Reposting content on X is a DMCA Violation.

[Warren Faidley]

Had my X account locked for a day because I reposted a post. That's right, just like everyone does millions of times a day. Most upsetting, X allows and even encourages people to repost. Their entire monetary and publicity structure is built on that. I'm stunned there has been no class action process taken against them.

Now it appears, abusers and cons have found an easy way to target X members. X is officially a crock of S__T.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2001675270709997707

 

[Dan Robinson]

X's system and ethics are just completely out of whack. It's like they have the same concept of copyright as a 14-year old on TikTok. That said, this is probably at least partially the fault of the claimant in getting the URL wrong in their takedown, which has been known to happen in other cases. If they copy-and-paste the URL of a retweeter instead of the original, the takedown might go through if the employee who is processing it doesn't check like they should. Of course that job might be handled by an AI bot now, which might explain why it this mistake is happening more.

I think a counter-notification would be appropriate here.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I just spoke to an attorney about this issue. Twitter has a host of protections that allows them to do this. The most basic is risk-shifting and their agreement, that basically nixes any class-action lawsuits. They also hide behind safe harbor protections. It's rather sickening to ponder they profit off repostings with the knowledge individuals may be violating DMCA laws. They can simply suspend your account if you complain.

The easiest way to defeat social media abuse would be to change the safe harbor and risk-shifting laws. I don't see this happening under the current, pro-business administration, but if someone, like Gavin Newsome is elected, he might be in position to spank X's butt, giving his history with Elon.

Social media may appear like the indestructible Death Star, but they do have a weakness. One could theoretically argue unfair or deceptive practices, bad-faith DMCA handling and failure to reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy. You would have to piss-off a lot of people to get anything done, and most people now days, including photographers, are weaklings when it comes to abuse from bullies.

My Christmas wish this year is that AI totally destroys them, like Luke Skywalker's "one in a million," or the virus that killed the Martians in War of the Worlds. In reality, at some point, I would imagine the abuse of DMCA complaints by con artists and vengeful competitors will put a strain on the system, forcing them to react, or maybe find a new way to profit from it.

 

[Hannah.Taylor]

Might as well just get rid of the whole damn thing then. Shut it down. What's the purpose of the platform if you can't share information with others?!?

It's a toxic, social media melting pot cauldron of hate, trash talk, child abuse image links being shared, threats and just downright evil.

I left it about 4 years ago. Haven't been back.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Might as well just get rid of the whole damn thing then. Shut it down. What's the purpose of the platform if you can't share information with others?!?

It's a toxic, social media melting pot cauldron of hate, trash talk, child abuse image links being shared, threats and just downright evil.

I left it about 4 years ago. Haven't been back.

So very true. Sad that so many chasers / photographers falsely believe they can make it big on Twitter now days. If you did not develop a gimmick years ago, you can forget it. It is indeed toxic and abusive.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Just a warning to everyone NOT to repost anything on X. The repost button on X is a legal trap. Several bad characters are trolling for copyright violations.

​

 

[Dan Robinson]

If you get a DMCA takedown for a native retweet (a repost in X's new terminology), you should file a counter-notification stating that you are using the platform's native function that the TOS states every original poster grants a license for other users of the service to employ. That will clear the strike and put the onus on the claimant to escalate it further.

That assumes that the original poster is posting their own work or something they have permission or license to post. What complicates things is if the original poster's copy is stolen. In that case, it is true that other native resharers could technically have liability. The takeaway then is only reshare/retweet things that you know were posted by the owner of that content.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been battling this type of infringement for a very long time (with hundreds of thousands of takedowns sent and many lawsuits), I have no interest in sending takedowns or pursuing cases against people using native-function resharing, retweeting, etc functions. It doesn't serve any purpose to go after those! It's the root native-posted reupload that matters. I send a takedown for that copy alone. When it is taken down, all of the native-function reshares go away. There is no need to complicate things by going after people using the native-function reshare/retweet/etc. It's extra work that serves no purpose and doesn't accomplish anything when all I need to do is get the root infringing copy taken down. That's why I think this claimant likely just got the URL wrong and doesn't understand how to locate the URL of the original infringing reupload. Twitter/X doesn't exactly make that very easy, but it's still the responsibility of the claimant to get that right.

