|
|
Thank you for the Spam, would you care for some eggs with that. Nothing says delete me more than spamming the help Forum.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Already being discussed in Flickr Central as you well know:
www.flickr.com/groups/central/discuss/72157622125091030/
I can almost hear the steam coming out of collective the ears of some Flickr members as they express their fury as this thread gets closed down.
This topic has no place in the Help Forum.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
elementalPaul edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
why should it be closed down?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Because it's not what the Help Forum is for. Regardless of the discussion topic, they get closed down when they're in the Help Forum, which is for getting Help.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Then allow me to plainly state the question:
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, what measures does flickr take to ensure the notice is legitimate?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I'd like some help with that question, please.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Such questions fall outside the remit of this forum.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can almost hear the steam coming out of collective the ears of the DMU group as they express their fury as this thread gets closed down.
POINTING FINGERS is generally frowned upon and considered unhelpful within the help forum....please try to be constructive in the future.
Thank-you
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr policy falls outside the remit of this forum, eh?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
flickr policy falls outside the remit of this forum, eh?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
double post, what happened!!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's not an unreasonable question (andertho's), but I suspect the answer is the same you'd probably get on any US-based website: that the person doing the filing has filled out a legal form swearing that they're the copyright holder, and that the site isn't required to prove that they're not committing perjury.
I think the key issue is why can't Flickr reinstate material removed under a faulty takedown notice.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
Lú_ edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
Never mind.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I suspect the answer is the same you'd probably get on any US-based website:
But we want to change that. I'm not that active on other websites so my interest in change starts here.
As consumers, we want a better answer.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It is not unreasonable for consumers who may be subject to the random deletion of their work to want to know who filed the DMCA . Failing that, we should be given an idea of how many of these takedown notice's are fake vs legitimate.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So it's an instant belief that someone falsely filed the report, but it's impossible to believe that when asked about the notice, Time Magazine may have declined to be truthful?
What a weird double-standard when it comes to assumption of untruth. It's perjury to lie on a DMCA takedown notice, but there's no law broken to lie to a reporter's phone call.
Sounds like some people have a political motive for where they place their trust in humanity.
That said, I don't understand how the accuser should be allowed to be hidden from the accused. It seems pretty sensical that the information should be made available to the person who lost the artwork. Especially if the artists decides to take legal action against the accuser. Kind of hard to do that without knowing who to sue.
But then that article doesn't mention if the artist made such an inquiry or not.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
- since I'm in an uncommonly good mood I edited my comment just for you. I wouldn't want to offend any sensitive flowers :-)
- I would think that in such cases the individual against whom the noticed had been filed would be informed as to who filed the take-down notice and it would be up to them (the defendant) as to whether they disclose that information to a wider audience.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Searcher," my question is extremely straightforward and pertains to flickr policies. It is a worthwhile "help" question as it will help me determine how much trust I can place in flickr as an on-line location for my photos.
I will repeat the question for your benefit:
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, what measures does flickr take to ensure the notice is legitimate?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
elementalPaul: apparently only if the individual files a counter claim. Don't know what happens if he files a counter claim and the person who filed the DMCA never responds to the counter claim.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Maybe it would be better to rephrase Andertho's question than to repeat it:
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, is the response fully automated? Is a real individual (no need to name names) given the responsibility of reviewing the notice?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
no, i like my question just as it is.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
andertho Why do you think staff will deign to answer you this time as opposed to all the other threads where this has been brought up?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
deign, I don't like that word much
: to condescend reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one's superiority that is invo
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Anyway, there are other people who also have questions about the process. Questions that haven't already been asked.
The community guidelines say:
# Don’t upload anything that isn't yours.
This includes other people's photos, video and/or stuff you've collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be terminated at any time.
# Don’t forget the children.
Take the opportunity to filter your content responsibly. If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob, that means it needs to be filtered. So, ask yourself that question as you upload your content and moderate accordingly. If you don’t, it’s likely that one of two things will happen. Your account will be reviewed then either moderated or terminated by Flickr staff.
# Don’t show nudity in your buddy icon.
Only content considered "safe" is appropriate for your buddy icon. If we find that you've uploaded a buddy icon that contains "moderate" or "restricted" content, we'll remove the buddy icon, moderate your account as “restricted” and send you a warning. If we find you doing it again, we’ll terminate your account.
