Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Time Denies Issuing DMCA Over Obama Joker Image

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-like-the-beginning-of-the-dark-knight dept.

Censorship 324

An anonymous reader writes "Last week Slashdot posted on the Flickr censorship case where Flickr removed the controversial Obama/Joker image from their site. A representative from Flickr claimed that they only removed the image because they received a DMCA takedown notice over the image and then accused the press and blogosphere of being 'makey uppey,' subsequently locking the thread where Flickr users were complaining about the takedown. But now it appears that Time, DC Comics, and the photographer of the original photograph used to make the parody image are all denying having issued Flickr a takedown notice. Flickr was asked who issued the notice by the Los Angeles Times and told the Times that they were not able to provide that information. The original artist says Flickr has not told him who filed it either, despite the fact that Yahoo has in the past provided the information to people when DMCA takedown requests are issued. So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?"

cancel ×

324 comments

Could it be... (5, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208395)

So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?"

Mabye it was Barack Obama?

Re:Could it be... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208445)

You mean Barack Hussein Obama?

Re:Could it be... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208563)

Why the fuck was that modded flamebait? He was just trying to distinguish the president from all of the other Barack Obamas out there.

Sheesh, man. Y'all and Flickr are a bunch of fuckin' Philistines.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Could it be... (4, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208937)

Y'all and Flickr are a bunch of fuckin' Philistines.

You racist!!! Some of my best friends are Philistines!

Re:Could it be... (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209589)

You racist!!! Some of my best friends are Philistines!

Oh please, you can't call a fan club a 'race'. Besides, he's been terrible ever since he left Genesis, so I see no reason to defend them anyway.

The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? (5, Funny)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208455)

The lack of evidence of a conspiracy PROVES it's gotta be one!!

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? (1)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208845)

Yeah, I'm sure it was Alex Jones [infowars.com] who has adopted the poster for his own.

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209267)

Perhaps it was Obama's staff, but I doubt it.

The most likely answer is that Flickr, like television media, is left-leaning. The management probably felt offended by the image against their favorite man, yanked it off the site, and then made-up a story about a DMCA notice that doesn't exist. I wonder if we could file a Freedom of Information (sp?) request to discover who issued the notice.

If not I say we upload it. Again and again and again. Then sue Flickr is they ban your account, so they have to stand before a judge and explain themselves.

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? (2, Informative)

Tuoqui (1091447) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209571)

Unfortunately not. FOIA only deals with the government from what I understand not private businesses.

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? (-1, Troll)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209609)

Uhm, you do realise that most of the mainstream media in the US is own by Rupert Murdoch, and other wealthy Republicans?

Unless... oh! You doublethink me, comrade! Yes, left-leaning, the liberal commie bastards, except for us, the fine nonpartizan dominant right-leaning virtous citizens! The truth is ours, and ours alone!

Unlikely ... On What Grounds? (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208633)

So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?"

Mabye it was Barack Obama?

You're probably joking (as we're running out of possibilities) but might I remind you of Hustler Magazine Vs Jerry Falwell [wikipedia.org] ? In which Falwell was considered a public figure [wikipedia.org] and in a "unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them." I'm no lawyer but I heavily doubt that the DMCA would make this any different. If people could prosecute on that basis, the celebrities would hit tabloids with the DMCA left and right ... might even hit the mainstream news if they do a story that reflects them poorly. Perhaps the person who took the original photograph that was modified might have issued it but I'm not clear on whether that was Time's photographer or another by another licensing agreement. My guess is that Time's legal team or publishing house or right hand knee jerk issued a DMCA while the people answering the phones and writing articles had no idea bout it.

Re:Unlikely ... On What Grounds? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208727)

My guess is that Time's legal team or publishing house or right hand knee jerk issued a DMCA while the people answering the phones and writing articles had no idea bout it.

If that's the case, then why didn't Yahoo tell them? (As the summary states they've done in the past.)

Personally, I'm wondering if someone at Yahoo decided to take it down because it personally offended them, and claimed DMCA to cover their asses?

Why the Change In Policy (2, Funny)

evought (709897) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208991)

My guess is that Time's legal team or publishing house or right hand knee jerk issued a DMCA while the people answering the phones and writing articles had no idea bout it.

If that's the case, then why didn't Yahoo tell them? (As the summary states they've done in the past.)

