a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
Dear all, I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions. One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study). In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion. However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland. Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences? I would be very thankful if you had time to help me, all the best, Maria Eronen
Maria - this dilemma persists for every beginning phd project starting with email lists (see my book from 2004 on Cyberselves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian women as an example from another generation) My 2 cents - copyright - If its public - they dont have a law suit case - besides you also got actual email permissions from them as well. Ethics - if its sensitive material - dont reveal their real of youtube account names? share your dissertation with them? - but let's see what others have to say:) Finish your project - then worry about this as you get nearer to publication. r On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Maria Eronen <m85327@student.uwasa.fi>wrote:
Dear all,
I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions.
One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study).
In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion.
However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland.
Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences?
I would be very thankful if you had time to help me,
all the best, Maria Eronen
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Radhika Gajjala Director, American Culture Studies Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies 101 East Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik
Maria- U.S. copyright says, basically, once the expression is fixed--once they've typed out and posted their words, for example--copyright is granted. So, generally, the posters would own the copyright to their posts. However, this general statement is complicated by the use of certain software. Facebook, for example, claims ownership and hence (I'd think) copyright for everything posted. I think you should address copyright like this: 1)Check the software/organization to see what their policies are concerning copyright and use of their material for research purposes. In general, I think you'll find that most of these organizations own copyright but will let the material be used for research. 2)If that is so, then it's a good idea to check with the original poster to get permission to use their comments (as you've done). If you get their permission, particularly in email/ writing, then I think you're covered on the copyright front. Of course, if they deny permission, then you can't use their comments. 3)If the organizations differ from what I've written above (for example, Twitter probably does, as evidenced by the recent discussion on this list), you'll have to proceed on a case by case basis. As far as ethics...I think you should mask both their true identity (actual name) and their user name. But I haven't done too much internet research to date. I would think some standards have developed by now--how do researchers generally handle this problem? Do people generally create pseudonyms for online pseudonyms? I defer to the other researchers here. -Shannon Oltmann Shannon M. Oltmann Doctoral Candidate Adjunct Instructor Profile: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/faculty/spotlight/index.php?facid=108 School of Library & Information Science Indiana University Quoting Radhika Gajjala <radhika@cyberdiva.org>:
Maria - this dilemma persists for every beginning phd project starting with email lists (see my book from 2004 on Cyberselves: Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian women as an example from another generation)
My 2 cents -
copyright - If its public - they dont have a law suit case - besides you also got actual email permissions from them as well.
Ethics - if its sensitive material - dont reveal their real of youtube account names?
share your dissertation with them?
- but let's see what others have to say:)
Finish your project - then worry about this as you get nearer to publication.
r
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Maria Eronen <m85327@student.uwasa.fi>wrote:
Dear all,
I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions.
One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study).
In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion.
However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland.
Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences?
I would be very thankful if you had time to help me,
all the best, Maria Eronen
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Radhika Gajjala Director, American Culture Studies Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies 101 East Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
mostly i support the view that documents published, like a web page or a comment, are published and as such are not really questions involving the rights of the author so much as the rights of the publisher. this will depend of course, twitter for instance only reserves certain rights and reverts the rest to the authors. as published documents, these comments basically parallel newspaper 'letter to the editor' comments more than the 'private conversation' that some researchers may imagine them as. Note though that if you have to login to read them, then you might be entering a non-published arena. As for international copyright concerns... i'm pretty sure that you'll need to obtain permission if copyright is asserted, but here you should read the terms of use for the publisher, it may be that they have already obtained all the rights (like twitter does) and then reverted some, but still retain the right to distribute, so then you can see if they also allow you to redistribute, which many do, but some do not. as for the original authors, they have the rights of the author too, on top of copyright, which may mean that you cannot change their words or identity in any way for research purposes without their explicit permission to do so. (in the u.s. we do not have the rights of the author in the same way that the e.u. does so this is less of an issue) . so yes, the thousands of researchers who have been assuming that anonymizing is a good thing, may have been doing a very bad thing, but as of yet, i've not heard of anyone suing a researcher for anonymizing or changing words. anyway, i would treat these comments as a. public and published b. owned by who the terms of service says owned it and c. ensure i have permission from the owners if appropriate.
