The Fallacy of Availability: Why ‘It’s Already Online’ Doesn’t Automatically Make It Fair to Repost
Share
In the high-speed ecosystem of Nigerian social media, a single video can move from a WhatsApp status to a global trending topic in under an hour. We have all seen it: a clip of a heated argument in a Lagos market, a person caught in an embarrassing moment, or a leaked private conversation. By the time the subject realizes what has happened, the footage is being shared by thousands, repurposed into memes, and used as commentary by influencers.
The most common defense used by those sharing this content is a shrug of the shoulders and the phrase: “But it is already online.”
This logic is deeply flawed. There is a massive legal and ethical gap between information being accessible and information being permissible to use. The misconception that because data is already online doesn automatically make it a free resource for repurposing is a legal minefield that can lead to devastating consequences for both individuals and businesses.
The Myth of the Public Domain
Many people conflate “publicly available” with “public domain.” In legal terms, the public domain refers to creative works whose intellectual property rights have expired or been forfeited. Most personal data and social media posts do not fall into this category. They remain the property of the individual or the original creator, protected by various data protection principles.
When a person posts a video to their private Instagram or a niche Facebook group, they are sharing it within a specific context. They have a reasonable expectation of how that data will be used. When a third party scrapes that video and reposts it to a commercial brand’s page or a massive news aggregator, they are violating the principle of purpose limitation. This principle dictates that data should only be used for the specific purpose for which it was originally collected or shared.
A Real-World Scenario: The Viral Entrepreneur
Consider the case of Amina, a small-scale fashion designer in Abuja. While filming a ‘behind-the-scenes’ video for her brand, a passerby is captured in the background, clearly visible and identifiable, reacting emotionally to something happening off-camera. The video goes viral because of the passerby’s reaction.
A week later, a large lifestyle media company reposts the clip, adding a caption that mocks the passerby’s emotion to drive engagement. The company argues they are just “reporting on what is already online.” However, the passerby did not consent to be the face of a viral meme. This isn’t just an ethical lapse; under frameworks like the Nigeria Data Protection Act (NDPA) and the GDPR, this company may be processing personal data without a valid lawful basis, potentially triggering significant regulatory scrutiny from the Nigeria Data Protection Commission.
The Risks of Repurposing Without Consent
The dangers of this behavior extend far beyond simple social awkwardness. We must look at the risks through three distinct lenses: the individual, the business, and the platform.
- For Individuals: The risks include reputational damage, psychological distress, and “digital permanence.” Once a clip is repurposed, it is nearly impossible to scrub from the internet, creating a permanent record that can affect future employment or personal relationships.
- For Businesses: Using “viral” content for marketing or even “engagement” is a high-risk strategy. Companies can face lawsuits for unauthorized use of likeness, heavy fines from data protection regulators, and a massive backlash from consumers who view the brand as predatory or unethical.
- For Platforms: While platforms often enjoy some level of immunity, the increasing pressure for better content moderation means that systemic reposting of non-consensual data can lead to stricter, more restrictive policies that affect all creators.
To clarify the distinction, see the table below:
| Feature | Publicly Available Content | Permissible Data Processing |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Information that can be seen by the public. | The legal right to use data for a specific goal. |
| Core Requirement | Accessibility. | Lawful basis (Consent, Legitimate Interest, etc.). |
| Context | Original intent of the creator. | Must respect the original context and purpose. |
| Violation | None (simply viewing). | Repurposing for a different, unconsented goal. |
How to Navigate the Grey Areas: A Checklist
If you are a content creator, a journalist, or a business owner, you need to move away from the “it’s already online” mindset and toward a compliance-first approach. Before you hit share or repurpose, ask yourself these questions:
- What was the original intent? Was this person sharing this for a private circle or for global consumption?
- Is there a lawful basis? Do I have explicit consent, or can I prove a compelling “legitimate interest” that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy?
- Am I adding value or just exploiting? Am I providing news/commentary, or am I simply using someone’s misfortune for clicks?
- Can I de-identify the subject? If the point is the event and not the person, can I blur faces or hide names to minimize privacy impact?
“Privacy is not about hiding things; it is about the power to control how your story is told to the world.” — This sentiment is echoed by many privacy researchers who argue that contextual integrity is the heartbeat of digital trust.
For companies, integrating these checks into your compliance frameworks is not just a legal necessity; it is a brand-building move. Demonstrating respect for user data builds a level of trust that viral exploitation can never achieve.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to share a meme?
Sharing a meme that is purely comedic and doesn’t target a specific individual’s private data is generally fine. However, if the meme uses personal images to mock or harass a private individual, it can cross into legal territory regarding harassment and data protection violations.
Does copyright apply if the content is on social media?
Yes. Social media platforms do not strip creators of their copyright. While the platform has a license to host the content, the individual still owns the rights to how that content is used by third parties.
Conclusion
The digital world moves fast, but the law and ethics must move with intention. The shield of “it’s already online” is a paper-thin defense that will not hold up under the scrutiny of modern data protection regulators. As we navigate an era of unprecedented connectivity, the most successful businesses and most responsible citizens will be those who understand that accessibility does not equal permission. Respect the context, respect the individual, and build digital trust instead of seeking cheap engagement.
