Copyright is created the moment a work is created. You don't have to register a copyright (though you can).

This is an incomplete fact. It’s misleading to state this without acknowledging why it is important to register a copyright.

Lack of copyright registration gives you no legal copyright ownership over created work. You would be required to go through the burden of proof and show evidence that it was yours and you created it if the issue of infringement came up in court.

Once you register and are granted a copyright, you possess ownership over use of said work. You can't legally have one without the other in a court of law. It's assumed that if you establish your copyrights, that you have registered for ownership. It would be pointless to assert a claim without legally following up to stake said claim.

This would be equivalent to saying an author gives up copyright to any publishing house that prints his book, which is not the case. Rights are licensed to the publisher -- and they pay for them, establishing a contract.

I'm not addressing authors, I'm addressing copyright as it pertains to this person's photos and her use of social media to upload photos.

Twitter doesn't even have that claim.

You are correct. They do state that you own your content. Please see here.

BUT and this is a huge BUT that most people do not understand! They also state that you agree to grant Twitter the right to use and distribute your content globally, freely and without compensation. Please see the following:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

TLDR on that last paragraph:

• You grant fair use, worldwide, royalty-free licensing right to Twitter for any content you submit.

• Twitter will distribute your content worldwide.

• Don't expect to be paid by Twitter.

• Don't expect to be paid by any company or individual who wants to use your content if they found it through Twitter.

You can find the exact italicized paragraph under Section 3. Content on the Services

I find it hard to believe the idea that Twitter has some magical right to any creative content users post.

Believe or deny what you want. It's written in plain text. I have not only linked it for you, I have copied and pasted it for you.

The clause I cited above is pretty standard in most User Agreements/Terms of Services/Privacy Agreements for corporations. It's a legal way and roundabout way for them to grant themselves fair use to free content on a public domain without having to pay licenses, pay royalty feed, receive written prior permission, etc.

We're been in a digital age of content marketing for at least a decade. What better way to get free digital content than to have a platform by which millions of users willingly and eagerly submit their thoughts/ideas/works? All you have to do is insert a little clause that most people don't even bother to read to understand what their rights are.

Otherwise, every musician, artist, photographer or author who used Twitter to promote their work and communicate with their fans would lose the rights to their copyrighted material. There would be no celebrities on Twitter, and Twitter would fold. I don't buy it.

Artists, musicians, photographers, etc who have excellent management and representation are always advised to copyright and/or trademark (through registration) their work prior to publishing onto sm platforms. They understand that it is used for promotional purposes. But the smart ones take care to legally protect their work.

Show me the court rulings that allow Twitter's TOS to overrule an individual's rights over content that they have created.

I don't know about Twitter, but this is the what the Voat User .Agreement says -

"Content

You retain the rights to your copyrighted content or information that you submit to Voat ("user content") except as described below.

By submitting user content to Voat, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. You agree that you have the right to submit anything you post, and that your user content does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary right of any other party. We take no responsibility for, we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, and we do not assume any liability for any user content submitted by you to Voat."

. Fair Use applies to any content that is created in the context of education or journalism.

i.e. you can use copyright material like pics if you want to do a video about the Q movement, or write a newspaper or blog article about it.

You first must obtain said copyright. From what I understand, links to 3rd party accounts were posted, that she herself controls. If it was creating such a problem, she could easily remove the content herself. Voat never hosted said content.

Hmm, then we need to also talk about the GDPR - cookies and user data storage. Too many people expose problems care info that needs to be wiped from Voat servers.

This doesn't change the fact that I am pissed about what @zyklon_b did and is planning to do but I will not let him corrupt the essence of Voat by having one user burnt.