# Don’t upload content that is illegal or prohibited.
If we find you doing that, your account will be deleted and we'll take appropriate action, which may include reporting you to the authorities.
# Don’t vent your frustrations, rant, or bore the brains out of other members.
Flickr is not a venue for you to harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we’ll send you a warning or terminate your account.
# Don’t be creepy.
You know the guy. Don't be that guy.
# Don’t use your account to host web graphics like logos and banners.
Your account will be terminated if we find you using it to host graphic elements of web page designs, icons, smilies, buddy icons, forum avatars, badges, and other non-photographic elements on external web sites.
# Don’t use Flickr for commercial purposes.
Why doesn't it say anything about the seriousness of filing false DMCA ? The issue obviously causes the community some grief. Does Yahoo-Flickr take any action against individuals who have filed false DMCA? Doesn't that particular way of breaking the law affect how Flickr does business with its customers? Yes I know its not their job to enforce that law but its not their job moderate creepiness either.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, what measures does flickr take to ensure the notice is legitimate?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Why is ranting about the same subject being allowed. This is NOT a forum for ranting but for help
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Andertho: fair question. Not really on point, as there's no more proof that the dmca complaint at issue here is proper than proof that it is not. Pretty simple answer though.
"none."
Have you ever filed a takedown notice? I have, lots of times. All it asks for is a link to the "original" and a statement saying I'm the copyright owner. In fact other sites, like Cafepress and Zazzle, don't even have a legal doc, they just want the basic info and off they go to do my bidding.
I assume there's some common-sense checking out of the info, but there's nothing in the document that can actually BE verified, as far as "legitimacy" goes. It pretty much has to be taken at face value, as that document is all there is. Not only can't Flickr (or Google, or Facebook, etc) tell if someone is being untruthful, but they ALSO can't tell if the claim is legally legitimate. That's apparently not the purpose of the DMCA takedown process, to force the service provider to act as legal interpreter. The rules are written for swift compliance, and left up to the accused and accuser, to work out the veracity of the claim.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I can only guess that they act immediately on the DMCA notice to avoid any liability without concern for the possible effect on the community that a number of false DMCA notices might have. Maybe the assumption is that the users/customers just aren't going to care until it happens to them personally?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Why doesn't it say anything about the seriousness of filing false DMCA ? The issue obviously causes the community some grief"
That's an assumption not yet borne out by the facts. Do you have a long list of improper takedown notices that have been filed? I haven't seen anything publicly, any help forum threads, talking about it, not in years.
So I don't think false grief counts. And I don't think Flickr has any choice but to act on the notice blindly. They could do several things to mitigate later issues, however.
As have been oft-discussed, some option to restore the content after the ALLOWED counter-claim is successful, would be key.
Also, the takedown should ONLY be the content in question. The photo page elements, the description, the comments, all of that should remain, as it is not part of the copyright claim at all, and is destructive no matter what the outcome of the claim is.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"Searcher," thank you for your kind answer, but I would prefer if someone with actual knowledge of flickr policies and business practices regarding this matter answered my question.
I like to think that if "Donald Duck" sent in a takedown notice in Esperanto and hand-drawn in pink crayon, that flickr would not view that notice as legitimate.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sounds like you're answering your own question, and taking into account the bounds for common sense. But I defer to your need for an official staff explanation. It certainly couldn't hurt (and isn't expressly explained anywhere in the TOS or copyright notice page) Sometimes general legal boilerplate from someone in authority is comforting.
Maybe a good test of how much they vett the claims would be if the artist in question filed DMCA takedown notices on the various people who have stolen his art and reposted it here on Flickr. Technically he's being truthful in the claim, so it would be up to Flickr to figure out that he's claiming a copyright for an image that someone ELSE is claiming a copyight for against him.
Of course since it's all still potentially pending, it could be that his copyright claim is still valid against the other thefts.
Man it gets confusing pretty quickly.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
The Searcher edited this topic 34 months ago.
|
|
|
the image is beyond public by now Searcher
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
is it ok for anyone to post it?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wendy: There is no automatic "switch" to public domain, just because something becomes popular. If the artist granted an open license (Creative Commons, etc) then people could re-use it. But that still doesn't allow people to circumvent Flickr's own terms, requiring all content to be created by us (copyright doesn't come into play, the rule is stricter).
