FACT CHECK: If newsrooms pick up your viral rant, don’t cry ‘plagiarism’ or demand payment

Public posts don’t necessarily require permission to report

When we get inconvenienced, we tend to rant about it online.

A “hindi sulit, never again” meal from a “pinipilahan” restaurant. A boss who chats past 11 p.m. Tito Boy or Tita Baby’s off-color banat at your recent family reunion. The bumpy walkway en route to the mall.

Sometimes, the rant is too outrageous to keep to yourself. A public official who gets terminally ill amid corruption allegations. Your subdivision with unresolved water quality issues for months. Different “manyak” drivers from the same ride-hailing app but they seemingly get away with it.

And you hit post. Public, of course. Maybe you expect a few mutuals to see it. Maybe you wish to be heard. Until it begins resonating with many. Friends of friends repost it. Total strangers chime in.

Then a news organization notices.

Your now-viral post becomes a news lead. The newsroom cites portions of it, even quotes a few comments, adds broader context, and publishes a story.

Something you wrote as a rant is now part of a news report, reaching an audience far beyond the one you originally imagined.

But suddenly, you’re like: Hoy, post ko ‘yan. Some may simply regret their post and ask that reports citing their post be taken down.

For others, things get more serious. They believe their post was “stolen” from them. They cry plagiarism. And if that isn’t serious enough yet, some demand not just attribution but also payment, lest there will be legal consequences. For a social media post!

Plagiarism?

It’s best to revisit the basics. Merriam-Webster defines “plagiarize” as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own: use (another’s production) without crediting the source.” Put simply, it’s about rightfully recognizing the person behind a piece of writing—and not pretending to be that person.

For instance, a newsroom looks into a story about a fish that typically costs a few hundred pesos but sells for over a thousand at a tourist spot. A viral post about it is not simply reported in toto. There’s an angle and some setup before the post is quoted. Its author is attributed, while the newsroom adds context on market prices, tourism, wages, or whatever else helps explain why the issue is worth looking into.

So, the post serves as only the jumping-off point. The newsroom builds the story around it with its own reporting, context, data, verification, and framing. So, nope, it isn’t plagiarism.

A post can have news value and be a matter of public interest. The poster may have “first” posted about it, but doesn’t remotely suggests ownership of a post’s wording, much less its underlying idea.

Copyright infringement?

This is where copyright comes in. Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code excludes “ideas, procedures, systems, methods or operation, concepts, principles, discoveries or mere data as such,” as well as “news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information,” from copyright protection.

Section 184.1(b) allows quotations from published works when they are compatible with fair use and justified by the purpose, provided the source and author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned. Section 184.1(d) also allows the reproduction and communication of works as part of reports of current events, to the extent necessary for the purpose.

So, not only is it not plagiarism. It’s also not copyright infringement.

And Meta itself says as much regarding fair use: “names, titles, slogans or short phrases generally aren’t considered to be original enough to qualify for copyright protection.” That covers plenty of the short rants people post online.

Meta also says copyright “generally doesn’t protect facts or ideas, but it may protect the original words or images that express a fact or idea.” So for instance, a post lamenting an overpriced fish at a tourist spot isn’t exclusive to who posted it.

Most importantly, Meta recognizes “news reporting” among the purposes for which copyrighted material may, under certain circumstances, be used. Reporting about a viral rant is perfectly safe, allowed, and legal.

So, a demand for payment makes it even more absurd.

Code of ethics

The Philippine Journalist’s Code of Ethics says as much: “I shall resort only to fair and honest methods in my effort to obtain news,” and “nor shall I accept or OFFER any present, gift or other consideration of a nature which may cast doubt on my professional integrity” (emphasis ours). A plagiarism claim coupled with a demand for money puts the newsroom in the absurd position of having to violate its own ethical standards just to appease the poster.

Of course, being public does not mean journalists should throw courtesy out the window. If a post reflects substantial thought or intellectual effort, or involves a sensitive subject, it is worth messaging the poster—especially if they know each other—and asking permission where appropriate.

Still, there’s something about Filipinos craving validation on social media. We post our rants, expect positive reactions and comments, and get a certain high when strangers pat us on the back. We want to be seen and to be heard—and that’s ok.

But Filipino entitlement is another thing. So is yabang. And more so, being mukhang pera.

If you’re going to put something out in public, don’t be surprised when the public—and journalists—see it. And when journalists pick it up because they see its news value, let them do their jobs.

READ: