[akersten]

So, asking non-facetiously, as an artist I have the right to decide how my work must be attributed, even if the platform I'm posting it to tells me in their ToS that my work will be altered in a standard way in the course of using the service?

If my understanding is correct (with the caveat that I am nowhere close to an expert), that's frankly bonkers and I have no idea how Twitter can operate at all in Japan.

[aahhahahaaa]

It's weird in our context but there's followable logic there.

Being absurdly protective of the person who did the work is at least erring on the side of protection.

It's not impossible to imagine a world where the internet could have social media platforms with some attempt at media attribution functionality...

...instead we have the wild west where the vast majority of content is shared without acknowledgement, let alone attribution or permission. Even EXIF attribution data is stripped whether you like it or not. You have incredibly successful artists trying to protect their work with watermarks and JS-disabled right-clicks. Seems silly.

[numpad0]

Appears the original uploader wasn’t this photographer/angry copyright holder.

Uploader stole a pic and posted it, which normally constitute a consent to ToS, or something like that. Others unknowingly retweeted the stolen pic and the photographer wants their identity disclosed to proceed with lawsuits.

Twitter argued that retweets don’t count as distributing and requiring a click to show full photo isn’t cropping, but the court determined it does/it is.

Counterintuitive way to draw a line but I’m not sure if it’s terrible that court find cropping the photo with CSS require user consent. Maybe not as bonkers as Coinhive case.

[polm23]

While it doesn't exist in the US, many countries have the same moral right. The intent is that if I buy a painting from you and exhibit it you get to determine how your name is displayed, within reason, so I can't say the painting is by "Puppy Kicker Smith."

Note that usually people are reasonable about it, and that it's also extremely common to have contracts state the right will not be exercised. This case is unusual because the use of the photo is completely non-consensual.

[duffmancd]

I'm also not an expert: based only on my reading of Wikipedia, you are correct and it is bonkers from a US perspective.

The photographer may be in breach of Twitter's ToS for enforcing their moral rights, but that would not _stop_ them from enforcing their rights. In this case, the initial post to twitter was not from the photographer, but someone else. So Twitter likely has nothing to hold against the photographer.

[talaketu]

> So Twitter likely has nothing to hold against the photographer.

Nothing in the article suggests any agreement between the photographer and Twitter.