good points also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt (as in FB) On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jeremy hunsinger <jeremy@tmttlt.com> wrote:
mostly i support the view that documents published, like a web page or a comment, are published and as such are not really questions involving the rights of the author so much as the rights of the publisher. this will depend of course, twitter for instance only reserves certain rights and reverts the rest to the authors. as published documents, these comments basically parallel newspaper 'letter to the editor' comments more than the 'private conversation' that some researchers may imagine them as. Note though that if you have to login to read them, then you might be entering a non-published arena. As for international copyright concerns... i'm pretty sure that you'll need to obtain permission if copyright is asserted, but here you should read the terms of use for the publisher, it may be that they have already obtained all the rights (like twitter does) and then reverted some, but still retain the right to distribute, so then you can see if they also allow you to redistribute, which many do, but some do not. as for the original authors, they have the rights of the author too, on top of copyright, which may mean that you cannot change their words or identity in any way for research purposes without their explicit permission to do so. (in the u.s. we do not have the rights of the author in the same way that the e.u. does so this is less of an issue) . so yes, the thousands of researchers who have been assuming that anonymizing is a good thing, may have been doing a very bad thing, but as of yet, i've not heard of anyone suing a researcher for anonymizing or changing words. anyway, i would treat these comments as a. public and published b. owned by who the terms of service says owned it and c. ensure i have permission from the owners if appropriate. _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Radhika Gajjala Director, American Culture Studies Professor of Communication Studies and Cultural Studies 101 East Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite? thanks for advice -- Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com
________________________________ From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Facebook is not public unless the user 's posts are googlable? On May 6, 2011 9:44 AM, "Adi Kuntsman" <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com
________________________________ From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook. what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library. On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
What Jeremy said. As an aside (and a bigger discussion that I'd love some advice on), our recent NSF grant was turned down because we were proposing archiving social content (tweets, comments appended to news articles, blogs, etc.) along with MSM articles (from CNN, BBC News, etc.). The issue was surrounding the ethics of archiving "personal data" even though it is posted in a public space (not password protected, no logon required, etc). We are hoping to meet with folks over at archive.org and the library of congress to discuss this further, but I'd be very interested in hearing how others have dealt with this issue in your grant proposals. Thanks, Liza ______________________________________ Liza Potts, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Writing, Culture, and Technology Co-Director, CeME Lab Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529 AIM: LizaPotts Skype: lkpotts http://ceme.digitalodu.com/ On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
A few quick points: 1. If the quotes are already publicly available and thus presumably indexed by search engines, does it do much good to obfuscate the author's name or handle? Of course, if the quotes are trivial or common it would be hard to trace them back to the correct author (but if they're trivial or common do they need to be included in a publication?). But what are the ethics involved here? If subjects wrongly believe themselves to be publishing in private or semi-private forums should we continue to honor that belief ("play along" with them?) in some way? Surely others have put significant thought into this and can provide us some guidance! 2. I'm very surprised that no one has raised "fair use" or "fair dealing" in the brief discussion of copyright. I don't know about copyright and intellectual property in Finland but in many countries there are research and scholarship exceptions in copyright law allowing us to publish copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. When appropriate, we shouldn't be shy about taking advantage of those rights. Copyright should not be an excuse to prematurely or unnecessarily censor or restrict ethical, valuable research. By not understanding or taking advantage of copyright law there seems to be a danger that we unnecessarily self-censor our work, possibly more harshly than even the most aggressive copyright holders. Kevin
I fully agree with Kevin's point about fair use / fair dealings, and I also think that we as educators should push for an expansion of fair use. The US-led culture industry is pushing to curtail fair use, strengthen copyright restrictions for rights holders (which, in the case of music, is usually not the artist), and are hegemonically confusing people as to what their rights are -- for instance see Wendy Seltzer's blog posts about her experience with the DMCA and the intentional lie of a copyright notice that most televised US sports use: http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-nfl (or really anything in her excellent blog, she's an academic lawyer). We also need to educate our grad students, if we have them, about fair use, and I think we should raise a huge generation of pro-fair use militants. Otherwise we are going to continue to lose that war. See also http://www.chillingeffects.org/ On May 6, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Kevin Guidry wrote:
A few quick points:
1. If the quotes are already publicly available and thus presumably indexed by search engines, does it do much good to obfuscate the author's name or handle? Of course, if the quotes are trivial or common it would be hard to trace them back to the correct author (but if they're trivial or common do they need to be included in a publication?). But what are the ethics involved here? If subjects wrongly believe themselves to be publishing in private or semi-private forums should we continue to honor that belief ("play along" with them?) in some way? Surely others have put significant thought into this and can provide us some guidance!
2. I'm very surprised that no one has raised "fair use" or "fair dealing" in the brief discussion of copyright. I don't know about copyright and intellectual property in Finland but in many countries there are research and scholarship exceptions in copyright law allowing us to publish copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. When appropriate, we shouldn't be shy about taking advantage of those rights. Copyright should not be an excuse to prematurely or unnecessarily censor or restrict ethical, valuable research. By not understanding or taking advantage of copyright law there seems to be a danger that we unnecessarily self-censor our work, possibly more harshly than even the most aggressive copyright holders.
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
------------------------------- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. http://natpoor.blogspot.com/
On the subject of copyright and texts (as opposed to humans and interactions with them, which is a separate issue, as far as university IRBs are concerned, but in some ways is not a separate issue, is it?) there's a slightly similar discussion taking place on the email list of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music (IASPM). As I wrote on that list, liasing with other scholarly associations with an interest in these issues would be useful if for no other reason than to avoid reinventing the wheel. Hopefully such an effort could also lead to formation of a coalition that could have its voice heard by those who might be in a position to influence policy and legislation. The International Communication Association about a year ago published a white paper on the topic of fair use by scholars. It can be found online at: http://www.icahdq.org/publications/reports/fairuse.pdf On the IASPM list Mike Baker noted that the Film Studies Association of Canada prepared a document on this issue a couple of years ago in anticipation of a revision to the Copyright Act that remains under review: http://www.filmstudies.ca/FSAC_copyright.htm. The Society for Cinema and Media Studies also had some discussions on the topic but I haven't tried to dig up the email thread, sorry. Steve On May 6, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Nathaniel Poor wrote:
I fully agree with Kevin's point about fair use / fair dealings, and I also think that we as educators should push for an expansion of fair use. The US-led culture industry is pushing to curtail fair use, strengthen copyright restrictions for rights holders (which, in the case of music, is usually not the artist), and are hegemonically confusing people as to what their rights are -- for instance see Wendy Seltzer's blog posts about her experience with the DMCA and the intentional lie of a copyright notice that most televised US sports use: http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/dmca-nfl (or really anything in her excellent blog, she's an academic lawyer).
