A storm has recently blown up in America over a film studio’s use of a critic’s tweet about new movie Inside Llewyn Davis, which the critic says was used without his permission in a full-page ad in the New York Times.
To make matters worse, the critic, A O Scott, was asked for his permission, he says, but declined, saying that it seemed like “a slippery slope and contrary to the ad hoc and informal nature of the medium”.
The promoters went ahead anyway and displayed an edited version of the tweet, mocked up to look like it had not been edited and containing only the last two sentences of the original text.
Mr Scott then tweeted that he was surprised and disappointed his tweet had been used, saying: “we have reached a strange new place in marketing when tweets become full-page print ads.”
He told the New York Times’ public editor that the use of tweets is new enough ground that it should have been talked about more and it is true that the law is still in its infancy about repeating tweets, as long as they do not constitute potentially libellous remarks.
The law is still adjusting to the rights of those publishing on social media platforms and because Mr Scott had volunteered his opinion of the film in a public way, it is unlikely that the promoters’ use of his tweet constitutes a breach of Twitter’s terms and conditions which state that content may not be used in advertising broadcasts without prior consent.
Lawyers in the States have said that there is nothing anyone can do to stop the reproduction of tweets unless they cast someone in a false light or wrongfully endorse something.