Personally, I'm wondering if someone at Yahoo decided to take it down because it personally offended them, and claimed DMCA to cover their asses?

Exactly, the fact that they will not tell anyone, including the actual rights-owner who issued the request is automatically fishy. I see two basic possibilities:

  1. As you suggest, it was someone at Yahoo acting without authorization.
  2. Someone "put pressure" on Yahoo to do it and made the consequences clear if the revealed who.
  3. Yahoo received a completely bogus DMCA request and is too embarrassed to admit that they were taken (and maybe afraid of legal action over the issue).

[You will note that I said there were two possibilities and listed three. Since there is some overlap between them, I took the average number of unique possibilities. It is not because I am too lazy to go back and edit the word "two" after coming up with a third bullet point. That would be ridiculous.]

Re:Could it be... (2, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208677)

Mabye it was Barack Obama?

No clearly, this is the work of The Joker..... To the BATCAVE!

Re:Could it be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208955)

Ill bet my car that youre right. If it wasnt him it was someone else at the whitehouse who just doesnt get it.

Re:Could it be... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209071)

"I hereby sentence you to a term of no less than 6 years and not exceeding 12 years" bellowed the Judge at my court case. You could tell in the sterness of his voice and his general demeanor that he took delight in sending scum like me up the river. A fucking DUI that ended up killing some black kid in Detroit was all it took to sealed my fate for the next decade. I had thoughts of appeal but I figured it wouldn't be worth the little savings I had left and my sentence would probably stand. To this day I still believe had the kid been white, my life would have been much easier, inside and outside of prison.

Now, don't believe what you see on Televison about prison, it is a far worse place than any 32" screen could every conjure up. Imagine watching an MSNBC special on jail or an episode of OZ and take that experience and double it. That's about the wretched hell I have come to know for the past 3 1/2 years. Sometimes I don't know who is worse and my already fazed and battered mind, the prison guards or the inmates. It really takes a certain type of psychopath to want to work around this place, 8 hours a day or longer and that's exactly the type of labor pool this place picks from.

I can't say my first week was the worst week of my life, but I can certainly say it was the scariest, most horrifying change change in lifestyle I can remember. The dynamic between my old life as a software developer with a modest 1 bedroom downtime, to sharing a tiny cell with a sexual deviant is enough to make anyone go insane. But anyway let me talk about my first day of 12 long years here.

As I was escorted on to the prison bound bus with the day's newly convicted felons, it was already starting. I was chained next to this black man named Napps. I am sure this wasn't his real name but you can't tell these days with the way these people are named. Now Napps was a pretty built man, and I could tell by the excess amount of tattos and his attitude, that this wasn't the first time he was getting bussed off to a stint in the State Penetentary. Napps upon being forced to sit next to me had given me a look that you would imagine a wolf would give towards their defenseless prey. That was what I officially was now, defensless prey for Napps and God knows who else now. Napps, with a smug and deviously look in his eye asked me "What's a white boy like yourself doing going to the shit?". "Pardon?", I said uneasily almost choking on my words. "This white boy dinks we at da country club.", he said to the rest of the bus, while the bus started roaring in laughter. Now all eyes and ears on the bus were tuned in to me. "I says, wat a tender cracka like you doing here wit the rest of us?", he said in a more pointed fashion. "I'm here...for drunk driving. I killed someone in Brightmore", I shamefully admitted. "So you the motherfucka who killed dat black kid!", now furious with me. The rest of the bus, still focused on me began roaring again loudly as if my crime is more terrible than raping and killing a white woman in the suburbs (I eventually find this out later on). "You lucky da guards are here bitch, you hear me? When we get down to the shit, your ass belongs to the blacks, you got it cracker?". My heart jumped, not even in prison yet, and I am already targeted for what I am sure is to be a stabbing. Shit.

The bus finally turned into the outer gate, which seemed to stretch on for ever, Napps was still from time to time threatening me. I didn't think I would even make it into prison alive. "So you kill one of ours, huh?", he uttered with extreme hatred. "Well, I took one of yours too bitch ass. 4 of my boys went to your white part of town and and took a bitch. We ran a train on dat fo 8 hours, den we pours acid on that cunt", he must have enjoyed the thought as he laughed sadisticly while telling me his crime. As we got manhandled off of the bus one by one, Napps turned around and said "watch yo ass, lit'ry!", before being forced face first by the guard.

