All, A bit tardy with this, as it bounced around a bit... I would have to mostly agree with Jeremy here. Again, this being specific to the context of US law. For example, in terms of libel, posts or materials on public forums (defined here as accessible to anyone with having to join or ask permission) are "published." Interaction that results in the collection of data requires (ethically and usually institutionally) informed consent. What constitutes "informed consent" is another discussion. The idea of copyright entering into this is curious, and I have re-read the thread as I thought I had misunderstood it (maybe I have...). While fixing anything in digital form creates a defacto copyright (via DMCA), the use of this material as data even if quoted in subsequent publications, is not a violation of copyright. It clearly falls under fair use: Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of *commentary and criticism*. Based on 4 Factors: 1. The Transformative Factor: The purpose and character of your use 2. The nature of the copyrighted work 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market Research is clearly within this realm. It is clearly transformative of the original text, the nature and venue of such a publication lends itself to commentary/analysis, the amount taken of all the total posts and reproduced in any subsequent publication is likely minimal, and the effect on the market is non-existent. Similar, but specifically relevant here is parody: A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original. If all fixed text online is copyrighted to the point that its use in another context is a violation, than any journalist who quotes a Twitter post in print would be infringing. That is clearly not the case. I would be more concerned with your IRB and your own ethical perspective. -TED On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
there is the question to return to this, that while the data may not be private to you anymore, it might still be private to facebook. so i'll modify the below with anything you put on facebook, you no longer have any claims to privacy and should facebook make it public, distribute it, etc., it is theirs to do that with. if they make it public, it is public, and your claim to privacy or understanding of privacy is likely to them only a matter of keeping a customer base happy.
-- Ted M. Coopman Ph.D. Lecturer Department of Communication Studies San Jose State University http://www.sjsu.edu/people/ted.coopman/