We also need to educate our grad students, if we have them, about fair use, and I think we should raise a huge generation of pro-fair use militants. Otherwise we are going to continue to lose that war.
See also http://www.chillingeffects.org/
On May 6, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Kevin Guidry wrote:
A few quick points:
1. If the quotes are already publicly available and thus presumably indexed by search engines, does it do much good to obfuscate the author's name or handle? Of course, if the quotes are trivial or common it would be hard to trace them back to the correct author (but if they're trivial or common do they need to be included in a publication?). But what are the ethics involved here? If subjects wrongly believe themselves to be publishing in private or semi-private forums should we continue to honor that belief ("play along" with them?) in some way? Surely others have put significant thought into this and can provide us some guidance!
2. I'm very surprised that no one has raised "fair use" or "fair dealing" in the brief discussion of copyright. I don't know about copyright and intellectual property in Finland but in many countries there are research and scholarship exceptions in copyright law allowing us to publish copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. When appropriate, we shouldn't be shy about taking advantage of those rights. Copyright should not be an excuse to prematurely or unnecessarily censor or restrict ethical, valuable research. By not understanding or taking advantage of copyright law there seems to be a danger that we unnecessarily self-censor our work, possibly more harshly than even the most aggressive copyright holders.
Kevin _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
------------------------------- Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D. http://natpoor.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
thanks, Jeremy i did not assume it was public - but rather that some FB groups describe themselves as having "public content, open to all" it is more straighforward when addressing one's personal information on FB - terms of service or not, my first ethical obligation is to research subjects. but what about those 'public' groups (and i deliberately put public in inverted commas here)? i am still not clear which situations require request of permission - is it only when citing directly, or for any mentioning of groups? -- and if they do require permission, i think its an interesting ethical question here about who owns the words: technically its FB but again, my sense of resesarch ethics and commitment is that it would be the group owners/admins adi
________________________________ From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Adi Kuntsman <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> Cc: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects. the question is to determine whether you are dealing with texts vs subjects goes like this in the U.S. If i am intervening in the person's affairs or personal information, then I am treating them as a subject. If i am dealing with texts published and fixed in manner that does not require me to do anything other than to read or interact with the texts, then, there are no subjects. You are researching an object. If i were researching facebook, I would probably be researching a series of texts, preferably that i recovered from archives accessible by the public. I could imagine that one could research facebook in a way that required them to participate in and interact with communities and peoples there, though. Once you interact with people or people's personal information, then you have questions. However, if the persons make their personal information accessible in publicly retrievable archives, i want to be very clear here... that information is public and still textual. I am not on the side of the privacy advocates that seem to argue that if a person makes their personal information public, that moves the public into the private. I argue that the public stays public, and their information is now public. If it was published in a newspaper, it would be public, if it were recorded in congressional records, it would be public, and if they post it on a website that is accessible to all, even if it was very private, it is now public. This of course is tempered by the understanding that if one can discern that the person posting the material might be a child or other protected group, then there may be further questions, but even then, from what i've seen if it was in a public document it should probably be treated as a text still. keep in mind, that these are my opinions and arguments; I take them forth here and elsewhere and some people vehemently disagree with them. My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear. I don't want concerns about privacy to impinge the capacity to research of public documents, though others seem to promote that. On May 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
thanks, Jeremy
i did not assume it was public - but rather that some FB groups describe themselves as having "public content, open to all" it is more straighforward when addressing one's personal information on FB - terms of service or not, my first ethical obligation is to research subjects. but what about those 'public' groups (and i deliberately put public in inverted commas here)? i am still not clear which situations require request of permission - is it only when citing directly, or for any mentioning of groups? -- and if they do require permission, i think its an interesting ethical question here about who owns the words: technically its FB but again, my sense of resesarch ethics and commitment is that it would be the group owners/admins
adi From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Adi Kuntsman <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> Cc: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
jeremy hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
There's much to chew on with Jeremy's thoughtful reply below (and this entire thread), but I want bring to light one possible complication: "My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear" You may see the line as clear -- at the moment -- but the line often moves. Consider how certain profile information I shared on Facebook in 2008 was restricted to only my friends. I created a "private" sphere, borrowing your framework. Then, in 2010, Facebook changed the platform, and this information was automatically now made public. I had no choice, little warning, and little ability to react or remove this information. (Perhaps I'm not very aware of such things; perhaps I haven't logged in for months; perhaps I'm just not too bright). Now, in 2011, a researcher uses Google and discovers this information from my Facebook profile that is now publicly available. Was this information "published"? Is it really meant to be "public"? Did I consent to it being used? Is my ignorance about how Facebook now works justification for harvesting and using the information? -michael. -- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org On May 6, 2011, at 10:19 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects. the question is to determine whether you are dealing with texts vs subjects goes like this in the U.S. If i am intervening in the person's affairs or personal information, then I am treating them as a subject. If i am dealing with texts published and fixed in manner that does not require me to do anything other than to read or interact with the texts, then, there are no subjects. You are researching an object. If i were researching facebook, I would probably be researching a series of texts, preferably that i recovered from archives accessible by the public. I could imagine that one could research facebook in a way that required them to participate in and interact with communities and peoples there, though. Once you interact with people or people's personal information, then you have questions.