By now I was too much in shock from being scared to even be scared. I went through the motions of "processing" before I was escorted to my cell. The bunk was already occupied with an inmate, reading some sort of hip-hop magazine. I was pushed into my cell, and my new roommate eyed me and said "So you the nigga killer?". "It's gonna be you and me tonight", he threatened as I already had my fill of being threatened by prison niggers. It was already about 8:30 and since our bus got delayed coming in, and I knew that in a half an hour it was going to be 'me and him'.

"Lights out! Lights fucking out!" Yelled from the distance as the boom of the dimming lights started my first night. "You and me time, cracker" the hulking voice from the top of the bunk whispered. He came down from his bunk getting about 6 inches away from me and must have been 6 foot five. I started panicking, believing he had a shank or was going to choke me to death but it was too dark to tell. He moved his hands down around his crotch and made several 'manuveurs'. Before I knew it, still being dark, he had his cock out in front of me, which must have been at least 8 inches but probably 10 if I could see. "Yo want to ack like a bitch, you gonna suck like one too". His giant hands pushed me into my knees while he began putting his already erect cock up towards my face. By now his throbbing cock was hitting me on the side of my ear as he kept commanding me to open my mouth. "Put this shit down yo throat bitch", he commanded again while I still resisted. "Boy, I will cut yo throat if I gots to say it another time", he responded to my reluctance.

I finally gave in, thinking that this was probably still better than death. I opened my mouth and began feeding his nigger cock into my mouth. This was not enough for him and he grabbed my hair while he forced the rest of what was probably 5 inches more down my throat. I almost gagged but maintained composure, while he started skull fucking me more and more. I figured this would soon be over and I would be able to go cry myself to sleep very soon. He then pulled out and I thought the worst was over. "Bitches need a good fuck now too", he said while he threw me in my bunk and made me get on my hands and knees. He forced my pants down and kept me in place even while I tried my best to squirm out of there and go...nowhere. His cock still hard and wet with my mouth, he pushed his cock into my virgin asshole. I swear, between his cock size and my clenching reaction, this was the most painful experience I have can remember. The car accident that brought me here didn't even hurt half as bad. He kept going at it while he pulled my hair and pinned me down with his giant body. I tried to scream for help but nothing would even coming out. The only sounds now coming out of my cell was the cyclic screeching of springs and the "Hmm! Hmm! Hmm!" of my new found rapist. When it was finally over, he had deposited a gigantic load of semen on my ass, and with his cock still in my ass whispered in my ear "Wait till the rest of the niggers break you in tomorrow". He kissed me on the cheek and left my limp body in my own bed as he climbed back up to his bunk.

3 spinchter surgeries and an HIV positive diagnosis later, I am 3 year into my prison sentence, and worth about a pack of Pall Malls. I constantly think of killing myself but I know I don't have the guts to do so. Napps, Tbone, and Shades are back and I have little time now before I get traded on the nigger exchange. I thought I would share my experiences on Slashdot and let people know how prison reall
asfd
sf
dfasd

The obvious answer (5, Funny)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208423)

So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?

Batman?

Re:The obvious answer (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208569)

*reads the first two posts*

Oh my god! Barack Obama is Batman's secret identity!

This explains why he got to keep his "Blackberry", because it's actually his Batberry! ... I'll let myself out.

Re:The obvious answer (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208695)

You should not obsess so much about the president's berries.

Re:The obvious answer (2, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208739)

Well I'll be honest, it's the Batgonads I'm obsessed with.

Re:The obvious answer (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208743)

*reads the first two posts*

Oh my god! Barack Obama is Batman's secret identity!

This explains why he got to keep his "Blackberry", because it's actually his Batberry! ... I'll let myself out.

I've never seen Barack Obama and Batman in the same room . . .

Re:The obvious answer (2, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208797)

I've never seen Barack Obama and Batman in the same room . . .

Ahhhh well I've never seen Barack Obama and HITLER in the same room so what are you suggesting?

Re:The obvious answer (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208893)

That Hitler's dead and *whoosh*? ;)

Re:The obvious answer (0, Redundant)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209573)

*WHOOOOOOOOOSH*

Watch your head, there's a lot of low flying objects today.

Re:The obvious answer (1, Offtopic)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209579)

That Hitler's dead and *whoosh*? ;)

Hitler's not dead... He lives in a small town in Siberia with his wife and children...