Normally Flickr isn't going to remove copyrighted content without receiving a takedown notice. However a consequence of it being "beyond public" may actually work against the thieves, as it is now so obviously an image that doesn't belong to them, that Flickr could act on its own (basically like any other "obvious" web-stolen content.) and pull them without a notice.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
- since I'm in an uncommonly good mood I edited my comment just for you. I wouldn't want to offend any sensitive flowers :-)
Trite sarcasm is generally unhelpful as well. Please endeavour to find a more conciliatory approach in your future posts.
Thank you.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sounds like you're answering your own question, and taking into account the bounds for common sense.
But I'm not in charge of flickr.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And once again DMU faces off with the Flickr Cabal, here in Flickr Help Stadium.
Starting forward Andertho, for team DMU, get's the ball and drives into Cabal territory.
Burnt Umber and Elemental Paul set up what would have been a beautiful block, except Paul commits a foul. Yellow card for Paul.
Wendy moved up to assist DMU, but Lu, in a power move kicks the ball back into DMU terriroty.
Andertho disrupts the Cabal offense while Shims regains control of the ball.
Wendy again moves to assist, but Lu's facny footwork confuses the DMU line.
What's this? Stevekin is protesting. So far, no sign of the refs.
Therr get's the ball for DMU and works it to mid field.
Searcher and Paul double team her, but she is able to pass off to Andertho. She and Andertho start gaining forward momentum.
RubyMae attempts to provide defense, but is slide tackled by Wendy.
Therr kick the ball toward the goal... to Wendy, who takes a shot.
The shot is defeleted by Cabal goalie, Terrie K.
Terrie kicks the ball out to Searcher, who challenges Andertho. Not since Babe Ruth pointed out in to the stands has the sporting world seen such a challenge made.
Therr moves in, but Searcher maintains control. Andertho and Search go at it mano-a-mano.
Wendy clips Searcher, and deftly takes control for the DMU.
Searcher tries to get control back, but Enigma and Andertho were ready, and start passing the ball up field.
And with that, we have half time.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
*Runs to the washroom before the second half starts*
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Don't bother, staff won't answer, DMU will get bored and leave before the final inning.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Not true. I think the last big match up over the Obama image, the ref's let the game go in to overtime. You never know, after a couple over times, it might boil down to a sudden death situation.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And yet, staff have never answered. I guess you all just like banging your head on the wall. Or believe that change really will come from the same dozen or so disgruntled users starting the same threads over and over. Got to admire your gumption.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We (Flickr) can't comment on actions taken by the various Yahoo! Copyright Teams. They are the ones who receive and review any NOI (Notice of Infringement) and have the legal background to make a qualified decision on the course of action that should be taken. I'm not trying to punt, but would like to clarify what appears to be the common opinion that we (Flickr) are the ones giving the thumbs up or thumbs down with regards to issues of infringement.
That said, I don't understand how the accuser should be allowed to be hidden from the accused. It seems pretty sensical that the information should be made available to the person who lost the artwork. Especially if the artists decides to take legal action against the accuser. Kind of hard to do that without knowing who to sue.
The name of the complainant was included in the warning. I don't know whether or not our member has published the warning that he received when the work was taken down.
And once again DMU faces off with the Flickr Cabal, here in Flickr Help Stadium.
..................And the crowd goes wild!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
And it's always the same gruntled Cabal that fights the DMU. (Hence the soccer grudge match theme).
DMU doesn't feel Flickr listens to the users and wants change, Cabal is happy with how things are. And the two butt heads over it.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
There, you've got your staff answer. Continue banging heads...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If we can skip the sports metaphor for a while, it appears some valid info was exchanged. I would expect the Flickr answer will not appease (nor would any answer in all likelihood), but buried in there was the neatto fact that the artist was apparently informed in the notice who was requesting the takedown.
Which brings us back to the initial crux of this non-help thread: either the person filing the DMCA was falsely claiming to be Time Magazine, or when asked by some random person, Time Magazine falsely claimed it had nothing to do with it.
Or the person asking Time, was falsely claiming to ask Time, and just made stuff up.
So many stories, so little proof. And so it goes. The only person who doesn't seem to give a crap is the kid who made the piece in the first place. Maybe we should defer to his "whatever" attitude and find another windmill.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Cabal is happy with how things are
Oh, I don't think that's true at all. They too have their criticisms but have a different style of sharing that info with us here in the Help Forum.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Donuts?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"The only person who doesn't seem to give a crap is the kid who made the piece in the first place."
