Help / The Help Forum

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

Hot Topics

Flickr/Yahoo login issues.
Latest: 13 hours ago

 

Current Discussion

Sharing with non-yahoo members
Latest: 64 seconds ago
[Official Thread] Updates on tags
Latest: 14 minutes ago
Probably a really stupid question
Latest: 44 minutes ago
Is anybody else having a problem with Flickr on Safari?
Latest: 46 minutes ago
How do I STOP the uploading?
Latest: 2 hours ago
Narrow browser window cuts off photos in Upload
Latest: 2 hours ago
how to "turn off" camera roll?? (i HATE it!)
Latest: 2 hours ago
Can not find my pictures or my profile with any search engine.
Latest: 3 hours ago
New ways to view your Photostream!
Latest: 3 hours ago
"New ways to view your Photostream! "
Latest: 3 hours ago
View count
Latest: 3 hours ago
How should our EXIF data's "Maker Notes" appear?
Latest: 3 hours ago
More...

Search the Help Forum

the Obama DMCA

nytram ydnew says:

www.pdnpulse.com/2009/08/mystery-who-asked-flickr-to-dele...
Posted at 11:12AM, 26 August 2009 PDT ( permalink )
nytram ydnew edited this topic 71 months ago.

1 2 3 next →
(201 to 253 of 253 replies in the Obama DMCA)
view photos

Dr. Keats says:

Do DMCA take-down notices and subsequent counter-claims relate specifically to that instance of the image only?

If so, assuming that he's the legitimate owner of the image, I figure he can upload it again pretty much any time. If not, then it'll be dependant on the result of the counter-claim.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

Rick: I saw that was posted as a comment on Edwards Joker-Obama image (the first on in his stream). I was merely copying in case the comment was deleted by Edward. The originator of the comment is kyz.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Яick Harris says:

Thanks adameros -- heaven forbid I don't attribute it properly :)
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

I just don't want Kyz thinking I plagiarized him. We could end up with a whole 'nother flickr debate on our hands. ;)
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Actually, it's unclear that Przydzial isn't still claiming he made the original artwork. When he writes up there "i never claimed ownership of the image, it's called a parody. freedom of speech and i'm not selling it" he could have been referring to the original Time Magazine cover, not his [supposed] manipulation of said cover.

He posted the artwork on his LiveJournal page dated months prior to Alkhateeb's supposed creation date. So whether or not that's true or faked, he appears to be positioning himself as the original artist.

Crap, I'm out of popcorn. brb.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

Crap, I'm out of popcorn. brb.

Well I'm off to the Auverne for the next few days and its doubtful they'll have an internet connection I can link into. Try and precise the next installment.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

adameros says:

I need a judgment call from the Refs, so I don't cross the "creepy" rule...

The company I work for does online background checks. I did a check on Edward and found a couple court cases that seem to coincide with the article from Kyz that I quoted. As this might show if Edward has a history of stealing other peoples works, would it be okay, or cross the line, if I posted for case number for other people research?
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

adameros: Generally, the "no fingerpointing" rule is still in effect in the Help Forum. Since Edward is a Flickr member, and such postings could lead to a torch-and-pitchfork attack on him, it's probably not recommended.

But that's a rule to keep the help forum somewhat civil. There's nothing to stop you from posting what you've discovered in other group threads.

May not be much point, though. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this Edward fellow has a few screws loose.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

iansand says:

Dare I say that this imbroglio is exactly why flickr needed to take the image down? They are entitled to the safe harbour provisions of the DCMA while those protagonists who actually know the facts of the matter (and Thomas Hawk) fight it out. How could flickr have any chance of sorting out this gyre of lies and fantasy?

But it would be nice if the page could be restored if the true protagonists sort out the problem.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

I'll reiterate I've made here & elsewhere for years: The DMCA notice & takedown system is anti-Democratic, and enables anyone to enlist the government and private corporations to infringe the free speech of people with whom they disagree. A notice & notice system would be more in keeping with our nation's (The USA, in my case) ideals and still allow copyright owners to quickly have infringing material removed from the internet without impacting the free speech rights of other citizens. In short:

We are at such a critical juncture of American history that citizens would do well to speak temperately and not spread false, malicious, hateful lies about people with whom they disagree.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Яick Harris says:

I agree with you, jake (and would never, ever disagree with you in a public online forum, promise).

It would be interesting if flickr sent the offending images to www.chillingeffects.org/
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

andertho says:

We are at such a critical juncture of American history that citizens would do well to speak temperately and not spread false, malicious, hateful lies about people with whom they disagree.

That is originally my quote, so I believe I am entitled to a free donut.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

teh resa says:

jakerome: have you been complaining about this to your government (you say "here and elsewhere)? Why just complain in the flickr help forum if its an issue you have with your government? Heather's not Obama's chief chief geek of technical stuff. I don't think.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

I thought free speech protected "false, malicious, hateful lies" too.

At least, that seems to be the way many go about it.

Also, isn't every moment a critical juncture in American history? Can't we just go about our lives treating folks properly, as if every moment counts?

You know, just in case.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Eddie7749 says:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32584064/ns/technology_and_science-t...
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Thanks for sharing the same link someone else already posted up there not too long ago, Mr. anonymous, blank, private, no-photo Flickr account person.

Way to stand up for your personal beliefs there.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

I was wrong I do have net access here, and a UK keyboard too. Yah!

@jakerome, I disagree the DMCA is fine and dandy. It allows the little guy to get stuff removed without having in invoke lawyers. It was the DMCAs that forced google's hand over the orkut kid photos, and in many situations people simply want an abuse of their content to stop forthwith, without fuss. Ideally one would do that by contacting the website or uploader, but sometimes they are fucking cunts and do not do the right thing.

Now if someone is abusing the DMCA one has a remedy ... sue the bastard.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Flickr Staff

heather says:

I wanted to follow up on a comment that The Searcher made last week that we should be able to replaced instead of removed:

But for specifically copyright takedowns, I think it could be a LOT easier, and more fair. All Flickr has to do is replace the image with a blank "This image has been removed for copyright issues." image. It informs the user what's going on, and more importantly, doesn't delete all of the irreplaceable content on the page.

www.flickr.com/help/forum/en-us/104389/678552/

We like this idea. We really, really like this idea. So much so that for NOIs filed by US individuals/members on US Flickr members after 3:30 PM PDT today, we've implemented a change to our process.

Upon receipt of a complete NOI, the US Copyright Team will replace the image with a new static image that bears the following copy:

"This image has been removed due to a claim of copyright infringement."

Here's a screenshot of what it looks like from one of my test accounts:



What does this mean?

-- US members will still receive a warning that contains the name of the complainant and now will include a link to the image where the content has been removed.

-- The original image will be stored by Flickr. Should we receive notice from the US Copyright Team to replace the original, we will be able to do so. *** Please note will be able to do so as long as the original photo.gne page is left in place. If a member chooses to delete the photo.gne page we'll assume that they're not interested further activity like restitution of the image. ***

-- The existing title, description, comments, tags, notes, etc. will be available. The image can still be added to sets and groups.

-- Blog This, Edit in Picnic, "replace this image" and the EXIF info will be disabled.

-- The image will be flagged NIPSA and as such will not return in search results nor be available in the API.


For the rest of the world

-- The existing process of photo removal will continue. We're going to begin reaching out to the other regional copyright teams to see if they would like us to enact this feature where they are. Given that the counter-claim process is unique to the DMCA, we'll need to work out how image restoration will work elsewhere.

Again, thanks to The Searcher.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

HOT DAMN!!!!!

Thank you thank you thank you!

Once again, "The Searcher is right".
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

Thanks.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan says:

*applause*

This is a good thing, and Flickr can feel rightly proud of itself for doing it.

One question though (sorry): What determines the location for US vs 'rest of the world' - the location of the poster, or the location of the complainant? Because if it's the latter it strikes me that anyone that's a malicious attacker rather than a genuinely aggrieved copyright holder will simply file a (fraudulent) notice claiming to be outside the US, and the bad old deletion process will kick in.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Dshalock® Libertarian Emperor of America says:

Excellent solution to the problem! Flickr team gets kudos for listening to the community on this one.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

The Ewan wrote

What determines the location for US vs 'rest of the world'
My guess is it's dependant on what Yahoo ID the person who sends in the DMCA uses. If, for example, you sign in with a Yahoo.ca ID, then your complaint goes to Yahoo Canada.

I sign in with a yahoo.com ID so my notices go to the US, even though I live in New Zealand.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Ewan: It says up there it's both filed by US members and against US members. So that should limit the shenanigans you describe.

Also, very very awesome.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan says:

Brenda Anderson:

My guess is it's dependant on what Yahoo ID the person who sends in the DMCA uses.
My understanding is that you don't need to be signed in with a Yahoo ID to be able to send a DMCA notice/copyright complaint. Is that not the case?