Re:The obvious answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209535)

Ahhhh well I've never seen Barack Obama and HITLER in the same room so what are you suggesting?

Maybe he's a Republican - Obama is Hitler to them...

Re:The obvious answer (5, Funny)

sacdelta (135513) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208855)

I've never seen myself and Batman in the same room.

OMG!

I'm Batman. Why didn't I see it before? It explains so much.

Re:The obvious answer (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209443)

*reads this and the previous parallel reply*

Oh my God!

Batman is Barack Obama, sacdelta on /., and HITLER!!!!

Re:The obvious answer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209177)

That also explains why he doesn't show his real birth certificate. It turns out his real name is Bruce Hussein Obama Wayne and he was born in Gotham City, not Hawaii. So everyone would know he was really Batman if they saw his birth certificate.

I want to know how he ditches the Secret Service long enough to make it to the bat cave though.

Re:The obvious answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208571)

Batman doesn't do legal paperwork. He just beats people up. Not surprisingly, he's far more popular than lawyers.

Re:The obvious answer (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208723)

No, it had to be Cesar Romero [wikipedia.org] , the only authentic Joker. Great Cesar's ghost! Now git offa my lawn.

Wow, that's some URL. (5, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208447)

Re:Wow, that's some URL. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208865)

I look forward to the day when an entire Slashdot submission is just a blog's URL.

Just imagine if they used the IPv6 address instead of the domain name! ;)

Re:Wow, that's some URL. (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209123)

Well, it seems that the server there is too busy trying to cope with that huge URL and has too little resources left to actually display the page. It's Slashdotted as slashdotted can be.

Irony, and freedom of speech (4, Insightful)

Unoti (731964) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208471)

Large companies are the enemy of freedom of speech, it's a long-standing fact of life. It's ironic that the wild popularity of electronic media outlets such as Flickr and Youtube is because it took publication rights out of the control of big media outlets. But when these little independent things become big corporations, and lose site of what got them where they are, it's a good indication they deserve to be killed by their competition.

I admit (5, Funny)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208507)

It was me. But I did it by accident. I thought I was clicking the Digg It link and must have just missed and clicked the DMCA It link. I did think it was weird that they asked me to provide justification for why I thought it should be expunged. But I just kept typing "The quick brown fox jumped over the ...etc..." till it said I had typed enough and then it let me submit.

Re:I admit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208777)

I just kept typing "The quick brown fox jumped over the ...etc..."

"lazy dog" is less characters (and less thinking) than "...etc...".

Also, it's "jumps", not "jumped".

Re:I admit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208997)

Back off a little. The post was obviously half -"s"-ed.

Re:I admit (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209161)

This raises a HUGE problem. Companies barely even read DMCA notices before acting on them, you could probably write just about anything in them and it would still get enforced.

I am actually very surprised that artists (visual and audio) have not started submitting fudged DMCA takedown notices to the ISP/Web Hosts of rival artists.

In fact, this could be used against political parties posting ads and speeches on third party sites (youtube, etc). VERY SCARY!

Who Cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208525)

Its just a bunch of right wing idiots...

Re:Who Cares? (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208729)

Political satire is one of the foundational reasons for *having* a First Ammendment, troll. But then in your world, everything your side does is art: they are infallible, even when they fail to deliver on key campaign promises. o.O

Satire's main advantage is that it helps break through our blindness to the negative sides of the group in power, even if we're supporters. It's one thing that helps change who's in power. This is a good thing(tm).

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208791)

An the Obama as Joker picture satarizes what exactly?

That the political discourse in this country has stooped lower than reality television?

Also, the first ammendment applies to government control. Not private enterprise controling what's on their server.

Finally, the DMCA has been evil for a long time... As for bi-partisanship, neither party has any interest in repealing the DMCA and that makes me a sad panda :-(

Re:Who Cares? (3, Interesting)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209053)

i didn't say it was well directed, effective, or good satire, but clearly it wasn't a violation of copyright, even as ridiculously overpowered as copyright is today.

but if i were to look for meaning in that image, perhaps it means to say, "you voted for me, the joke's on you." or, since the maker is a Palestinian Dennis Kucinich supporter, "you thought you were getting a progressive, well instead i'm as insane as the last guy."

on a side note, it's amusing how many on the left decided it *had* to have been racially motivated, to the extent of police forces arresting people in the hunt for someone who happened to be more aware of current popular culture and not at all aware of the parts of our history that made some think it had to be racial. quite sad, really.

and the reason i brought the first amendment into the discussion is that it was the reason for the exemptions in DMCA for political speech. Otherwise the DMCA would have been struck down long ago. Apparently that linkage was lost on you. Clearly the server owner has the right to take something off their site, but DMCA gives a third party the right to force them to do so whether they care to or not. The issue at hand is the misuse of the DMCA takedown process by parties unknown to stiffle political speech. So go stuff your attempts to misdirect the discussion.

As to the DMCA, follow the money. it leads to disney, hollywood, and new york.

Oops, sorry about that. (2, Funny)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208527)

I meant to hit the Cancel button.

Actionable? (4, Interesting)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208539)

I thought that in order for a DMCA takedown to be valid (that is, for the ISP to gain immunity to legal action by the user) the complete notice had to be provided to the user against whom the takedown was performed? Am I mistaken?

Re:Actionable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208561)

Technically, no. In reality, yes.

Re:Actionable? (1)

Minimalist360 (1258970) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208915)

Right, it's supplied to the user against whom the takedown was performed, BUT the notice is also covered by the DMCA, so...

Re:Actionable? (1)

Clever7Devil (985356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208945)

It doesn't matter if the notice is valid if the host fears the issuers lawyers more than the poster. That's one of the worst parts of the act: it encourages hosts to assume infringement solely on the basis of one accusation.

Re:Actionable? (5, Informative)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209033)

Er.. Technically it doesn't "encourage" hosts to assume infringement so much as it -requires- hosts to assume the legitimacy of the takedown notice. If they fail to, they lose immunity. That's why the notice gets promptly forwarded to the user against whom the takedown is perform and its also why the user gets to send a "put back" notice which -requires- the host to restore the removed material until such a time as ordered to remove it by a court.

Re:Actionable? (2, Informative)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209403)

Should be modded informative. Service providers wanting to maintain safe harbor immunity have to take something down if they recieve a DMCA. Section 512 of the DMCA [chillingeffects.org] . It has some cool caveats, though such as:

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section - * (1) that material or activity is infringing, or * (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Re:Actionable? (0)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208993)

legally you are correct but remember that flickr, google etc. have a history of assuming a DMCA takedown is valid before checking the actual validity of the notice to save themselves.

Re:Actionable? (2, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209073)

legally you are correct but remember that flickr, google etc. have a history of assuming a DMCA takedown is valid before checking the actual validity of the notice to save themselves.

They are required to treat the DMCA takedown notice as valid to remain within the safe harbor provision of the DMCA; they are likewise required to forward the notice to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material, who is entitled to file a counter-notice.

Re:Actionable? (1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209463)

They are require to treat valid DMCA takedown notices as valid.

They can and should throw out the obviously bullshit ones.

They don't, because they don't give a fuck and would rather cover their own asses.

Re:Actionable? (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209603)

They are required to treat the DMCA takedown notice as valid to remain within the safe harbor provision of the DMCA; they are likewise required to forward the notice to the person who posted the allegedly-infringing material, who is entitled to file a counter-notice.

Technically this is correct. In real life, however, it tends to go like this:

- DMCA notice is sent to ISP or website
- ISP or website immediately takes down the material, no questions asked
- Any claims by the DMCA victim that the material is not infringing are completely ignored, unless the DMCA victim has enough money, power and/or time on his hands to pursue further.
- Since the material has already been taken down, most people decide it's not worth fighting over
- PROFIT!!!

Re:Actionable? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209453)

Your proposed criteria

the complete notice had to be provided to the user against whom the takedown was performed

Was, most likely, met. If there was a DMCA takedown issued (and that is speculative at this point) it would have been issued against Flickr, not the artist. After all the image was being hosted by Flickr, not the artist.

Re:Actionable? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209515)

> I thought that in order for a DMCA takedown to be valid (that is, for the ISP to gain immunity to legal action by the user) the complete notice had to be provided to the user against whom the takedown was performed? Am I mistaken?

Well, yes. They're *supposed* to provide the person with a copy of it so that they have the opportunity to file a Counter Notice and restore the allegedly infringing works. However, a service provider always has the option of accepting even defective notices and removing the items per their ToS, never giving you an opportunity to contest this at all. My guess is that they never got an actual DMCA notice, just someone pointed out "hey, that's copyrighted!" and they removed it. Then their representative fudged the story a little to make it sound like they had no choice.