On his profile page, he says that he is "currently in the process of filing a counterclaim with Flickr to get my original Obama-Joker photoshop back up."
So it seems that he gives a crap for the issue, just not the match in the Help Forum. Wise lad.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Wait a minute. He's not DMU or Cabal... Call security, there's a hooligan on the field. ;)
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
So it seems that he gives a crap for the issue, just not the match in the Help Forum. Wise lad.
Very wise.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
so heather , does style really matter, if a problem is,,, should we all not work to slove that problem? favoritism, only hurts us all.. as a help topic, what security do we have against a false claim?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sir Poseypal Of course style matters. If you upset people iat the beginning of a negotiation you have to spend the next 3 hours calming them down before you can restart the actual negotiation. Aggression is a tactic of last resort. I am amazed that you have not worked that out yet (unless you are only 5).
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
i woudl like to add a help question to this thread how do we insure proper answears to question when there , exist a group whoes only function seems to be to discredit the person or persons asking the questions : this so called cabal,. seems they are abusing members etc
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@ If you upset people .
Iansand you bring up an aexcelent point I am a realestate broker, ( intense high dollar negs weekly, ) ( and am married to an attorney ) butthen only a passive agressive 80 year old like your self would be so stupid as to state <<>>
i see your point how an ingnorant remark, and belonging to a group who seems to always , be at the helm of discrediting people, might cause others to disrecpect your answear
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Someone mentioned donuts? Tell me where and when and i'll be there.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
so now Heather and the others AMDINS etc,,, I hope you saw the point i was after, though some one may kiss your ass' ( style ) they really have no good will . why another may come across as an abrasive, prat, but really he has the true postive dierection
in business i have learnt to avoid the brown noses, the ass kisser, and listen to those who have real questions and real complaints,,, i have found yes men of no use,
and as always i remain Anthony
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
this a help forum or a bloody kindergarten?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yes.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
adameros
stand in the corner then
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Already am. Just sitting here waiting for the second half of the game...
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Sir Poseypal So you are going to leave DMU? Congratulations.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Is that what you gleaned from Posey's post?
As near as I could tell he was trying to sell you a nice faux tudor....
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
;-}
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Someone mentioned donuts? Tell me where and when and i'll be there.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I haven't seen anything publicly, any help forum threads, talking about it, not in years.
There was this one. Seemed pretty clear-cut.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I think by "style" Heather didn't mean "ass-kissing", so much as respectful dialog, as if we're all humans sitting across a table from each other. This faceless interweb thing has a way of turning people into brats, who think they can be abusive and angry without consequence.
Not anyone in particular, of course.
Well, if the artist is mid-counter-claim, then this thread is doubly pointless. There's no more from way this vantage point to test the veracity of the takedown notice, than of Time Magazine's knowledge-denial of said takedown notice. If Flickr waits for the 14 day clock to tick down before allowing he image to be restored, there's not much else to do but sit and wait.
And if the artist is successful, if he wants he can then go after all those people who stole his artwork and posted it themselves.
Is there still an open issue at all here?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ewan: That thread didn't make any mention of someone lying on a takedown notice. There was a dispute that the takedown notice wasn't appropriate for the content, which is what the opportunity for a counter-claim is for.
But I didn't see where it was discovered that the reporter lied about their identity or belief in copyright.
Not exactly a crime wave there.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I don't think this has anything to do with the cabel vs dmu. I don't consider mystelf primarily associated with dmu any more than any other group I may participate in regularly. Likewise I see a few names here that are not necessarily associated with the dmu Heather has in mind. I don't even see the Cabel as being a particularly relevant entity. However, I am perfectly willing to stand corrected if Lu and Brenda and others come forward to claim they are happy to be represented by The Searcher And Iansand.
There are just a bunch of loosely organized staff fans active in the forum. Some are more vocal and combative than others. Even if they all belong to a group called The Cabal it doesn't necessarily mean they are all on the same page. Pitting this as something between DMU and the help Cabal trivializes the issues, which, I think, are worth bringing up as they concern all flickr users regardless of group affiliation.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
It's a shame that you consider mature, respectful discourse being "a fan".