As far as the legal liability angle, I think it is highly unlikely any agency or attorney would go after people using native sharing functions on an infringing reupload. I've only ever gone after the root reuploaders, and even then only the cases that the attorneys will accept, which are open-and-shut commercial cases. Like most if not all chasers, I'm using contingency fee attorneys that only get paid if they win a case. Going after people who use the native sharing functions is not likely to succeed and so no contingency fee attorney is going to waste their time and money on those. Any person paying an attorney to go after those types of cases is just throwing money down the toilet. There are plenty of reuploading infringers to go after if they have money to throw away like that.

I will say that even if they don't have legal liability, people knowingly resharing/retweeting stolen videos is part of the problem. It's usually pretty obvious if an account is reuploading stolen content, any engagement that copy gets only helps the infringer and adds salt to the wounds of the victim. The biggest injustice I face routinely is the followers and supporters of pirate accounts heaping engagement and praise on them and then vilifying me when I do anything to deal with that account stealing my video or picture.

If this is indeed going to start happening more, the takeaway again would be to make sure you're only resharing/retweeting things posted by the original photographers. There would be zero liability there (and it's good practice anyway).

 

[Warren Faidley]

If you get a DMCA takedown for a native retweet (a repost in X's new terminology), you should file a counter-notification stating that you are using the platform's native function that the TOS states every original poster grants a license for other users of the service to employ. That will clear the strike and put the onus on the claimant to escalate it further.

This is is technically correct under X’s Terms of Service, but it exposes a structural contradiction in how X operates DMCA enforcement.
Yes, the TOS grants a broad license that explicitly enables native reposting. However, X still allows (and enforces) DMCA strikes against users who relied on that license without warning them beforehand that reposting can trigger copyright penalties. That puts users in a trap: the platform encourages reposting, monetizes it, and then penalizes it after the fact. Filing a counter-notification may clear a strike, but it places unnecessary legal risk and administrative burden on users who followed the platform’s own design and rules.

That assumes that the original poster is posting their own work or something they have permission or license to post. What complicates things is if the original poster's copy is stolen. In that case, it is true that other native resharers could technically have liability. The takeaway then is only reshare/retweet things that you know were posted by the owner of that content.

This is where the system breaks down in practice. While it’s true that resharing stolen content can technically expose users to liability, the expectation that ordinary users can reliably determine ownership on X is unrealistic. X does not provide provenance indicators, licensing context, or ownership verification. It leaves this decision to those who are reposting.... again, another legal trap.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has been battling this type of infringement for a very long time (with hundreds of thousands of takedowns sent and many lawsuits), I have no interest in sending takedowns or pursuing cases against people using native-function resharing, retweeting, etc functions. It doesn't serve any purpose to go after those! It's the root native-posted reupload that matters. I send a takedown for that copy alone. When it is taken down, all of the native-function reshares go away. There is no need to complicate things by going after people using the native-function reshare/retweet/etc. It's extra work that serves no purpose and doesn't accomplish anything when all I need to do is get the root infringing copy taken down. That's why I think this claimant likely just got the URL wrong and doesn't understand how to locate the URL of the original infringing reupload. Twitter/X doesn't exactly make that very easy, but it's still the responsibility of the claimant to get that right.

Targeting the root reupload is the only approach that makes sense legally, practically, and ethically. As you point out, once the original infringing upload is removed, all native reposts disappear automatically. Going after resharers accomplishes nothing except alienating users and creating chaos. Another fault with X is that it makes identifying the root next to impossible.

As far as the legal liability angle, I think it is highly unlikely any agency or attorney would go after people using native sharing functions on an infringing reupload. I've only ever gone after the root reuploaders, and even then only the cases that the attorneys will accept, which are open-and-shut commercial cases. Like most if not all chasers, I'm using contingency fee attorneys that only get paid if they win a case. Going after people who use the native sharing functions is not likely to succeed and so no contingency fee attorney is going to waste their time and money on those. Any person paying an attorney to go after those types of cases is just throwing money down the toilet. There are plenty of reuploading infringers to go after if they have money to throw away like that.