However, if the persons make their personal information accessible in publicly retrievable archives, i want to be very clear here... that information is public and still textual. I am not on the side of the privacy advocates that seem to argue that if a person makes their personal information public, that moves the public into the private. I argue that the public stays public, and their information is now public. If it was published in a newspaper, it would be public, if it were recorded in congressional records, it would be public, and if they post it on a website that is accessible to all, even if it was very private, it is now public. This of course is tempered by the understanding that if one can discern that the person posting the material might be a child or other protected group, then there may be further questions, but even then, from what i've seen if it was in a public document it should probably be treated as a text still.
keep in mind, that these are my opinions and arguments; I take them forth here and elsewhere and some people vehemently disagree with them. My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear. I don't want concerns about privacy to impinge the capacity to research of public documents, though others seem to promote that.
On May 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
thanks, Jeremy
i did not assume it was public - but rather that some FB groups describe themselves as having "public content, open to all" it is more straighforward when addressing one's personal information on FB - terms of service or not, my first ethical obligation is to research subjects. but what about those 'public' groups (and i deliberately put public in inverted commas here)? i am still not clear which situations require request of permission - is it only when citing directly, or for any mentioning of groups? -- and if they do require permission, i think its an interesting ethical question here about who owns the words: technically its FB but again, my sense of resesarch ethics and commitment is that it would be the group owners/admins
adi From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Adi Kuntsman <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> Cc: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
jeremy hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I would not say that anything put onto facebook as private, that will be public, the limits of research there are governed by matters of ownership, not matters of privacy. You've given your data to facebook under a contract, so if facebook gives it to me, that's that. It is public. You consented to it being used for anything as soon as you gave it to facebook. That is the end of it. The ethics of the matter are now a matter of property on facebooks part, not on yours. (that again is a hard and uncomfortable line, but it might be too true) On May 6, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Michael Zimmer wrote:
There's much to chew on with Jeremy's thoughtful reply below (and this entire thread), but I want bring to light one possible complication:
"My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear"
You may see the line as clear -- at the moment -- but the line often moves. Consider how certain profile information I shared on Facebook in 2008 was restricted to only my friends. I created a "private" sphere, borrowing your framework.
Then, in 2010, Facebook changed the platform, and this information was automatically now made public. I had no choice, little warning, and little ability to react or remove this information. (Perhaps I'm not very aware of such things; perhaps I haven't logged in for months; perhaps I'm just not too bright).
Now, in 2011, a researcher uses Google and discovers this information from my Facebook profile that is now publicly available.
Was this information "published"? Is it really meant to be "public"? Did I consent to it being used? Is my ignorance about how Facebook now works justification for harvesting and using the information?
-michael.
-- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org
On May 6, 2011, at 10:19 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects. the question is to determine whether you are dealing with texts vs subjects goes like this in the U.S. If i am intervening in the person's affairs or personal information, then I am treating them as a subject. If i am dealing with texts published and fixed in manner that does not require me to do anything other than to read or interact with the texts, then, there are no subjects. You are researching an object. If i were researching facebook, I would probably be researching a series of texts, preferably that i recovered from archives accessible by the public. I could imagine that one could research facebook in a way that required them to participate in and interact with communities and peoples there, though. Once you interact with people or people's personal information, then you have questions.
However, if the persons make their personal information accessible in publicly retrievable archives, i want to be very clear here... that information is public and still textual. I am not on the side of the privacy advocates that seem to argue that if a person makes their personal information public, that moves the public into the private. I argue that the public stays public, and their information is now public. If it was published in a newspaper, it would be public, if it were recorded in congressional records, it would be public, and if they post it on a website that is accessible to all, even if it was very private, it is now public. This of course is tempered by the understanding that if one can discern that the person posting the material might be a child or other protected group, then there may be further questions, but even then, from what i've seen if it was in a public document it should probably be treated as a text still.
keep in mind, that these are my opinions and arguments; I take them forth here and elsewhere and some people vehemently disagree with them. My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear. I don't want concerns about privacy to impinge the capacity to research of public documents, though others seem to promote that.
