A Complete Alphabet of Eine's Shopfront Shutter Graffiti

This was originally posted to flickr in January 2006, having spent a couple of days cycling around the East End of London to take the original photos. (You can see the originals in this set)


On February 17th 2012, I received an email from flickr, telling me that they'd received a Notice of Infringement from Wasteland, Inc.:


I'll continue the story in the comments below.


  • iggytheobscure 3y

    so, if someone makes a comment on a picture on here, no matter what the picture and no matter what the comment, it's trivial to make it disappear?

    wow. makes me want to chant YOO ESS AYY over and over
  • kfsone 3y

    For a moment, lets give Taban the benefit of the doubt: his company's power to take-down internet sites temporarily fell into the hands of hackers...

    Uhm, I'm not sure I'm doing Taban any favors here. Lets just go back to believing they're a corporation of pricks who throw take-downs around willy nilly, rather than believing they're a bunch of assholes who don't think its a power they should control more strictly than using the password "changeme" on their hotmail account...
  • James Hildebrandt 3y

    Flickr should just force the photo to "private" pending the process, this would keep it from public view while the copyright process runs its course. If in the end it truly is copyrighted material then sure take it down but if not then simply revert it back to full public view (or whatever settings the user had). Just my 2¢, I apologize if someone made the same suggestion earlier in the comments, I didn't have time to read them all.
  • MultiBaller 3y

    The way I see it, the companies involved can hide behind the "hackers did it" defense in court. It's up to you whether you're willing and able to pursue a false DMCA take-down, but if you are so willing, you've got evidence by way of Yahoo's actions and the DMCA notice. Now they need to prove their case.
  • Tenbeg 3y

    The DMCA only applies in the US.

    In the UK, when copyright infringement occurs, you have to provide evidence of ownership.

    To clarify : If you hosted your pictures in the UK (or almost anywhere else but the US), the place where you hosted them would almost certainly not have taken them down. Because they are located in the US, they are legally required to.

    That being said, a false DMCA assertion is subject to a whole host of liabities, in theory. Whether they get acted upon is a different matter.
  • Dave Gorman 3y

    Ta for all the comments. I'm getting comments here, on my blog, on other photos, on twitter and in the help forum and I'm reading the responses on slashdot too. Too many for me to start responding individually, but all appreciated and (almost) all enlightening too.
  • Byutifu Dotcom 3y

    Read about the drama on slashdot. Let's get these favs and comments back, shall we?
  • robertrade 3y

    That is the reason why I refuse to take down my customer's sites when I receive DMCA notice regarding their "post".

    Instead of taking down their entire sites, I just disabled their posts/pictures and notified the customers about it...to give the customers the chance to respond to DMCA notices.

    I believe that the customers are innocent until proven guilty or get it taken care of.

    NetworkCities.com (12 years in business)
  • danheskett 3y

    > For a moment, lets give Taban the benefit of the doubt: his company's power to take-down
    > internet sites temporarily fell into the hands of hackers...

    And here is why the crappy DMCA is so crappy. Because anyone - including hackers - have the power to take down ANY SITE ON THE INTERNET, just by making a frivolous, automatic, SPAMMY copyright claim, and everyone in the world has to bow to their wishes, and run around and assert that they are not in fact doing anything wrong. The burden of proof is 100% on the service provider and the publisher, and not at all on the one making the claim. Plus there is really no way to possibly hold these people making nakedly false accusations accountable. Does anyone really thing that these guys have any assets to go after, or would even respond to US-based legal process? Of course not.

    The pendulum has swung far in the favor of copyright holders and they want to push it further yet.
  • Peter_Hansen 3y

    Its time to write your representative and demand a law that will penalize those who file a wrongful takedown claim as such claims are not only extremely annoying and hurtful but a danger to free speech and the liberties we take for granted.

    Lets start writing Flickr first, then YouTube. This imbalance must end. The burden of proof must lie with the accuser.
  • matcheydj 3y

    They should really just block it (change permissions for the post & page) so it can be recovered if it is found that there was an error. It's not like they're running out of disk space.
  • Peter Beens 3y

    Sad story about the takedown. I'm happy to contribute to your views and comment count to get it back to where it was!

    Flickr, you need to fix your website so original pages can be restored a copyright claim dispute is settled!
  • sinister dexter 3y

    It's the same as when I've had god botherers complain about one of my images from a festival, street event, gig, parade etc. for having too much flesh or something that offends their sensitivities in it. Flickr won't just tell you which image is a problem, they just mark you're entire photo stream as restricted. They then expect you to be able to find it yourself and reset the safety settings. When you have over 40,000 images in your photo stream, it's not really a practical thing to expect someone to do, especially when Flickr already know exactly the image that has been whinged about, but for some reason, choose to treat their paying customers like scolded children being taught a lesson.
  • Beverly Crandon 3y

    Thank you for fighting this and taking it as far as you did. True BS!
  • jakerome 3y

    Forking ashtrays!
  • Vadim Gran 3y

    Hey Dave. Just read the story about you on Techdirt. I hope that this unfortunate incident results in a great deal of exposure for you and your work. Sort of as a final F U to Degban... :-)
  • BeccaG 3y

    Oh my, what a big bunch of PITA for you. I'm glad your able to repost though (shame about the data). Let's hope this silly policy gets changed for those of us outside of the US.

    It is an awesome image and I might not of found it if it wasn't for your post in FC.
  • Apertureplus 3y

    Dave, I think that it's all been said before, but I wanted to also add to your views and favorites, which I have done.

    The most frustrating thing from all of this for me, is that Flickr cannot restore the original URL. It's a dead-simple process for anyone in the back-office who has the inclination.
  • Dave Gorman 3y

    Apertureplus I agree that it would be easy - but I accept that it would also be complicated to do it for all previous cases where this has happened to others. I don't know how many people have been affected by this - but I can see that it would open up a can of worms to commit to fix it retroactively for all.

    From the get go I have been more concerned with trying to change the policy for the future than I have been with trying to fix this one situation. I'm chuffed that this has been achieved. This is a good thing.
  • LongExposures .co.uk 3y

    Having just pursued a violation of copyright against a flickr user who rehosted one of my images, your story came to mind when I noticed flickr respond not with outright deletion but by replacing the disputed image with an infringement notice - and leaving the view count/ faves etc in situ.

    Reading further I'm delighted to discover your case directly influenced flickr in changing its deletion policy. It's such a shame you don't get to benefit directly from your own efforts but thank you sincerely for raising and pursuing the issue - a positive change for all flickr users.
90 faves
Uploaded on March 2, 2012
This photo is in 8 groups
This photo is in 1 gallery

Additional info

  • Viewing this photo Public
  • Safety level of this photo Safe
  • S Search
    Photo navigation
    < > Thumbnail navigation
    Z Zoom
    B Back to context