Anyhow, you need an actual lawyer to answer as to whether this is actionable. It's a free service and they have a ToS which may get them off the hook. The only thing that would be clearly actionable would be if there were a fraudulent DMCA notice, but there may not have been one to begin with, so who knows?

One question.... (4, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208543)

Why so serious?

Re:One question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208861)

Why so slashdotted?

Hooray! (-1, Flamebait)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208581)

Another opportunity for a conservative yank-fest! We haven't had one on the slashdot front page in exactly 1 week [slashdot.org] , so clearly another one is needed. Hate to spoil the party, but anyone who read the link to the Flickr discussion [flickr.com] would have seen some insight:

This article latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-a... with the originator of the Joker image contains this paragraph:

"Flickr had removed the Joker image due to copyright-infringement concerns, Alkhateeb says the company told him in an e-mail. A Flickr spokeswoman declined to comment due to a company policy that bars discussing inquiries about individual users."

(note that comment references a story that nobody from slashdot read last week...)

So in short, before people start shouting "ZOMG! Teh POTUS iz teh fashcist!", it would be wise to read up on what is going on here.

As was pointed out here (and previously), the original artist was told that his images were removed due to copyright concerns. It is to be expected that the ownership of any piece of art - derivative or otherwise - could become a matter of suspect when it becomes as widespread as the "joker-ized" Obama piece.

Re:Hooray! (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208943)

I should just ignore you and let the mods put your post down where it belongs, but you missed the obvious. When a DCMA take down notice is issued, it is customary (and some have even suggested legally required) to inform the person whose work has been taken down why it was taken down. They have to be told who issued the request and on what grounds the request was issued. Just because the artist "was told his images were removed due to copyright concerns" isn't enough. Whose copyright was being violated? The Times claims it wasn't theirs (and they owned the copyright on the original photo). DC Comics claims it wasn't them and they own the copyright on the Joker.

Re:Hooray! (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209217)

Yes, they need to tell the user who posted the material, but last I checked the Times isn't the one who posted it! The user who had their image deleted would most likely need to be the one to demand to see the notice and the name of the submitter.

Re:Hooray! (1)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209405)

Flickr took it down. What was his recourse? email them. Their response. Nothing. Ta-da. Next step is suing them? Not gonna happen. Status quo remains.

Well.... (5, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208585)

Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?

We have courts and paperwork for a reason in similar cases outside of the internet, and that reason is it's impossible to trust some letter you received. Just like you don't send DR AMHED JAFAR OF NIGERIA with your personal information, a rational legal system wouldn't allow just anyone to send an e-mail based DMCA takedown notice.

But this is what happens when the you let the content industry write their own laws.

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208787)

Isn't filing a DMCA takedown notice without IP rights to the work in question illegal according to the DMCA?

Re:Well.... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209251)

If they bother to READ the damned thing and THEN put in the effort to identify the owner of uvbnsuckered@hotmail.com. Appologies to anybody who might actually own that account :P .

Re:Well.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208813)

The entire reason for the DMCA takedown notices is so that the copyright holder can get something taken down *fast*. If the user thinks that the takedown is in error, the user can challenge it, then Flickr/Google/Whomever can put the content back up and if the takedown issuer still wants it down they have to take the case to the courts.

Re:Well.... (4, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208837)

> Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without
> the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?

The scenario you describe will happen, probably HAS happened. But in that case they would provide the email they received to the user. No, they took it down on their own for one or all of the following:

1. Pure political activism on the part of someone at Flickr/Yahoo. Remember Citizen, Dissent is Patriotic... unless Democrats are in charge then you must Doublethink; To Question the State is Treason.

2. Simple risk aversion. Fear that as word of where the subversive, treasonous art originated that their reputation would be tainted.

3. Avoiding the traffic spike when half the blogs on the planet linked to them.

Re:Well.... (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208975)

1. Pure political activism on the part of someone at Flickr/Yahoo. Remember Citizen, Dissent is Patriotic... unless Democrats are in charge then you must Doublethink; To Question the State is Treason.

When have Liberals/Democrats ever tried to silence dissent [theatlantic.com] ? I thought such actions only occurred under evil Republican administrations?