On May 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
thanks, Jeremy
i did not assume it was public - but rather that some FB groups describe themselves as having "public content, open to all" it is more straighforward when addressing one's personal information on FB - terms of service or not, my first ethical obligation is to research subjects. but what about those 'public' groups (and i deliberately put public in inverted commas here)? i am still not clear which situations require request of permission - is it only when citing directly, or for any mentioning of groups? -- and if they do require permission, i think its an interesting ethical question here about who owns the words: technically its FB but again, my sense of resesarch ethics and commitment is that it would be the group owners/admins
adi From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Adi Kuntsman <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> Cc: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
jeremy hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
You may see the line as clear -- at the moment -- but the line often moves.
The line most certainly moves, as Michael Zimmer's Facebook example makes clear. His case shows how expectations, laws, regulations, and practices can change over time. But even aside from changes over time, the term "public" has many meanings and understandings. In a 2006 article, Pamela Samuelson identified 13 different meanings for "public domain" just in US copyright law -- and while "public domain" is by no means the same as "public," her point applies to public as well. [Samuelson, Pamela. (2006). Enriching discourse on public domains. Duke Law Journal, 55, 101-169.] And we're not even beginning to talk about differing notions of "public" across cultural and international boundaries. Heidi McKee and I have talked about this issue at some length in our book, The Ethics of Internet Research (Peter Lang, 2009; forward by Charles Ess). What we said about the public-private distinction was this (to quote at length):
What we see is an emergent consensus among researchers that the public-private distinction should not be regarded so much as a binary with two unambiguously clear meanings at either end, but rather as an interrelated continuum (Bruckman, 2002a; Bruckman, 2002b). As Susan Gal (2002) argued, ³Œpublic¹ and Œprivate¹ are not particular places, domains, spheres of activity, or even types of interaction [. . .] they are also, and equally importantly, indexical signs that are always relative: dependent for part of their referential meaning on the interactional context in which they are used." The distinctions of public-private are fractal because ³the distinction between public and private can be reproduced repeatedly by projecting it onto narrower contexts or broader ones.² Gal cites as one example the ³privacy² of the house: Within the public space of a city or street, a house is private. But within the house, there are ³public spaces² (the living room) and ³private spaces² (the bedroom, the bathroom), and within those spaces the conventions for disclosing information can vary on the people interacting and their degree of trust with one another. Thus, notions of public and private are not coherent and distinctive, but rather ³fractalized² where the distinction between the concepts operates at different levels of granularity (Lange, 2007; Gal, 2002).<<
Of course the discussion rests on a fundamental assumption about the ethics of research: that what human subjects *think* about that public-private distinction should be a factor in our deliberations about whether to seek informed consent. Most human subjects aren't taking the time to read the 56-page user TOS, and we shouldn't expect them to. Best, Jim Porter ------------------------------------ James E. Porter, Professor Department of English and Armstrong Institute for Interactive Media Studies Director of College Composition Department of English Bachelor Hall 356A Miami University Oxford, OH 45056 email: porterje@muohio.edu twitter: http://twitter.com/reachjim web: http://www.units.muohio.edu/english/People/Faculty/I_P/PorterJames.html ------------------------------------
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. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:02 PM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I would not say that anything put onto facebook as private, that will be public, the limits of research there are governed by matters of ownership, not matters of privacy. You've given your data to facebook under a contract, so if facebook gives it to me, that's that. It is public. You consented to it being used for anything as soon as you gave it to facebook. That is the end of it. The ethics of the matter are now a matter of property on facebooks part, not on yours. (that again is a hard and uncomfortable line, but it might be too true) On May 6, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Michael Zimmer wrote:
There's much to chew on with Jeremy's thoughtful reply below (and this entire thread), but I want bring to light one possible complication:
"My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear"
You may see the line as clear -- at the moment -- but the line often moves. Consider how certain profile information I shared on Facebook in 2008 was restricted to only my friends. I created a "private" sphere, borrowing your framework.
Then, in 2010, Facebook changed the platform, and this information was automatically now made public. I had no choice, little warning, and little ability to react or remove this information. (Perhaps I'm not very aware of such things; perhaps I haven't logged in for months; perhaps I'm just not too bright).
Now, in 2011, a researcher uses Google and discovers this information from my Facebook profile that is now publicly available.
Was this information "published"? Is it really meant to be "public"? Did I consent to it being used? Is my ignorance about how Facebook now works justification for harvesting and using the information?
-michael.
-- Michael Zimmer, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Information Studies Co-Director, Center for Information Policy Research University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee e: zimmerm@uwm.edu w: www.michaelzimmer.org
On May 6, 2011, at 10:19 AM, jeremy hunsinger wrote:
if you are dealing with texts, you are not dealing with research subjects. the question is to determine whether you are dealing with texts vs subjects goes like this in the U.S. If i am intervening in the person's affairs or personal information, then I am treating them as a subject. If i am dealing with texts published and fixed in manner that does not require me to do anything other than to read or interact with the texts, then, there are no subjects. You are researching an object. If i were researching facebook, I would probably be researching a series of texts, preferably that i recovered from archives accessible by the public. I could imagine that one could research facebook in a way that required them to participate in and interact with communities and peoples there, though. Once you interact with people or people's personal information, then you have questions.