But I agree, turning this into a baseball game against "sides" (or was it football? Badminton?) diminishes the issues on the table. As pointless as the origin of this thread was (assuming only the side that vindicates one viewpoint is the "lying" body.) it still keeps to the surface some important weaknesses in Flickr's copyright takedown methodology.
1. Content unrelated to the subject of the notice, should remain untouched, which would include essentially the entire photo page full of comments and favorites and tags, etc.
2. Content removed for a copyright infraction, should not be permanently deleted, but instead held in "limbo" until both sides have exhausted their rightful claims on the work. This is especially crucial for the irreplaceable content that vanishes, such as comments.
#2 is less critical if #1 is followed, as only the content not related to the copyright claim, is irreplaceable.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Therrrr Deep breaths will help. I represent no one. Nor do I claim to. This Cabal of which you speak, assuming it exists in the way you think it does, is a broad church with multiple opinions (probably more diverse than the number of its membership).
But, if DMU wishes to defeat the Evil Cabal's activities in the Help Forum, I have a cunning plan. They should come into the Help Forum to actually help instead of complaining about the activities of people who, for the most part, do most of the helping. Whinging and whining is such a bad look.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I always help in the help forum when I am waiting for an answer. In the past I've got shouted down by either you or the Searcher, both behaving as if you own the place and are the only hall monitors allowed to speak. How dare anyone raise a topic without acknowledging you two!
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But, if DMU wishes to defeat the Evil Cabal's activities in the Help Forum, I have a cunning plan. They should come into the Help Forum to actually help instead of complaining about the activities of people who, for the most part, do most of the helping. Whinging and whining is such a bad look.
As I have stated earlier in this thread, fingerpointing is an unconstructive manner of helping in the HELP FORUM.
Please keep this in mind when endeavouring to help in the future.
Thank-you
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Oh well.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Therrr: I'm sorry you feel the need to drag me into your own personal issues. This topic had valid concerns, that as I agreed with you, didn't need to be turned into a territorial peeing match.
I assure you, I'm never the one that starts the peeing, but when I see someone else pee, it's hard to hold it in, y'know?
On the internet, maturity and respect tend to be looked down upon, in favor of abusive rants and childlike attacks. It's unfortunate, but if I am to be abused when pointing out the ill-behavior of others, then I can live with it.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
If they have the near-mythical donut fields I've heard tell of, we should cut out the jibber jabber and invade already.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Another vote for an answer to the question posed: When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, what measures does flickr/Yahoo take to ensure the notice is legitimate?
I'm holding off on renewing my Pro account until I see some clarification to Flickr's account deletions policies and procedures.
> The name of the complainant was included in the warning. I don't
> know whether or not our member has published the warning that
> he received when the work was taken down.
This is contrary to the reporting I've read on this issue, Alkhateeb has been quoted as saying that “I actually don’t know who filed the DMCA notice but I figured it must be from Time magazine, since it’s their image."
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Gene: according to some other user in here, who appears to be privvy to communication with the artist, the name of the claimant was included. But it's up to the artist to share such info, and he just may not care what happens in the Flickr Help Forum enough to bother.
And according to staff up there, the measures for "legitimacy" are taken by Yahoo Legal, not Flickr. And like I said based on my personal experience, there's only so much they can likely do. I wasn't contacted to confirm if I was the owner of the art, I wasn't asked to mail some physical proof, or anything like that. They just took what I gave them, and plucked my artwork out of the Flickr accounts that had stolen it.
Also, this wasn't an "account deletion", it was a single photo page. Copyright issues tend to focus on the specific photo page, not the whole account. So even if there were a sudden crime spree of false copyright claims (which doesn't seem to be occurring) it wouldn't affect your whole account.
Now, their policies towards deleting the ENTIRE photo page, when most of the content on the page is not part of the complaint, should I think definitely be revised.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Yeah sorry, the "flickr isn't Yahoo" excuse doesn't fly with me. YouTube handles this the right way and they were purchased by a huge company too. Display the name of the claimant and quarantine the content in question until the matter is resolved, how difficult is that?
Equating this rather obvious case of parody/fair usage with your own personal case of stolen artwork is confusing the issue.