Re:Well.... (1, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209259)

Way to prove my point, whoever modded me and the parent troll. Mind pointing out exactly what in the GP's post constituted trolling?

Re:Well.... (1, Flamebait)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209393)

Go fuck yourself mod. I can do this all day. Got lots of karma to burn :)

Re:Well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209601)

I don't disagree that both sides have done such thing but boycotting a private company by a bunch of citizens is not suppressing free speech. If someone is saying something disagreeable, it's reasonable that I don't do business with him. Telling the government to haul his ass to jail, however, would be suppressing free speech.

Re:Well.... (1)

brkello (642429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209549)

Uhh, no offense, but I think some college student removing a picture from flickr is a bit different than labeling people "un-American" for opposing a war that turned out to be bullshit and killed tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people.

That being said, the image shouldn't be removed. Free speech and all that good stuff. But with that in mind, I still think the people who do this and the Hitler stuff are tools who have no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Well.... (2, Funny)

cliffski (65094) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209225)

Well its not as one sided as you think. Take, for example the sites such as rapidshare and megaupload that routinely share terrabytes of copyrighted material.
If you find your copyrighted content on those sites, you can email them a DMCA takedown that MUST include your phone number, your physical address and other contact details.
Note that megaupload do not provide everyone with their direct contact number, and the people actually uploading the copyrighted content are 100% anonymous.
If you are luck,y after 48 hours the site might remove the content, taking no action whatsoever against the uploader.
Within a few hours, the copyrighted content is uploaded yet again, and the whole process starts again.
All the time, the copyright holder is the one who is giving out their personal information, and the hoster and the uploader remain safely immue to any possible comeback.
nice business model, and one that the DMCA does almost nothing to impact whatsoever.

People who criticise the DMCA for being too harsh have likely never used it, or been on the receiving end. Its a very weak piece of law in cases such as these. (The DRM-related aspects of the law are different, and total overkill however).

Re:Well.... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209399)

Just like you don't send DR AMHED JAFAR OF NIGERIA with your personal information, a rational legal system wouldn't allow just anyone to send an e-mail based DMCA takedown notice.

I think I found the flaw.

lot of good thats going to do (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208591)

i seen that ObamaJoker pic all over the intertubes so taking it off Flicker is about like removing the poster from one telephone pole when it is all over town and not able to do anything about it = lame and futile effort

therefore... (0)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208737)

i seen that ObamaJoker pic all over the intertubes so taking it off Flicker is about like removing the poster from one telephone pole when it is all over town and not able to do anything about it = lame and futile effort

Which tells us that there is nearly no chance of it having been taken down for the political reasons that people are trying so hard to suggest. To suggest that the white house, or anyone remotely connected to the Obama administration, is in any way connected to this makes almost no sense. Certainly they are well aware that taking down the image from flickr - which mind you does not have the word socialism on it - would accomplish nothing as there are thousands of copies of that image on the internet in other places.

The reasonable explanation for this [slashdot.org] was offered up last week, though it was dramatically overshadowed by conservative hype. It still stands, however.

Hence it is not the "lame and futile effort" you describe it to be. Flickr is trying to protect themselves from copyright issues. It is no more complicated than that. There is no great executive branch conspiracy driving this.

Re:therefore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208935)

Yes and all the other images on flickr that are also derivative or strait copies that aren't taken down, that's just because they haven't noticed them yet, lol. If you think the Joker pic being taken down was not for political reasons you are truly moron, or hard core democrat who just doesn't care about the truth anyway, like most hard core democrats. Truth and facts are just bothersome obstacles in the way of getting the democratic agenda passed.

Re:therefore... (1)

DarKnyht (671407) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209171)

How dare you ruin the mob's hate-mongering with logic or facts!!! I was just getting ready to get my torch and pitchfork ready.

Re:therefore... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209439)

Dude, you linked your own post as though it was a source. And I clicked it, too. Silly me.

Since I'm in this far let me just say that your own partisan conjecture doesn't seem to carry any more weight than any other kind of partisan conjecture. TFA points out that none of the copyright holders filed a complaint, probably because this is obviously parody and there would be no standing, so what would Flickr be protecting themselves against?

Didn't the Supreme Court just hold that the city acting in fear of a lawsuit that obviously had no merit was in the wrong to do so? How is this any different? There's no legal defense for doing whatever the hell you please because you MIGHT get sued. Remember, you can sue anyone at any time for anything at all.

