The Fine Line of Social Media Content and Copyright Infringement

In today's digital landscape, social media platforms have become arenas for creative expression and content sharing. As users craft, post, and share content, understanding the nuances of copyright law becomes essential. And, the issues to consider are not the same across the different social media platforms. For instance, TikTok and Instagram have very different terms of use when it comes to the rights a user grants to other users.

Rights and Usage on TikTok and Instagram

When users post content on TikTok, they automatically agree to a set of terms that grant other users the right to use their content, provided it is for non-commercial purposes. This ability to replicate content is woven into TikTok's community, encouraging participation in trends and the creation of derivative works. 

Conversely, Instagram's terms of service do not extend the same permissions. While users grant Instagram (owned by Meta) the right to use, modify, and share their content to facilitate the service, these rights are not extended to other users for non-commercial replication. This fundamental difference between the platforms is pivotal in understanding the legal landscape of content sharing on social media.

A Real-World Example: Emily and Jenna’s Posts

The distinction between the two platforms is no more apparent then when content creators complain about other content creators copying their posts. Consider a scenario where one user, Jenna, with a larger following, posted content that closely mirrored an earlier post by another user, Emily. While Emily and Jenna's posts shared many similarities, including text descriptions, visual elements, and even an almost identical caption, the matter of copyright infringement hinged on where the content was posted. On TikTok, Jenna would have had the ability to copy portions of Emily’s post under TikTok’s Terms, but on Instagram she did not.

Since both Emily and Jenna’s posts were on Instagram, it is fair to assess whether Jenna’s post constituted copyright infringement. Copyright law does not safeguard mere ideas but the particular expression of those ideas. Here, although Emily and Jenna’s posts revolve around a similar concept—an "ADHD girlie" on a couch with her "fixation meal"—a legal analysis must determine if the way they expressed this idea is substantially similar under the law.

A comparison of the images on social media shows similarities in imagery, color schemes, and textual elements. Both posts incorporate an emotional support blanket, share thematic color opposites (light couch/dark attire in Jenna’s post and dark couch/light attire in Emily’s), and similar textual depictions of the scenario. These striking resemblances raise important questions about originality and copying, and also what amounts to “substantial similarity” under Copyright law.

While the themes and thematic elements in both posts are undeniably close, if you focus on the expression of those themes, copyright infringement is a close call. If you were to present this case to multiple copyright attorneys, you would likely receive diverse opinions, reflecting the complexity of gauging originality versus duplication in user-generated content. 

For creators navigating social media’s vast expanse, understanding platform-specific terms and the principles of intellectual property laws is paramount. This knowledge not only safeguards one's creative works but also fosters an environment where creativity and fair use coexist harmoniously.