The Searcher: Heather's text doesn't say that, it just says '/', which could equally well be a logical AND, i.e. only claims that are filed from the US, and against US account holders will be treated this way. Which would leave the door open to fraudulent complaints (claiming to be) from elsewhere. I'm not saying that is the case, necessarily, just that it's not completely clear so far.

But, yes, it's pretty awesome. I just want to make sure that it's not awesome and buggy.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Ewan: From Heather's post (emphasis mine):

"So much so that for NOIs filed by US individuals/members on US Flickr members"

Oh I see what you're saying. You're saying what if this is a "both" requirement, and not an "or" requirement. Like what happens if a guy says he's from France and targets a U.S. account.

I would assume the idea is that they (Flickr) can perform this policy change on the U.S. "jurisdiction", so any U.S. Flickr member should have this behavior, regardless of who originated the NOI.

But that is a tiny loophole that could be clarified.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Lú_ says:

Since Canada doesn't *have* a takedown law, I hope that Yahoo Canada can come up with a system that either provides for a counterclaim or permits a response -- the notice-and-notice system. Without a particular requirement under law forcing their hand, I'd like to see them develop some sort of system so that we can know where we stand here when an NOI is files against us.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

foulwater says:

*** Please note will be able to do so as long as the original photo.gne page is left in place. If a member chooses to delete the photo.gne page we'll assume that they're not interested further activity like restitution of the image. ***

If Flickr removed the original in error you must still return/restore the image at all cost to the owner even if they decide to remove your libel blank.

The "they're not interested" part is a typical lame excuse of a corporation not willing to admit a mistake happened in the first place. You can do much better than this Flickr.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ColleenM says:

Huh?

Actually, you've got it wrong. Flickr only has to restore the image if they want to take advantage of the Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA. Under their previous policy of deleting the whole page, they had chosen not to do that.

Flickr is not required to restore anything. Not even under the DMCA.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Dude, what do you want? They just reworked the entire system to preserve all data not related to the takedown notice, AND preserve the image. The image itself it should be assumed is owned by the owner, so it shouldn't matter if they delete it anyway (only a complete idiot, or someone who didn't really value their work, wouldn't have an original stored someplace else.)

If a user chooses to delete the photopage, it shouldn't (and isn't) be considered some unspoken declining of their rights under the DMCA. It just means Flickr can't bring the page back, and the image file name/location is probably tied to the photo page. Normally, hitting "delete" on a photo page, deletes the image. So this is absolutely no different than that, and shouldn't be treated any differently. if you don't want them deleting your image, here's a tip: Don't hit the DELETE button.

The whole point of this maneuver is to have an avenue of recovery in case a mistake, or a successful counter-claim, is made. Maybe you should re-read what the new system actually does. It shouldn't be Flickr's responsibility to prevent a user from deleting their own content.

But it very clearly does appear to be their newly realized responsibility to protect us users from abuse or collateral content deletion (like comments, etc). You act like they just surprised you with a chocolate cake, and you threw it across the room in a fit because you wanted strawberry.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

foulwater says:

I am not speaking in terms of laws or acts. What I am saying is this:

1. Flickr removes an images for possible copyright violation.
2. They place a libel blank in its place.
3. Flickr learns they made a huge mistake.
4. The Flickr customer has removed said libel blank because he/she did not commit any violation.
5. Flickr discards the image because the rightful owner was also protecting their reputation, professional or personal, by removing the blank.

Just because the DMCA affords such actions doesn't mean it is the correct action. This is where I believe Flickr can do better, treat people with respect especially if they made a mistake.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Brenda Anderson says:

foulwater wrote

3. Flickr learns they made a huge mistake.
Here's the bit. In this DMCA scenario, Flickr did not make a huge mistake. Someone filed under penalty of perjury that they were the copyright holder. It's not Flickr's fault if someone lies to them. Would you rather they continued their old process of simply deleting the photo and all its comments??

It's not libel to say it was "removed due to a copyright claim". That is the truth. It doesn't say it was removed "due to copyright violation."
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

foulwater says:

All I am saying is that the original image should be returned to the owner once Flickr learns of the mistake. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

What is a "libel blank"? I don't get that part. It says "claim of copyright infringement." There's nothing libelous about a statement of fact. Someone filed a claim, thus there is a claim. It doesn't say it's a justified claim, or that a theft has occurred.

Also, it doesn't appear that Flickr disabled a user's ability to re-write their description or title, or even more importantly, set the photopage to private.

So it wouldn't take much for a user to offer an explanation under the image, or simply set the page to "private".

Hitting the "delete" button, shouldn't really surprise anyone if the results happen to be deletion.