However, if the persons make their personal information accessible in publicly retrievable archives, i want to be very clear here... that information is public and still textual. I am not on the side of the privacy advocates that seem to argue that if a person makes their personal information public, that moves the public into the private. I argue that the public stays public, and their information is now public. If it was published in a newspaper, it would be public, if it were recorded in congressional records, it would be public, and if they post it on a website that is accessible to all, even if it was very private, it is now public. This of course is tempered by the understanding that if one can discern that the person posting the material might be a child or other protected group, then there may be further questions, but even then, from what i've seen if it was in a public document it should probably be treated as a text still.
keep in mind, that these are my opinions and arguments; I take them forth here and elsewhere and some people vehemently disagree with them. My position is that there is a public and publishing makes things public, and there is a private, and if you don't want it public, you shouldn't publish it. I don't want the private to bleed into the public, nor the public to bleed into the private, but I see the line as very clear and I want it to be made very clear. I don't want concerns about privacy to impinge the capacity to research of public documents, though others seem to promote that.
On May 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
thanks, Jeremy
i did not assume it was public - but rather that some FB groups describe themselves as having "public content, open to all" it is more straighforward when addressing one's personal information on FB - terms of service or not, my first ethical obligation is to research subjects. but what about those 'public' groups (and i deliberately put public in inverted commas here)? i am still not clear which situations require request of permission - is it only when citing directly, or for any mentioning of groups? -- and if they do require permission, i think its an interesting ethical question here about who owns the words: technically its FB but again, my sense of resesarch ethics and commitment is that it would be the group owners/admins
adi From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: Adi Kuntsman <adi_kuntsman@yahoo.com> Cc: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
jeremy hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
http://www.aoir.org The Association of Internet Researchers http://www.stswiki.org/ stswiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- jeremy hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
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/
Jeremy, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion of public/private and the role of Facebook in muddying those waters. One point of clarification. The assumption that archive.org, LoC or other organizations collecting "public" information rests on the webmaster's decision to include a robots.txt file at the top level of a domain. (See http://www.robotstxt.org/ for more.) Facebook uses a robots.txt file that prohibits most indexing by the Internet Archive, so the litmus test of whether an archived resource is public becomes a bit more complicated. The Internet Archive also honors takedown notices and requests for copyright by following the Oakland Archive Policy -- http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html... you'll find a number of scenarios that prohibit archives from collecting certain types of information in the Oakland Policy matrix. I am interested in hearing more perspectives on the publicness of FB data, particularly the data that can be used to identify a human subject. While this may not relate directly to my research now, it certainly will affect the ways in which "human" subjects are treated by IRBs. Thanks, William ------------------------- William J. Moner || PhD Student, Media Studies, University of Texas at Austin Co-Coordinating Editor, Flow Media Journal || http://flowtv.org wjmoner@utexas.edu || 512.820.9741 || @williamj On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:54 AM, jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> wrote:
I would not assume anything on facebook is public or publicized other than things you can see on the open internet without login and even then those are copyrighted and as i recall have a license on top of the copyright limiting their public reception, but i could be wrong about the license as i can't find it now. Your ability to use that will be limited by the terms of service of facebook that you agree to (and their api terms are the most flexible). If you need permissions beyond those provided, then i think you need to ask facebook.
what i assume would be public if anything from facebook is anything that you would find preserved in a system like archive.org, the library of congress of the u.s. or the british library.
On May 6, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Adi Kuntsman wrote:
.. so, for example, in case of a 'public' FB group (loging required but noone needs to accept/friend you to be able to see it) - is it public or private and who, if any, should be asked for permission to research and cite?
thanks for advice
--
Dr. Adi Kuntsman Simon Research Fellow Department of Anthropology/ Research Institute for Cosmopolitan Cultures The University of Manchester Second Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, room 2.007 Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK http://adi.kuntsman.googlepages.com From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns@vt.edu> To: aoir list <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2011 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
yes, check login status, i agree. facebook is an odd case because of their terms of service. but if you cannot see something because you are not logged in, then you have questions of privacy much more significantly. most of my research currently deals with things that are a. no login (published blogs) or b. login required but company releases the necessary rights to material that may be openly viewed and anyone can login and openly view(second life). there are other issues in both because both can have private channels and sections, but i don't research those. On May 6, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Radhika Gajjala wrote:
good points
also if you are seeing something because you are a friend or in a circle -that reqd the user to "accept" you - it may be considered pvt
(as in FB)
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. -Pablo Picasso
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Jeremy Hunsinger Center for Digital Discourse and Culture Virginia Tech
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality. -Jules de Gaultier
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I think the tendency is to muddy the waters immensely here, but I also don't think we need to muddy the waters in regards to the Document vs Research Subject distinction. If you were allowed to research facebook, then you could do it either way or both ways, having subjects and documents, having just documents, or having just subjects. But once we are dealing with documents, then the only question we have is whether those are published documents or not. I think that instead of muddying the waters and continuing to say it is not simple, as we are inclined to do as academics, is going to continue to cause us grief and possibly prevent perfectly reasonable research, and thus i think we should embark on the other strategy that says: 'We can make this simple'. If it is published, it is public and open to research, you determine if it is published using these guidelines. If it is not published, then what is it, is it a private diary? is it a private letter? who has rights to the material and how can it be released for research. If you are dealing with research subjects, in what way are you doing that? if you are just reading their postings... you are not interacting with them and not creating research subjects, if you are doing an ethnography or participatory or action research then yes you are interacting with them and you are creating human subjects, in short, a matrix of methods in relation to their objects would greatly clarify the document vs subject distinction. In terms of public private on the web, my position is more or less that if you put it on the web and you do not protect in in some manner via legal device, technical system, or otherwise, then you are producing a public document and that's the end of it. People I would argue that it does not matter if that was not your intent or that you wanted it to be private, what matters is that you committed something to the public record, and while you can withdraw it, once it is distributed, you might find that very difficult, and withdrawing likely doesn't change it's public status, it just changes the ease of access to that data. Robots.txt should not be ignored. it is one of the technical means that people use to secure their property on the web. If there is a robots txt and it prevents you from making a copy of something, then i'd guess that the owners of the material do not want you to use it for research, and you'd need to get permission.
