|
DMCA threat; pictures disappear from account; no notification given
|
I posted some pictures on the 7th of January, about which I received a threat that there would be copyright action (though not via Flickr - on a third-party board).
I did not take any action concerning this, as I considered it completely fair use - the explicit point of the copyright threat here was to prevent criticism of an advert, which I had taken pictures of to illustrate my point. I didn't get any notifications from Flickr or Yahoo that they were taking action, so didn't give the matter any further though.
Somebody recently mentioned, though, that they couldn't find the pictures concerned. I looked through my photostream and sure enough, three pictures which I uploaded now aren't there. Given that all of the other ones that I uploaded at the same time _are_ and that I received a copyright threat it would be a bit of a coincidence if they'd disappeared due to some sort of bug.
I've received no notification from Flickr or Yahoo or anyone, though, and I see from this forum that other people who've received equally fake takedown notices _have_. Does anyone have any experience with this? Do takedowns _always_ have to be accompanied by a notice to the person whose pictures are being taken down? I understood that the DMCA says that they do, and it's a bit tricky to file a counter-notice without one.
---
Incidentally, I suppose this is slightly unusual in that this wasn't a physical RL advert, but one within Second Life. I don't see that this makes any legal difference though. I was told that it was the logo that was copyrighted, so taking pictures that included it would be the same whether it was a real huge ugly billboard, or a virtual one.
Posted at 12:28PM, 17 January 2008 PDT
(
permalink
)
|
|
Right - the portion of the DMCA which deals with online copyright, OCILLA, requires that you be notified if something you posted is taken down due to a DMCA filing from another party. To give you an opportunity to respond to the filing.
I'd use the "Help By Email" link to contact Flickr directly and see if there was a takedown notification, or what's going on. If they took it down they would have a record of when and why.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
It looks like you opened a help by email. We'll investigate and follow up, thank you.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
I did,yes; thank you.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Kevin;
I am conerned, reading this post about a possible action taken by Yahoo/Flickr, having seen the photos previously and reading the non offensive editorial comment referencing them, making the images clearly common use.
I saw nothing close to a probelm regarding flickr's TofS or copyright. policy. Hopefully it is just a bug or glitch in the system or process.
Please keep us all advised.
Thank you.
JRB
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
My experience with Flickr's tech support has been surprisingly good. Issues cleared up within a couple of hours, with two personal emails - not e-forms - to check back with me that all was well. And it was. I agree with jearnricard... most likely a glitch.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Ordinal Malaprop, I've just responded to your Help by Email query.
I'm so sorry -- you should have received notices when the 3 images were removed from your photostream (something went awry) -- this is the standard practice.
We're tracking down the notices and when we have them, we will pass that info on to you.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Very strange indeed. Any hint about the subject of said scandalous photos?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
rikomatic: they wouldn't have been "scandalous". They would have been accused of violating someone else's copyright. The notice contains an under-penalty-of-perjury threat, so filing a false notice is illegal.
However, many copyright holders try to claim more than they actually have a right to, so there is usually an opportunity to file a counter-claim.
The OP explained at the top the subject of the images.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
rikomatic Flickr generally won't disclose the terms of any actions they've taken for privacy reasons, but my guess is the OP would probably give you the information.
The Searcher I don't think rikomatic meant scandalous in the sense of purient - but rather why is the advertiser in a tizzy over a second life image and commentary.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@rikomatic You can see the thread where the threat was made here - forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=234394 - well, if you're logged in, of course.
Basically, I have a group for particularly egregious advertising on the mainland of SL. I take pictures to prove that it exists, where, and who put it up (and so do other people who contribute). One of the people whose ads had pictures taken of them claimed that their logo was copyrighted and so I couldn't reproduce it.
Clearly this is not the case, it's a pretty much perfect fair use issue I'd say. I understand that Flickr has to conform to the DMCA, but I need to know when things are taken down in order to counter-file. Once I get the notices I'll be filling in the counter-file form on chillingeffects.org and sending it off and, well, we'll see what happens from then on.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"why is the advertiser in a tizzy over a second life image and commentary."
Gawd knows :) This whole issue will generate far more publicity for the thing being abusive than I could ever have done on my own. There isn't even the question of it boosting the profile of an advertising network, since the way this sort of thing works is not based on what it advertises, it's based on the fact that it looks annoying and neighbours have to pay money to get rid of it... the original pictures I have show that the "ad network" wasn't even advertising anything! Popularity is a negative for this "business model" I would have thought.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@Ordinal That's what I suspected while looking through your stream.
I'm thinking of taking a stroll through SL and putting up some pictures myself...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Huh. Extortion Adverts. Now there's a business model I hadn't considered before.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Its a mystery to me! Some sort of MUD is it?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
@rikomatic - That's what the group is for - feel free to add anything :)
@The Searcher - Yes, it's a recognised tactic. What you do is buy some tiny, cheap plot of land, then put up an annoying "advert" on it, then set the plot for sale at some ridiculous but affordable price. Anyone who lives in the area has to buy the land or live with some spinning glowing rubbish right next to them whenever they log in. The "advertising" thing is just an excuse.