I, like many others who are not part of the 1% of hard core Flickr users, are just now beginning to be exposed to some of the issues with flickr's business practices as this story continues to snowball. The purpose of my post was simply to add my voice to those clamoring for clarification about flickr's policies.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
But quarantining the content isn't what you asked about (and is a good idea.) YouTube handles the actual takedowns just like Flickr, and have had some very public fallout for responding to false or frivolous takedowns without question. So they're a strange example to hold up.
Equating this rather NOT-obvious case of parody/fair use with your concerns for how the takedowns work is confusing the issue. Here's why:
1. Flickr's guidelines make no mention of "Fair Use", and in fact are more strict than general copyright law. Content can't be uploaded with a "license", it simply has to be original content created by the owner.
2. The actual image is a copy of a Time Magazine cover, recolored. (it isn't the standalone portrait with "socialism" poster, which would be a much more clear case of "original" work.) So whether or not Time would win out in court against a fair use claim, is for a court to decide, not Flickr or Yahoo. That's what the DMCA is for, and what the counter-claim provision is for, and what the intent-to-sue provision is for.
It takes the requirement to determine copyright OUT of the hands of the service provider. It simply isn't up to Flickr to determine the validity of a claim. It's up to Flickr (and Google, and Facebook, etc) to enforce the terms of the claim. Period.
Since you've called Flickr staff out for lying (not believing them when they say the claimant was listed on the takedown notice) I'm not sure what you expect to take from any other answers from them. If you're not going to believe what they tell you, what is the point?
I still believe it would be a much better path to go, instead of hoping for some iron-clad policy that supposedly prevents DMCA-fraud (of which none has been yet proved), is simply better methods of takedown and "quarantine", as you and I and others have all suggested.
Then it won't matter if there are mistakes or outright fraud. At least once it's straightened out, the irreplaceable content of the photo page, can be restored.
[Also, I wasn't using my artwork as an example, I was using my experience with the takedown notice as an example. And it goes to "Yahoo Legal", not Flickr. So I'm also not sure why that is an "excuse". but again, that speaks to how much you're prepared to actually believe any answers Flickr gives. Which so far, isn't much. So again, what's the point of asking?]
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Google/Blogger is changing its takedown process: techdirt.com/articles/20090826/1338236005.shtml
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
That's a nice re-work of the process.
Flickr, can you catch up with the Best Practices in this area? kthxbai
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
You know, there oughta be an Ideas topic for this. I can't find one.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Now there is
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
Since you've called Flickr staff out for lying (not believing them when they say the claimant was listed on the takedown notice
I can confirm that when you have a photo removed, you don't get to know who your accuser is.
Anyone can write an email and have your photo automatically deleted, and there's nothing you can do about it, and there's no way to know who wrote the email.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I know TH has asked the maker of the Obama image for a copy of the take down notice. We should hopefully see shortly if the accuser is named or not in this case.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
> YouTube handles the actual takedowns just like Flickr
They post the claimant's name and restore the content if the counter claim is upheld?
> Flickr's guidelines make no mention of "Fair Use", and in fact are
> more strict than general copyright law. ... it simply has to be original
> content created by the owner.
Actually no. "Original content" is far more broad than Flickr's narrow def. I have to take the picture myself, not publish it via deep link, not be "creepy", etc etc.
> The actual image is a copy of a Time Magazine cover, recolored.
You need to do a little more research on fair use if you think this is not allowed. Type "magazine parody" into Google for starters...
> It's up to Flickr (and Google, and Facebook, etc) to enforce the terms
> of the claim. Period.
I'm sure if you follow this logic through to the end you will discover the problem here.
> Since you've called Flickr staff out for lying
No, I simply said the staff response conflicted with the reporting I have seen on the issue. I was hoping it would provoke a clarification from staff who might have some knowledge of the situation, rather than from a Flickr Disciple.
In my (admittedly brief) experience reading these boards you seem to be a big water-carrier for flickr so you'll excuse me if I disengage from our little back-and-forth (we're talking past each other anyway) and end my participation in this forum with a repeat of the orig question:
When receiving a DMCA takedown notice, what measures does flickr/Yahoo take to ensure the notice is legitimate?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e, Alas, the takedown notice that you received did not contain the name of your complainant as there was a brief period when Yahoo! was reviewing their policies around privacy. Previously and now, the names of the complainant are included. Your take down fell in weird times.
I have seen the warning sent to the individual in question in the instance that is the overarching topic of conversation here. The name of the complainant was included.