I would agree with Radhika. If posted in a public forum, and if you have contacted them to allow them to object, I don't see a problem with copyright at all. As for ethics, obscuring their user names, and perhaps the forum location, affords more protection than they have given themselves when they posted in the first place. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Maria Eronen <m85327@student.uwasa.fi> wrote:
Dear all,
I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions.
One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study).
In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion.
However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland.
Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences?
I would be very thankful if you had time to help me,
all the best, Maria Eronen
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Maria, Shannon Oltmann is correct on the copyright issue--in U.S. law, at least, the fact that the comments are published in a fixed form means they are copyrighted. Normally the author owns the copyright, but it can depend on the terms of service for the forum where they material is published--e.g. on-line newspapers may own the rights if the works were created as works for hire. All that said, you are safe doing in-depth analysis of these without violating copyright law, and can even safely quote important examples, as long as you don't republish significantly large sections of individual pieces. You can quote, but quote judiciously. Citing where you retrieved originals so that others can see a primary source in its entirety is standard for published material, but you hesitate to cite the sources because you are concerned about the ethics of privacy. If these are all statements from "publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums," then, as Mark Johns notes, the original authors have already chosen to make them public. So the issue turns on the question of whether on-line fora should be treated like traditional publications--no ethical dilemmas in citing--or whether their authors should be treated like the traditional research subjects that are recruited for interviews, experiments, ethnographies, etc., whom for sensitive topics should be guaranteed confidentiality, and further, should be briefed up front, or debriefed afterward, on the purpose of the study. Though I would lean toward the former, especially for online newspapers. But you really need to check with your doctoral institution. Most U.S. colleges and Universities, at least, have some type of human research board, the members of which formulate specific policies on when permission, confidentiality, etc. are required. Hope this helps. Christopher J. Richter Associate Professor, Communication Studies Hollins University 8015 Quadrangle Lane PO Box 9652 Roanoke, VA 24020-1652 Tel: 5403626358 Fax: 5403626286 crichter@hollins.edu www.hollins.edu -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Maria Eronen Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:21 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research Dear all, I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions. One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study). In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion. However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland. Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences? I would be very thankful if you had time to help me, all the best, Maria Eronen _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Dear all, This interesting discussion seems to go on and on, very good :) I found in YouTube's terms of use a point which states that: "The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.[...] You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service." So basically it is OK if I leave usernames out but refer to YouTube as the source since it owns the copyright for all content on the service. Or does YouTube merely own copyright for republication of content on YouTube? This is a mess :) Maria Quoting "Christopher Richter" <crichter@hollins.edu>:
Maria,
Shannon Oltmann is correct on the copyright issue--in U.S. law, at least, the fact that the comments are published in a fixed form means they are copyrighted. Normally the author owns the copyright, but it can depend on the terms of service for the forum where they material is published--e.g. on-line newspapers may own the rights if the works were created as works for hire. All that said, you are safe doing in-depth analysis of these without violating copyright law, and can even safely quote important examples, as long as you don't republish significantly large sections of individual pieces. You can quote, but quote judiciously.
Citing where you retrieved originals so that others can see a primary source in its entirety is standard for published material, but you hesitate to cite the sources because you are concerned about the ethics of privacy.
If these are all statements from "publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums," then, as Mark Johns notes, the original authors have already chosen to make them public.
So the issue turns on the question of whether on-line fora should be treated like traditional publications--no ethical dilemmas in citing--or whether their authors should be treated like the traditional research subjects that are recruited for interviews, experiments, ethnographies, etc., whom for sensitive topics should be guaranteed confidentiality, and further, should be briefed up front, or debriefed afterward, on the purpose of the study.
Though I would lean toward the former, especially for online newspapers. But you really need to check with your doctoral institution. Most U.S. colleges and Universities, at least, have some type of human research board, the members of which formulate specific policies on when permission, confidentiality, etc. are required.
Hope this helps.
Christopher J. Richter
Associate Professor, Communication Studies Hollins University 8015 Quadrangle Lane PO Box 9652 Roanoke, VA 24020-1652
Tel: 5403626358 Fax: 5403626286 crichter@hollins.edu www.hollins.edu
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Maria Eronen Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:21 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
Dear all,
I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions.