Of course, if you tried that in RL, people would come in and dismantle your billboard in the middle of the night, but unfortunately Second Life is not that sophisticated :)
@Walwyn - Take a look at secondlife.com/
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Here's my version of the offending image: flickr.com/photos/rikomatic/2200733294
See it while you can!
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
> claimed that their logo was copyrighted
I have the impression that logos can't be copyrighted - that's the bailiwick of trademarks, tradenames, and the like. I don't know if the DMCA applies to trademarks, but flickr's lawyers (or yahoo's - whoever) will.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The NOI might include trademark infringement. Doesn't matter, the use as demonstrated is no different than someone taking a photo of an unsightly billboard next to their house, then posting the photo for the purpose of commenting on the content. It's more than "fair use", you actually took the picture. If "Pepsi" has a problem with the picture you took that has their logo in it, tough.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I don't get it, the ads are MEANT to be seen, how can someone complain if even more people see them....?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Easily - it happens every day on YouTube. Someone posts a TV commercial, the company involved files a DMCA notice, and away it goes.
Phillip Morris nuked an account after the holder posted three 1960's Marlboro TV commercials. Advertising their product, you'd think. Free promotion, you'd say. THEY thought otherwise...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
The difference is, this is akin to someone posting a pic of their livingroom, and the commercial is visible on the tv in the corner.
not even remotely infringing.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
@The Searcher - that's not entirely accurate, though. The ad in question didn't happen to be in the background of a photo, the photo was OF the ad, specifically to show who created it and how it was placed in the landscape.
I realize a lot of people might not fully understand this issue since it takes place in a virtual world, so maybe this will help: I own some land in SL. I bought it a couple of years ago for $60 US Dollars and today it's worth about $500 US Dollars. If someone came along and built some ads like this next door, I can guarantee that I wouldn't even get $100 for the land until I bought out the land the advertiser was posting on. Their land plots for sale are usually marked at at least ten times the going rate, which is how they make their money.
It's really no different than if McDonald's came along and posted a fifty story billboard at the end of my yard, and then refused to remove it but instead offered to let me buy the land it was on for the low low bargain price of half a million dollars. If I called the local newspaper out at that point and they took a photo of the ad for the story, nobody in their right mind would issue them a DMCA. It's obviously fair use, because you're using that photo to discuss the issue at hand.
Ordinal, I do hope that when you finally receive the DMCA notices that you file a counter-notice. In my last job, I ran a website that allows music uploads much the same way that youtube allows video uploads, and I can promise you that I've spent way too much time talking to lawyers about DMCA notices. File your counter notice.
In the meantime, I might just find myself walking past some ads like that, and I might just happen to take a photo of them and put it in both of my streams here. If someone wants to cry wolf, I'm going to make sure they spend a lot of time doing it. The more time they spend issuing false notices, the less time they will have to put up more ads to devalue other people's property.
I'll be sure to mark those photos with a Creative Commons Attribution - Non- Commercial - No Derivs license, so that anyone else who would like to post about this story in their own blogs can feel free to use my photos, even if they don't have an account and don't access SL.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Second life drama on flickr? Dude ...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I don't even know what Second Life is, other than they promote it on CSI commercials. Anyone care to enlighten ignorant little me?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ah its sort of Sims2 without the inbuilt intelligence.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Heh, well, it has gone beyond just being SL drama really - this isn't to do with it being on Second Life, this is a straight copyright issue now. If company X put up a horrible billboard just next door to my house, and I posted a picture of it saying "look at this awful thing", and posted it to a Terrible Advertising group, I wouldn't expect that they would be able to have that sort of commentary removed for copyright violation.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
"nobody in their right mind would issue them a DMCA."
Actually a "DMCA" isn't issued, that's the U.S. law that governs how a Notice of Infringement takedown notice is handled. And usually, they're handled carte blanche, with little consideration for the actual merits. Someone files a takedown notice, the file is taken down. That's why it's crucial to have a counter-claim available, so at some point someone looks at the merits.
However. That's just U.S. law. Flickr and Yahoo and Second Life are all international entities, and the copyright/trademark laws vary wildly depending on where you are, where Second Life is, and where the person with a claim is. So Yahoo could have been operating under a much different set of regulations depending on where this takedown request came from. "Fair Use" is an American sometimes-exemption only, and may not apply elsewhere.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Still nothing?
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Day Oh, I doubt whether we'll see any final answers from Flickr Staff here; their response will be a private one to the OP.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
MichaelSmith Yes but the OP could post an update...
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Hang tough, ma'am.
Posted 6 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
This thread was closed automatically due of a lack of responses over the last month.
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us