[lambertsimnel]

That's shocking.

I wonder whether Twitter users are really legally liable for copyright violation in tweets they retweet, or whether the enforcers just believe they can get away with it.

I suppose it might differ from one jurisdiction to another. Are enforcers of this kind usually in the same jurisdiction as the supposed infringer?

[mwenge]

This particular operation seemed to be in Germany - we're in another European country. She got two notices and ignored both. Nothing has come of them so far. Whatever about tweeting an infringing image, retweeting it seems like a bit of a reach.

[lambertsimnel]

I suspect a lot of images on Twitter are unintentionally infringing, and that Twitter users typically remain ignorant, because not many are targeted for enforcement. If copyright enforcement against tweeted images takes off, maybe that will change.

However, doesn't Twitter itself add images in some cases (especially where a user tweet a link, but probably also retweets of an image)? If Twitter still does that, does it suggest Twitter itself isn't being targeted for enforcement? If so, is that only because enforcers prefer smaller prey?

Anyway, best of luck to you and your wife!

[6510]

Can fictional persons (usernames) own anything or be held responsible for anything? (licence content)

[lambertsimnel]

I don't see why not, but presumably it's the person (or people) controlling the username that would be held to account, if they can be identified

[6510]

Wouldn't that be the platform?

[lambertsimnel]

Can't websites that host user-generated content take steps (under the DMCA?) to ensure that users alone (and not the site) are liable for any copyright-infringing user-generated content?

If the users are sufficiently anonymised, or share accounts, prosecution might be difficult, but I'm not sure that makes them any less liable. I don't imagine that accounts themselves could be prosecuted, but I'm not a lawyer.