On Twitter, Tom Brevoort said permission was obtained after the fact … that’s where that’s coming from.

What I don’t get is the rant from Lucas. If Blog@ had permission, and Brevoort obviously didn’t know it and called them out, why not just tell Tom in an email or on Twitter or whatever that Cebulski okayed it? Why add to the drama by going off on The Entire State of Comic Book Journalism As It Relates to the Big Two, Particularly Marvel, rather than addressing Tom’s concern? ‘m not sure what one has to do with the other, unless Tom was sending emails to Matt Brady saying he’d never have the opportunity to cover Marvel again if he didn’t remove that post.

Brian, I would like to point out that Kirk Warren is wrong. David had the blessing from CB to post his tweets on April 16th, five days before the post was made . I am not sure why Kirk would assert otherwise, but I have what evidence I need to prove this point.

Apart from having permission, David broke the tweets into two sections (one for writers, one for artists) and put them in block quotes. It’s not as if he just cut and pasted a raw feed, as suggested.

Brian, I appreciate you inviting discussion on this issue, and I appreciate your stance.

Thanks,
Troy

Yeah, maybe you should ask before posting a whole string of tweets, but the people who are arguing about this don’t really seem to get Twitter. I realize I own the rights to my tweets, but frankly, they’re so short that I don’t really care what anyone does with them.

Another problem he had with the post was that they just copy and pasted the Twitter feed. They didnt even both to post the tweets in order and told people to read from bottom up.

Yeah, I don’t get that as being much of an issue. Maybe a bit of “you’re lazy for doing it like that,” but that seems to distract from the main point of “you shouldn’t appropriate someone else’s content in place of your content without permission to do so.”

Also, they got permission after the fact, despite claims to the contrary.

Yeah, I saw some back-and-forths about that, I didn’t particularly feel like getting into that debate (we surely don’t need yet some other tangent to argue about to distract from the main discussion). What we know for sure is that permission was given, and I was just wishing to concentrate on the fact that permission makes things allowable, which Brevoort certainly had stated, as well.

You should not be posting twitter logs without a link to the original work.

I don’t think you should be posting twitter logs (in this instance, twitter logs would mean “a large chunk of twitter posts”) without permission at all.

Bah this argument is silly. Get permission or don’t do it. Game over.

There’s practically (if not absolutely) NO one out there who says “you must get permission to use one of my tweeter posts.”

Permission only comes in when you begin to use a lot of them or build content based on reposting their tweeter posts (you know, like, “Your Joe Quesada Tweeter Post For The Day!” etc.).

Also, they got permission after the fact, despite claims to the contrary.