Nothing to protect means no fear which means that 'the' (i.e. 'your') reasonable explanation fails the first logical test. I'll not go so far as to say there isn't any logical reason that this happened, but I can say with certainty that yours fails to convince anyone of anything because it simply doesn't make any sense. As evidenced by TFA here today. So at a minimum, please replace 'the' with 'my' and let your opinion stand on its own merit. You do that and I'll put away my soapbox. Deal?

DuPont? (1, Funny)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208597)

My bet is on DuPont. After all, pixels in the image use the exact same colours as paints produced by DuPont. Coincidence? I think not.

- RG>

Re:DuPont? (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208697)

It was Kodak. I've got insider information that says the majority of the pixels in the image were exact matches to scans from Polaroids taken nearly fifteen years ago.

Re:DuPont? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209483)

Kodak does not make Polaroids.

Interestingly a company called Polaroid did.

Now (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208649)

we ahve something worth discussing. Before this info was out it was kind of worthless to be spouting off on the evils of flickr.

Now you can go right ahead.

Flickr sucks

Liberate Cuba From The U.S.A +1, Plus Good (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208701)

The U.S. uses Cuba as an election ploy in Florida and presidential elections. Please help stop this inhumanity.

Castro IS correct: Racist right-wingers [reuters.com] fight Obama.

Yours In Novy Urengoy,
Kilgore Trout

For those who missed the explanation... (2, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208771)

I pointed out the actual reasons given [slashdot.org] last week. Go read that comment if you don't want to RTFA; consider it your Cliff's notes to what is actually happening.

Flicker could be on the hook for BIG bucks... (5, Interesting)

JimMarch(equalccw) (710249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208811)

...if they fraudulently claimed a DMCA takedown notice when there wasn't one.

Committing fraud via the DMCA, if that's what Flicker has done, is major bad mojo. Diebold Election Systems paid over $125,000 for a wrongful DMCA takedown notice:

http://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold [eff.org]

Re:Flicker could be on the hook for BIG bucks... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209031)

That's sending one out. Falsely claiming you got something...is another story.

RTFA, idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209577)

Nobody has alleged that Flickr sent any fraudulent DMCA notices. The story is that Flickr received a fraudulent notice. Flickr is the victim (sort of) here.

It's simple, really (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208897)

It was just some prick at Flickr with no sense of humor.

It was the diversity czar. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208931)

It was the diversity czar. My recommendation is we either march on Washington and demand our rights back or we make an image of Obama in a black mask with pointy ears next to Joker-Obama.jpg in the hope to qualify as sufficiently diverse.

The Joker. (1)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208967)

The Joker did it, obviously. It was all just a part of a magic trick.

Who Did It? (1)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#29208981)

Easy. If it wasn't Time it must have been Space.

fp gNaa (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29208985)

profits wi:7hout sales and so on,

The Riddler did it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209057)

The Riddler did it.

Time issued the takedown notice (3, Funny)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209105)

Who, me?
Yes, you.
Couldn't be.
Then who?

The photographer <strike>stole the cookie from the cookie jar</strike> issued the takedown notice
Who, me?
Yes, you.
Couldn't be
Then who?

etc.

investigation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209115)

so can the police investigate perjury cases like this? (like they do with other crimes where the perpetrator is unknown)

Could this be the end of the DMCA? (3, Funny)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209257)

If nothing else this proves how easily it can be abused to stifle people's legitimate first amendment rights. With such a high profile case, I can see Joe Public starting to become concerned about this issue.

Par for the course (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209469)

As a member of the military, this much is obvious: This is par for the course in government mandated ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time working in the military can tell you that this kind of crap is shoveled on to us by the truckload. What's even more amazing is that there's a significant body of people who will believe anything they're told simply because they're dependent on the system. Be afraid.

Where does the DMCA bit come from? (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29209505)

We saw in last week's story [slashdot.org] that Flickr removed it "due to copyright concerns". It was well explained last week [slashdot.org] for those who didn't care to RTFA.

But now someone is claiming DMCA - and only providing a link to a discussion forum to back it up? If there is no acknowledgment from Flickr of a DMCA notice having been issued, then why are we speculating on this? Last week they cited "copyright concerns" (read the LA Times article that actually interviewed the artist [latimes.com] to see what they told him) and never mentioned DMCA - why is it there suddenly?

Your mom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29209551)

srsly

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...