Why MUST the original image come back to the owner? It isn't actually the "original" at all. The original sits on your hard drive, where you can make as many copies as you want. There is no practical reason why that should be in any way a priority. At all.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )
The Searcher edited this topic 71 months ago.

view photos

emdot says:

kudos to flickr.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Michael Smith says:

Great stuff. Thanks to Heather and the rest of the staff.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

ratsj says:

Well done!
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kyz says:

Hooray! A sensible decision. Hopefully this will combat any further DMCA abuse. Sure, Flickr has to obey the laws of the countries it operates in - but it shouldn't ride roughshod over its main asset, Flickr users.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Fort Photo says:

Very cool, great job flickr!
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

FlyButtafly says:

Such awesomeness is Flickr (and the staff). :D
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

cosmicv says:

So does this answer the question as to how Flickr is going to prevent a denial of service attack where a bogus name claims ownership of a slew of pictures and demands takedown?
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

This should answer it. Basically there's no "prevention" if someone decides to commit perjury and lie on a legal document. The steps required to be taken if a DMCA notice are filed, will still be taken. What this does is allow the rest of the DMCA procedures to occur fairly, namely allowing the accused to file a counter-claim and recover his/her content if the accuser backs down.

And more importantly, this eliminates the destruction of all of the content on the photopage that had nothing to do with the copyright issue.

Basically, the DMCA itself has the built in failsafes to prevent fraud in most cases (and apparently Flickr has dealt with only one or two instances of outright fraud in its history) What this new procedure does is let that work in the background, without destroying or permanently deleting the content while it works itself out.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Jim Skea says:

Note that the above "happy" scenario only holds when both parties are US members.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

True. But then the DMCA is a U.S. law only, so I guess that makes sense.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Ewan says:

Not really. Either the DMCA applies in a particular case or it doesn't - if it does, Flickr should honour the counter notices, and if it doesn't they shouldn't honour the original takedown; voluntarily complying with only the destructive part is perverse - as Lú_ pointed out (some) other places don't have a takedown law at all.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

Right, but those "other places" are outside of the U.S. Some other places may require destruction, while some do not. I assume it has more to do with the slow turn of Yahoo's international legal team, then a purposeful omission. They got it up and running where they could, when they could. Doesn't mean it's a permanent omission globally.

We're the beta test.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

jakerome says:

Only 1 or 2? Well, Michael Crook, this case & the one from a few weeks back (guy had photo taken down due to illegal DMCA notice from photo subject) is at least 3. Those are only the ones we've heard about. There have been dozens on YouTube for people including the names of rock songs in their video, sent out en masse by record labels in a clear abuse of the DMCA process, and Google/YouTube has been a willing partner.

I doubt the problem is as bad on Flickr (heck, we know it's not as bad), but there have certainly been more than 1 or 2 false DMCA notices sent.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

The Searcher says:

No, there are I'm sure plenty of erroneous DMCA takedown notices, but that's different than outright fraud. And "abuse of the process" isn't outright fraud either, as they do have a legitimate claim to the copyrights in question, they just can't apply it to the people they're attempting to apply it to. That's the whole purpose of the counter-claim provision, to affirm a right and call a bluff.

"False" isn't the same as lying to the level that you're breaking the law, basically. This process needed to change, because of the potential for many false DMCA notices, based on incorrect understanding of the law and/or corporate bluffs. I don't think we needed protection from the non-crimewave of purposeful illegal misuse of the process by people with no connection to the content at all. That's what's few and far between.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Mississippi Snopes says:

Wow, Flickr staff listens to a sensible suggestion and responds sensibly. This is a good precedent to build on .
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

kyz says:

Hey folks, I got a flickrmail today:


[flickrmail removed by staff]

Unfortunately I can't respond to him, as he's also blocked me. I tried to send him this reply:

[flickrmail removed]
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )
Kevin (staff) edited this topic 71 months ago.

view photos

Michael Smith says:

You'll need to remove the reference to another Flickr member, as that isn't allowed in the Forum. Thanks.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

Walwyn says:

Does he not have the ability to remove comments from his own stream?
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

view photos

RubyMae says:

Well, members are usually advised to leave offensive comments in place if they plan to use "report abuse." Maybe he's giving the person the chance to remove it themselves before he reports it.
Posted 71 months ago. ( permalink )

This thread was closed automatically due to a lack of responses over the last month.

1 2 3 next →
(201 to 253 of 253 replies in the Obama DMCA)
Subscribe to a feed of stuff on this page... Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads