Twitter

[LordEntrails]

The reverse is also true though. A hoover became a generic term for a vacuum cleaner. I believe there are places in the USA where Coke is a generic term for soda/pop. "Coke please?" "What would you like?" "7UP." When a brand name becomes the vernacular could a brand owner sue a retailer for selling a customer a different brand? What if I asked a sales assistant to see their range of hoovers and ended up walking away with a Panasonic?

The answer is yes, if the copyright holder sues in time. Perhaps you have noticed that in the US bars no longer throw SuperBowl parties? And commercials for products no longer refer to it as a "SuperBowl Sale" or anything else with "SuperBowl" in it? That's because about 10 (?) years ago the NFL started enforcing its' copyright with C&D's and lawsuits.

[Meshon]

I want to believe that this isn't a terrifying issue, but deep down I can't help but wonder. I have seen some artists I follow on Twitter who post photos of just a part of their work which is one possibility. I also know that images are downsized, my Pinecone Hold map comes up at less than 50% of the original size when I uploaded it to Twitter. I think I'm going to continue on as I am (I mainly use Twitter right now), but maybe a little more warily. If it's a critical project or a map I'm planning a significant use for I'll maybe change the way I share it.

Also, not sure if it was mentioned, but the Twitter TOS hasn't really changed in regards to posting content, I think it's getting noticed again because they updated other parts of their agreement.

As a side note, I've always really appreciated how maps posted by the guild are received on social media, and that there are always links to the original thread, credit to the artist and even, in cases where I've shared commissioned work that has been published, a clear note about who that publisher is. So thank you, Guild Social Media Team! I really appreciate all your hard work, you're the best!

Cheers,
Meshon

[Falconius]

The Art station ToS, is better written and it has a similar although more specific clause, it's actually more like the Guild one:

13. Licence regarding Your Content

Your Content may be shared with third parties, for example, on social media sites to promote your content on the Site. Accordingly, you hereby grant royalty-free, perpetual, world-wide, licences (the “Licences”) to Ballistiq and our service providers to copy, reformat and distribute Your Content in connection with providing the Services; and to Ballistiq and our service providers, members, users and licensees to use, communicate, share, and display Your Content (in whole or in part) subject to our policies, as those policies are amended from time-to-time.

14. Moral Rights.

Ballistiq and our service providers, members, users and licensees may use, copy, display and transmit your user name in connection with any or all of Your Content if Ballistiq or the service providers, members, users or licensees wish to do so.

Deviant Art is pretty much the same, and limits it's terms similarly to ArtStation's. I guess Twitter just want's a little more protection for itself, and so leaves it more open.

[Voolf]

I agree Falconius, this is the proper TOS that is obvious for social media. You grant the right to reproduce and redistribute your content for either promote the site or your content only to the service providers.