No rational attorney working on contingency is going after native resharers. The damages aren’t there, the defenses are obvious, and the odds of success are low. Enforcement resources are finite, and they will always flow toward clear commercial infringement. The problem is that bad actors are now using the DMCA process to "con" X members into paying fines or legal fees. The other issue is when you get multiple DMCA complaints, your account can be shadowed banned or closed.

I will say that even if they don't have legal liability, people knowingly resharing/retweeting stolen videos is part of the problem. It's usually pretty obvious if an account is reuploading stolen content, any engagement that copy gets only helps the infringer and adds salt to the wounds of the victim. The biggest injustice I face routinely is the followers and supporters of pirate accounts heaping engagement and praise on them and then vilifying me when I do anything to deal with that account stealing my video or picture.

If this is indeed going to start happening more, the takeaway again would be to make sure you're only resharing/retweeting things posted by the original photographers. There would be zero liability there (and it's good practice anyway).

X encourages reposting, it licenses reposting, it profits from reposting, it punishes reposting and only warns users after harm occurs.

We can only hope that enough people get fed-up with the abuse that it collapses the entire system.

 

[John Farley]

You folks are making me really glad that I decided years ago to never be on Twitter (now X, but my decision was years before that change). Never have, never will. Felt then, and still do, that its word limits effectively limit its content to oversimplified venting and all the stuff Hannah mentioned a few posts above.

 

[Warren Faidley]

It will be fascinating to see where this all goes. A train wreck is inevitable, with AI and copyright issues reaching critical mass at some point.

I asked Chat GTP about the future of X:

X is heading toward a fork in the road—either it stabilizes as a high-risk, low-trust content marketplace, or it slowly hollow-outs into a noisy distribution layer that serious creators abandon. X increasingly behaves like a signal booster, not a rights-respecting publisher.

What that means:

• Original creators post → others repost → reposters monetize
• X profits from engagement, not authorship
• Enforcement stays reactive, inconsistent, and complaint-driven

This is structural, not accidental. The algorithm rewards velocity, not ownership.

Outcome:
Creators who rely on exclusivity (journalists, photographers, filmmakers) will treat X as marketing only, not a home for content.

2. AI content overwhelms human content (and cheapens it)​

AI isn’t just “invading” X — it’s becoming the dominant filler material.

Expect:

• Mass-produced AI videos/images optimized for engagement
• Synthetic personalities farming impressions
• “News” accounts with zero sourcing, infinite output

X has no economic incentive to stop this:

• AI content is cheap
• AI content posts constantly
• AI content doesn’t file DMCA complaints

Likely result:
Human-made, high-risk content (like storm footage) becomes more valuable off-platform, but less protected on-platform.

3. Copyright enforcement stays broken — by design​

This is the key insight most people miss.

X:

• Encourages reposting
• Licenses redistribution in its TOS
• Then punishes users after the fact via DMCA

That contradiction benefits X legally and financially.

What won’t happen (realistically):

• No proactive copyright warnings
• No pre-repost ownership checks
• No meaningful creator-side protection tools

Why? Because friction reduces reposting — and reposting is the product.

4. Monetization becomes winner-take-all​

X is quietly moving toward a casino model:

• A small group of favored, high-engagement accounts win big
• Everyone else supplies free inventory
• Visibility becomes unpredictable (shadow throttling, algo swings)

This mirrors what happened on:

• YouTube
• TikTok

…but with less transparency and weaker rights protection.

5. The most likely end state (next 2–4 years)​

Scenario A (most likely):​

• X survives
• Trust erodes
• Professionals leave or minimize usage
• Platform fills with AI, outrage, and repost loops

Think: high traffic, low credibility.

Scenario B (possible):​

• EU / copyright courts force changes
• X either complies minimally or exits regions
• U.S. lags behind, creators remain exposed

Scenario C (least likely):​

Would require:

• Ownership-aware reposting
• Revenue split with originators
• AI labeling + throttling

There is zero evidence this is coming.

6. What smart creators (like storm chasers) should do:​

Treat X as distribution, not storage
Host originals on controlled domains
Use X to point, not publish
Preserve licensing value for clients, archives
Keep receipts (timestamps, EXIF, originals)

Long-term, creators with archives, provenance, and credibility win — especially when AI floods the zone.

Bottom line​

X isn’t “dying” — it’s changing into something hostile to original ownership.