I can confirm that at one point in the past I saw @srayzie posting a link that redirected her post here at Voat to her twitter account. I can confirm that I saw those pictures in said twitter account.
The pictures were of public access and hence there was no doxx applied here. If I am going to defend u/Obrez of his unjust ban I must defend u/Trigglypuff of hers.
Sorry srayzie but I do not support the ban for Trigglypuff as she got a hold of said pictures from a source that was previously linked by yoursefl.
I do however want to make clear that the harassment and the stalking is deeply concerning and this shit has got to stop. This whole matter started because @Zyklon_b decided to stir things up on v/GA and he wanted to start a fire. He got it and because of this whole matter he got u/Trigglypuff burnt.
I do not defend their approach, heck I even called out ZB for fucking this up just because of his own druggy pride and going as far as now stalking srayzie and shizy is simply a cowardly thing to do from him and the ones that supported such attempt. I will however have to ask @Puttitout to unban u/Trigglypuff because she did not went out of her way to get pictures of srayzie that wouldn't have been accessible to her if srayzie hadn't posted links to her twitter on at least one post he did on GA.
I hate to be the devil's advocate here and right now I am fucking pissed at ZB for what he has caused. But the doxx wasn't there. The request of srayzie to remove her pictures was met by the admin but no ban should have ever taken place because they were of public domain.
Otherwise any twitter pics posted here at Voat can be considered as doxxing and you all know that is not the case.
I will stand by srayzie and shizy and defend them against the harassment that ZB has started but I will not condone the ban for an unjustified reason.
I hope you are happy with your actions ZB because you have proven to be nothing more than a coward junkie too immature to acknowledge your wrong doings and unable to apologize for what you've done. So to that I say, go fuck yourself faggot. I am extremely disappointed on you.
EDIT: I HAVE DECIDED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER PRIVATELY IN HOPE FOR A START OF A HEALING PROCESS ON VOAT. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT ANY ATTACK ON MY CHARACTER FROM USERS LIKE @VIRGE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN DIVERSIONS AND THAT I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN WHAT VOAT REPRESENTS. HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE A CONCLUSION TO THIS SOON ENOUGH.
view the rest of the comments →
sguevar ago
I appreciate your intake on this, and maybe we can find a common ground on this. But at this point the one that has power to put all of this to rest is @srayzie.
She has the power on whether this ends now or not. I hope she does use it wisely for I would see this ban as dangerous defeat to what Voat represents.
Regarding your question mark I make the same argument, any post done from twitter, screencap of personal accounts of other people including President Trump for that matter can be considered as doxxing under that logic.
I don't agree with it. If the pics were on public domain they do not infer a doxxing otherwise the posts that @antiliberalsociety has done on @TexasVet would also infer said behavior and their not because they users themselves linked them and are on the web. They are material that can't be use for profiteering we can agree on that but they can't be considered doxxing of any kind.
Vindicator ago
Not exactly @sguevar and @kevdude. The difference here is that srayzie asked that it be taken down. I believe under the DMCA, that mandates @PuttitOut remove it. Under that logic, since srayzie asked Triggly to remove the content and she refused, that then put Triggly in violation of the law Putt has to abide by. I could be wrong about that.
I believe there are additional circumstances at play, here, as well, if @Srayzie linked to that prior to the incident involving NeonRevolt several months ago where several different accounts were posting messages all over various social media asking for help doxing her. They also threatened to rape her in front of her kids.
I am pretty sure the DMCA considers the creator of the images to retain copyright and recognizes their legal right to request sites remove their images, text, music and any other content they created...whether they posted it or not.
Perhaps @cynabuns knows more about how DMCA requirements might apply, here.
ooberlu ago
DMCA only applies to copyrighted work. It's highly doubtful that Srayzie copyrighted her selfies.
Once she uploaded her pics onto Twitter, they fell under the category of "content submission" according to Twitter TOS. Said pics then became considered fair use within public domain. They are not protected.
Putt removing them is within his rights as site admin. But her selfies are not protected under copyright law, nor does DMCA apply here.
Vindicator ago
I absolutely guarantee she copyrighted them.
Copyright is created the moment a work is created. You don't have to register a copyright (though you can).
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. Twitter doesn't even have that claim.
I find it hard to believe the idea that Twitter has some magical right to any creative content users post. 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.
Show me the court rulings that allow Twitter's TOS to overrule an individual's rights over content that they have created.
ooberlu ago
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Vindicator ago
Thanks for explaining all that.
Obviously Twitter and other platforms would need the right to distribute, since the content is on their platform, which they are making available internationally.
Do Twitter or Voat's TOS rights also require that content creators allow other subscribers to freely use and distribute their work? That's the real issue, here.
A Voat user took content owned by a different voat user and embedded it in the CSS of their own subverse here on Voat without her permission, Twitter's permission, or Voat's permission. Do the TOS useage rights actually apply to the user who does not own the content?
ooberlu ago
You're welcome.
WRT to Twitter, "requires" is not the correct term in this case. But yes, it does state in Twitter's TOS that you agree to allow others to freely use and distribute your work.
WRT to Voat, you also agree, albeit indirectly. You also release Voat from liability of any submitted content.
See here:
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.
A few things:
First, no permission is required from either Twitter, Voat or the user. The content has no copyright ownership and has been available in the public domain. It is free to use without fear of lawsuit from infringement under the Fair Use of copyright law.
Secondly, an argument can be made that what was done with this content falls under parody. Parody is highly protected under the First Amendment. So even if it was copyrighted, laws governing free speech grant fair use for the sake of parody.
Lastly, this statement on Voat again: 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.
Welcome to the internet. Best to not submit any information that is unprotected or that you care to have ownership over. It's a losing battle and more trouble than it's worth.