[BlackFly]

GDPR doesn't change anything in this respect. Copyright law applies.

Why would the owner of the copyright make a complaint to the data protection authorities of the EU who might choose to do nothing when they could directly file a copyright infringement case? I suppose you could add insult to injury, but the data protection agency is likely to rule that the issue is one of copyright infringement.

[jakeogh]

I post a letter on a pole. You take a picture of it. I sue you for sharing that pic, and pretend you still have free speech.

[BlackFly]

I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate...

There is plenty of nuance to copyright, such as public forums, public domain, fair use, etc. You have those defenses available to you. However, a person can bring a civil action against you anytime you make a copy of their protected work. The case may or may not be meritorious but already defending against a lawsuit is a penalty. Archival facilities are already exposed to this risk and they actively lobby for protecting their activities as fair use to varying degrees of success.

A person cannot bring civil action against you under the GDPR. They may make a complaint to the data protection authorities who may bring action against you if your use of the data is unlawful. Therefore, there is no way to force a person to have to even face a trial under GDPR. If your use of the data is unlawful, you certainly have no license, so you are not protected less under the GDPR than under copyright law. If your copy counts as fair use, then it will count as being lawful under Article 6.1 (e) and no action can occur under the GDPR.

[chaosite]

I'm not sure what you think free speech is, because the definition I'm aware of does not apply in any way to that situation.

[chii]

> pretend you still have free speech.

free speech is the right to speak about any topic without the gov't attempting to punish or censor you.

Free speech isn't the right to speak at any (private) forum, nor is it about having the right to be heard.

[stale2002]

It absolutely is the right to speak at any private forum that allows you to do so, AND it is the right to be heard by people who are purposefully choosing to listen.

Yes, if a private forum chooses to not let you speak, you can't force them to accept you. But if they DO choose to let you speak, then you do have that right.

Also, this IS about the government attempting to censor people.

It is the Internet Archives freaking website, that they own!

[icebraining]

You have copyright over that letter, and can definitively sue someone for sharing a picture of it.

[martin-adams]

I thought free speech was the ability to make commentary on the letter on the pole, but not to reproduce it.

It's the equivalent of it being technically illegal to take a photo of the Eiffel tower at night, because the light show is a copyrighted artistic display.