It should be pretty obvious that a decentralized network that many use specifically to not be connected to centralized networks houses mostly people who do not wish to have their posts bridged to B...
On the one hand, the ability to share is implied in the platform and the publication settings of the software you’re using.
On the other hand, copyright still applies. You need to pass a minimum threshold of originality (which can be quite hard for Tweet-length content) but creative works in any form are copyrighted, and are subject to intellectual property laws.
Now, I don’t think any lawyer will recommend you to sue someone reposting your social media posts. However, the ideals of the Fediverse are in direct conflict with laws and regulations around the world, from intellectual property laws to privacy laws.
If you post a coptrightable original work, you decide who’s allowed to reproduce that work. You don’t have the legal right to repost stuff you found online, no matter how common that may be on social media; you’re not allowed to reproduce a work unless you provide permission.
This is why Facebook and Twitter have those “you give us the unrevocable right to reproduce your works” lines in their terms of service. The Fediverse lacks such terms, because it’s not one single server. Like with many other problems, the Fediverse overlooks and ignores the real legal conundrums by pretending it doesn’t exist.
In my opinion, the standard controls on services like Mastodon should be sufficient: you decide whether you share a post with a server, with the tagged people, or with everyone. The default, the latter option, should be expected to include bridges and all other kinds of online services. However, I can’t think of a legal basis for this.
The best I can think of is the fact ActivityPub is a push-based protocol, so your server is the one uploading content to the bridge. However, this type of technical implementation detail isn’t accepted as a legal defence in other cases (imagine hacking becoming legal for any request/response protocol!).
On the one hand, the ability to share is implied in the platform and the publication settings of the software you’re using.
On the other hand, copyright still applies. You need to pass a minimum threshold of originality (which can be quite hard for Tweet-length content) but creative works in any form are copyrighted, and are subject to intellectual property laws.
Now, I don’t think any lawyer will recommend you to sue someone reposting your social media posts. However, the ideals of the Fediverse are in direct conflict with laws and regulations around the world, from intellectual property laws to privacy laws.
If you post a coptrightable original work, you decide who’s allowed to reproduce that work. You don’t have the legal right to repost stuff you found online, no matter how common that may be on social media; you’re not allowed to reproduce a work unless you provide permission.
This is why Facebook and Twitter have those “you give us the unrevocable right to reproduce your works” lines in their terms of service. The Fediverse lacks such terms, because it’s not one single server. Like with many other problems, the Fediverse overlooks and ignores the real legal conundrums by pretending it doesn’t exist.
In my opinion, the standard controls on services like Mastodon should be sufficient: you decide whether you share a post with a server, with the tagged people, or with everyone. The default, the latter option, should be expected to include bridges and all other kinds of online services. However, I can’t think of a legal basis for this.
The best I can think of is the fact ActivityPub is a push-based protocol, so your server is the one uploading content to the bridge. However, this type of technical implementation detail isn’t accepted as a legal defence in other cases (imagine hacking becoming legal for any request/response protocol!).