I guess my question is are you safe just posting the twitter link and not the actual material on the twitter link, which may or may not be cropped?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, good question. I'm still learning myself so here's my best attempt. I saw an image that looked "too good" to be a cell phone snap (your POTUS and FLOTUS) and wondered if Twitter was passing around a professional image from a copyrighted website/publication. I right clicked and copied the address for the image.
I went to the website https://images.google.com
I clicked on the little icon of the camera to "search by image" and pasted in the URL from your posted image, and clicked the blue box (see below) to "Search By Image".
I received a web page of search results. I scanned downt the page and did a little clicking around and found the image was on Breitbart.
Here's where it gets (kinda) interesting - today it's not there? Not on Breitbart? In fact, that image is no longer in the many locations from which it was listed before. What you do see is a long shot of that image and so peeps have been cropping it. I really do get the feeling that people are scrubbing websites and twitter accounts; it's as if the Great Copyright Blight of '19 (or '20) is COMING.
I do recall that we were told the UK was cracking down on memes using professional photos and that would affect the US too - so maybe why there's suddenly no images on Twitter accounts I used to visit strictly for images.
Back to your photo - is it still off limits? Probably, but I have no way to be sure. The photo was taken by a professional photographer as those are the ones permitted in that location and allowed to take photos of the POTUS boarding the helo, and the quality and long lens suggest professional as well. That professional probably sells photos to news agencies (we conservatives think he/she is allowed to profit from their work). A dark interpretation I'll add is if there is a great Copyright Blight coming, per the UK decision meant to crush memes, then conservative sites are in the cross hairs, and Q sites are already up on the scaffold. :/
As I said, I have much to learn and appreciate anyone who can assist. I use to work with artists who used photos for their work and one became so infuriated with our casual use of photos that she sat us down and provided a PowerPoint lecture on rights re photos. One example was a painting done from a nice photograph that was copyrighted. It was of a veranda with colonial railing and a white rocking chair on it - taken from an angle somewhere against the wall of the home looking out into the yard, partly through the railing
She then walked us through all the ways the image was modified to avoid a copyright claim from the photographer. The railing contours were changed so it was no longer colonial style. The rocking chair was changed. The photo was cropped, greenery added, a sepia tone applied. To us it looked different, but it was still illegal appropriation of the image for which the artist was sued. Elements like the composition of the photo were still in place (the angle of the photo and postioning of elements in it etc.).
Note we've never had to deal with this before. I believe that, while photographers are entitled to copyright their work, they never had the giants in Tech and MSM "helping" them assert their rights before - that's why this struggle to understand. The Tech and MSM never cared about such rights of photographers right down to the letter of the law on websites/Twitter until they wanted to halt the GREAT AWAKENING.
Before - it was photographers and specific publications suing and asserting their rights when and if it was financially beneficial for them to do so. Now they have massive giants who won't profit/loss from such copyright leniency performing rights protection for free on behalf of photographers/publications because the tech giants and MSM are altruistic, purehearted organizations who want to overthrow our government and help to impeach/kill our POTUS and keep the sheep in the dark.