focuses on the disparity between the restricted acts of copying and communication to the public under copyright law and the encouragement of sharing on SNS Instagram. In doing so, it contextualises the debate surrounding copyright and social media and provides an understanding of the legal implications of using Instagram. As such this paper analyses (1) the infringement of copyright protected work on Instagram, and (2) the user-agreement and licensing of copyright material on Instagram. This study concludes that the disparity between the principles of copyright and social media lead to confusion and vulnerability of users. Therefore, it is suggested that Instagram should better inform its users of the implications of sharing third-party content as well as the terms of its user agreement. This could be done by implementing a copyright strategy, which includes a notice and takedown system as well as investing in producing educational content for users. Perhaps SNSs, such as Instagram might be more motivated to take steps to recognise intellectual property rights if they were considered Internet Services Provides such as YouTube.     

Sentencing Parricides: Text and Context; Rhetoric and Silence

This article considers the sentencing of two eighteenth centuryparricides, one committed by a daughter, the other by a son. In eachcase the sentencing remarks are first subject to generic analysis,derived from the work of Rukiya Hasan and Susan Urmston Philips. Withinthose thematic structures there is a traditional rhetorical analysis. Bycombining both types of analysis one can demonstrate the salientfeatures of each set of judicial remarks. The focus of the article thenshifts from these texts to their contexts, and reveals features in theiroffence narratives which have been omitted in these otherwise powerfulrhetorical utterances. Explanations for these silences are given.     

Race and Ethnicity: Responsible Use from Epidemiological and Public Health Perspectives

While the concepts of race and ethnicity have been abused historically, they are potentially invaluable in epidemiology and public health. Epidemiology relies upon variables that help differentiate populations by health status, thereby refining public health and health care policy, and offering insights for medical science. Race and ethnicity are powerful tools for doing this. The prerequisite for their responsible use is a society committed to reducing inequalities and inequities in health status. When this condition is met, it is irresponsible not to utilize these concepts.     

Zur Berücksichtigung des Denkmalschutzes im Bundeswaldgesetz

Die von Deutschland nach Art. 59 Abs. 2 GG ratifizierten europ?ischen und internationalen übereinkommen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz müssen in nationales Recht transformiert werden. W?hrend die L?nder im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenz (Art. 30, 70, 83 GG) Denkmalschutzgesetze erlassen haben, hat der Bund in einschl?gigen Gesetzen wie dem Bundeswaldgesetz den Denkmalschutz bisher nicht berücksichtigt. Dabei ist bei einem Waldanteil von 30% der Wald mit seinen historischen Kulturlandschaften und seinem Waldboden als Archiv der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte von besonderer Bedeutung. Da Deutschland 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende endlich auch ausdrücklich ein Kulturstaat werden soll, ist es an der Zeit, dass die Belange des Denkmalschutzes auch im Bundeswaldgesetz (z.B. §§ 1, 2, 9 oder 11 BWaldG) berücksichtigt werden. Einige Verpflichtungen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz sind heute ohnehin bereits V?lkergewohnheitsrecht (Art. 25 GG).