One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study).
In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion.
However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland.
Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences?
I would be very thankful if you had time to help me,
all the best, Maria Eronen
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
This simply says that if you post material to Youtube, you represent that you have the right to do so, and you give Youtube permission to store and transmit it. I don't think that leads to the conclusion you draw below. I'm also not sure how it is relevant to your research concerns. Also, most of the replies you have been getting reference U.S. law. If your dissertation is to be published in Finland, you will need to consult Finnish data protection law and/or copyright law. You should not assume that Finland follows the U.S. model in either area (it almost certainly doesn't, and some of the answers you have been getting are dubious even under U.S. law). DLB
Dear all,
This interesting discussion seems to go on and on, very good :) I found in YouTube's terms of use a point which states that:
"The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.[...] You affirm, represent, and warrant that you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to publish Content you submit; and you license to YouTube all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to such Content for publication on the Service pursuant to these Terms of Service."
So basically it is OK if I leave usernames out but refer to YouTube as the source since it owns the copyright for all content on the service. Or does YouTube merely own copyright for republication of content on YouTube? This is a mess :)
Maria
Quoting "Christopher Richter" <crichter@hollins.edu>:
Maria,
Shannon Oltmann is correct on the copyright issue--in U.S. law, at least, the fact that the comments are published in a fixed form means they are copyrighted. Normally the author owns the copyright, but it can depend on the terms of service for the forum where they material is published--e.g. on-line newspapers may own the rights if the works were created as works for hire. All that said, you are safe doing in-depth analysis of these without violating copyright law, and can even safely quote important examples, as long as you don't republish significantly large sections of individual pieces. You can quote, but quote judiciously.
Citing where you retrieved originals so that others can see a primary source in its entirety is standard for published material, but you hesitate to cite the sources because you are concerned about the ethics of privacy.
If these are all statements from "publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums," then, as Mark Johns notes, the original authors have already chosen to make them public.
So the issue turns on the question of whether on-line fora should be treated like traditional publications--no ethical dilemmas in citing--or whether their authors should be treated like the traditional research subjects that are recruited for interviews, experiments, ethnographies, etc., whom for sensitive topics should be guaranteed confidentiality, and further, should be briefed up front, or debriefed afterward, on the purpose of the study.
Though I would lean toward the former, especially for online newspapers. But you really need to check with your doctoral institution. Most U.S. colleges and Universities, at least, have some type of human research board, the members of which formulate specific policies on when permission, confidentiality, etc. are required.
Hope this helps.
Christopher J. Richter
Associate Professor, Communication Studies Hollins University 8015 Quadrangle Lane PO Box 9652 Roanoke, VA 24020-1652
Tel: 5403626358 Fax: 5403626286 crichter@hollins.edu www.hollins.edu
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Maria Eronen Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 7:21 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] a question about privacy protection and copyright in Internet research
Dear all,
I am Maria, a PhD student from Finland and currently working with my thesis concerning how celebrity gossip leads to moral discussion on the Internet. I think I have some problems with research ethics. My research material consists of publicly available discussions from YouTube, various online newspapers and celebrity-related forums. Because I'm conducting linguistic analysis, it is reasonable to cite comments from those online discussions.
One central topic I am focusing on is autobiographical moralizing (for example, discussion participants compare violence involving celebrities with their own-life experiences of violence, such as telling how their partner once hit them). This kind of material is what I categorize as sensitive and see it better not to refer to pseudonyms or usernames. I make it clear in my work that in some cases I see it better to stress privacy protection over copyright. However, I will mention the forum, where the comments come from, as a source (such as YouTube). I have personally contacted every one whose comments I see as sensitive. I want to use even senstive comments because they are valuable material from the point of view of the research. No one of them whom I contacted has said no. But of course, I'm not even sure whether they have seen the posts I sent to them (actually one replied to me and just wanted to know more about the study).
In order to protect myself, I have not copied the whole comments, but left some parts of them out of the publication. The problem is now that by letting them know such a research they might see their posts in the dissertation and start a law case (because I don't authorize their words). The comments I cite without referring to the users as authors do not seem as pieces of creative art, but they are typical examples of online discussion.
However, I'm a bit concerned because the posters whom I cite without permission, are American. The work itself will be published in Finland.
Do you think this kind of privacy protection is a good reason to leave the usernames out? Am I too concerned or could this lead to serious consequences? Has anyone had similar experiences?
I would be very thankful if you had time to help me,
all the best, Maria Eronen
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- School of Law University of California, Irvine 4500 Berkeley Place Irvine, CA 92697-8000 Voice: (949) 824-9325 Fax: (949)824-7336
participants (19)
-
Adi Kuntsman -
Christopher Richter -
Dan L. Burk -
Jeremy hunsinger -
jeremy hunsinger -
Jeremy hunsinger
-
Kevin Guidry -
Liza Potts -
Maria Eronen -
Mark D. Johns -
Michael Zimmer -
Nathaniel Poor -
Porter, James E. Dr. -
Radhika Gajjala -
Radhika Gajjala -
Shannon M. Oltmann -
Steve Jones -
Ted Coopman -
William J. Moner