Lu, thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
No, I simply said the staff response conflicted with the reporting I have seen on the issue. I was hoping it would provoke a clarification from staff who might have some knowledge of the situation, rather than from a Flickr Disciple.
In my (admittedly brief) experience reading these boards you seem to be a big water-carrier for flickr so you'll excuse me if I disengage from our little back-and-forth (we're talking past each other anyway) and end my participation in this forum with a repeat of the orig question:
GeneM, Consider me provoked.
Also, feel free to dial back the agro in your tone.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thank you for the clarification Heather, much appreciated.
Yeah, *I'm* the agro one here. (eye roll) My online prose has been deemed "smarmy" and "prickish" but never agro.
While you are here, a response to the orig question? Does Flickr verify that a claim was filed by the copyright holder?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Well, it's early and I'm still drinking my tea.
I'll rephrase my request....
Dear people of Flickr who are participating in this topic, be you of the DMU or the Cabal that shall not be spoken of unless it's in hushed tones, or you fall into neither of those buckets but seek the true shining light of justice, or just want to stir shit up, please (to quote Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure) "Be excellent to each other."
(And no, I'm not high.)
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
Heather,
Do you have anything to say on the topic of why Flickr/Yahoo won't obey the law?
If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the
material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
Does Flickr verify that a claim was filed by the copyright holder?
Actually, I've verified that they don't, by submitting a fake claim of my own, from a once-off email address, using the name "Joe Blow" and giving no identifying information other than an obviously fake address ("Anytown, USA").
The photo I filed against (a friend's who gave me permission to do this) was removed within hours. And there is no recourse - Flickr won't restore photos deleted due to false NOIs.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
To put that clause in context, they only have to do that if they want to claim the Safe Harbor protections of the DMCA. It's not a law in the sense that it is "illegal" for them not to follow it. It's a part of a law that says, "if you want to be protected from being included in the lawsuit as contributing to the infringement" you have to follow it.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
Interesting. OK, I guess I'm satisfied with that as a response.
I still think Flickr should basically consider this a bug, though. As I said earlier - if someone came up with a way to attack the Flickr API such that they could delete someone's photos at will, Flickr would fix the exploit.
How is this any different just because it uses email instead of HTTP?
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
While you are here, a response to the orig question? Does Flickr verify that a claim was filed by the copyright holder?
Flickr? No, issues of infringement are handled by the 21 regional Yahoo Copyright Teams who have a process that meets whatever their local legal process for copyright stuff.
More importantly, the DMCA takedown process allows for an individual or entity being represented by an individual to swear under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the copyright owner. If the notice is complete, then the take down will be processed.
Do you have anything to say on the topic of why Flickr/Yahoo won't obey the law?
We're working on resolving this so that we can restore pages if the counterclaim business, etc. is enacted, etc. (Sorry, don't have the correct verbiage for this, but I think you'll understand my meaning).
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
a process that meets whatever their local legal process for copyright stuff
Their "local legal process" takes under two hours, and considers a claim filed by "Joe Blow" who lives at "123 Main Street, Anytown, USA" and whose phone number is "555-555-1212" to be valid and actionable.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
3e
says:
But, I'm glad to hear you're working on a restore process.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Their "local legal process" takes under two hours, and considers a claim filed by "Joe Blow" who lives at "123 Main Street, Anytown, USA" and whose phone number is "555-555-1212" to be valid and actionable.
If you'd like to send a copy of the NOI and the warning you received in response to us via Help by Email, I'd love to take a look.
www.flickr.com/help/with/other/
Click "Help by Email."
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
We're working on resolving this so that we can restore pages if the counterclaim business, etc. is enacted This is a good thing, but it still looks like you need to do something temporary, quickly. We know that there was a recent campaign of getting some people's photos wrongly flagged as unsafe, and now we know that it only takes one blatantly fraudulent, and essentially completely anonymous, email to take down a picture irretrievably.
It's just too obvious to put the two things together. 3e is right - this needs to be considered as a security vulnerability, not a feature request.
Posted 34 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
- since I'm in an uncommonly good mood I edited my comment just for you. I wouldn't want to offend any sensitive flowers :-)
- I would think that in such cases the individual against whom the noticed had been filed would be informed as to who filed the take-down notice and it would be up to them (the defendant) as to whether they disclose that information to a wider audience.
adameros 
3e 
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads