Beta
×

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!

Australian Federal Court Awards Damages To Artist For False Copyright Claim

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-a-start dept.

Australia 77

New submitter BarryHaworth writes "In a decision handed down earlier this month, the Australian Federal Court awarded damages to Aboriginal artist Richard Bell over a false claim of copyright infringement. The claim related to a take-down notice claiming copyright infringement from film footage used in a trailer for a film being made by the artist. The court declared Mr. Bell the owner of the copyright and awarded him $147,000 in damages for lost sales of paintings and catalogues. At time of writing, YouTube does not appear to have caught up with the decision."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I wish this would happen in the USA (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522305)

... just one big case would be enough to bring some sanity to our system.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (5, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523119)

Who the heck is Tanya Steele, and how could she be so dumb as to claim that she owns the copyright over a film maker's video???

ALSO: Didn't Megaupload win a False claim of copyright infrigement against a music company back in December? That would be a major win in our favor.

(Unfortunately the music company then called their friends in the Obamahouse, and they executed a worldwide raid in January, and shutdown the foreign site. Winning a court case is bad form in the U.S. of Corporation.)

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (3, Informative)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523561)

No they were winning, but with the recent criminal charges against it, they dropped it (was an article on wired yesterday, which means it's likely week old news).

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (1)

djh2400 (1362925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523645)

Here's a link to the article on TorrentFreak [torrentfreak.com] .

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524101)

Who the heck is Tanya Steele, and how could she be so dumb as to claim that she owns the copyright over a film maker's video???

The director of the film in question. Quite possibly she was someone who felt she was owed a share in the film or silly enough to attempt to claim copyright for work done on contract (or perhaps withough a contract, which is very silly indeed) in the USA. Or never rule out the prospect of someone thinking they could get away with it (the approach of most big media companies.)

Sucks to be her.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524373)

Between June 2009 and September 2011, while on a fellowship in New York, Mr Bell produced and directed approximately 18 hours of raw footage for a film “The Blackfella’s Guide to New York”. He engaged Ms Steele to help him make the film, and paid her for these services.

TFA only states she was hired, says he was producer and director not her.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524359)

What I'd like to know is what capacity she was hired for. Nothing anywhere states what she did, only that she was contracted and paid in both money and a piece of the artists work.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (3, Interesting)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526779)

She helped make the film and was paid for this. That does not mean she owned the copyright however. Probably she just had some dispute with the artist and tried to block things to aid negotiations.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (0)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523751)

... just one big case would be enough to bring some sanity to our system.

And that's why, my friend, it won't happen in the USA.

Re:I wish this would happen in the USA (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524175)

And that's why, my friend, it won't happen in the USA.

Well the artist is suing her there too, as Americans just ignore judgements made in other countries. He's got the money and he's pissed off enough to see it through.

This Can't Be! (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522337)

How could an artist be awarded a copyright? Only corporations are allowed to own those...

Re:This Can't Be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522411)

everyone can copyright, you dont have to be a company, anything you produce yourself that is original work can be copyrighted

But if you're not a corporation, you lack (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522489)

everyone can copyright, you dont have to be a company

What you say is true in theory. But in practice, defending a work's copyright from the incumbent multinational publishers requires substantial financial resources. If you're not a corporation, you likely lack the resources to defend your copyright from false accusations of infringement. Nor do you have the resources to check the work that you are preparing to publish against every existing copyrighted work to make sure that there is no substantial similarity.

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523437)

Given that the standard of infringement is three consecutive notes, you're vitruaslly guarunteed to be infringing on at least one previous work. The standard is retarded, but it exists because people bought it.

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (3, Interesting)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523911)

That is not the 'standard of infringement'. Don't spread misinformation AC. It really doesn't help.

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (2)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524643)

en that the standard of infringement is three consecutive notes, ...

That is not the 'standard of infringement'. Don't spread misinformation AC. It really doesn't help.

Right; the actual standard seems to be one note. ;-)

The textbook example of this is the infamous copyright on "Happy Birthday". It seems that the defense in some court cases has attempted to argue that the tune is simply the rather older song "Good Morning to All", with different words. The prosecution's counter-argument is that they changed not just the lyrics, but the tune. In particular, they used two pickup notes for "Happy" rather than the single original pickup note for "Good", and this suffices to make it a new musical creation that has its own copyright.

So far, I haven't actually found any clear explanation of whether any court has actually taken this argument into account in making a decision. Media accounts of court cases can be annoyingly vague. But it's at least interesting that copyright lawyers would think doubling a pickup note is sufficient to produce a new copyright.

I have seen (and passed on) the suggestion to musicians that they should make sure they only play a single pickup note when accompanying this song. That way, they can reasonably argue that they were actually playing "Good Morning to All", which is out of copyright. It's just that the singers ("Amateurs!") are so musically illiterate that they don't hear the difference.

There's a lot of absurdity going around on this topic.

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39530323)

So what's the best practice for an individual songwriter to avoid accidental infringement?

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525243)

But in practice, defending a work's copyright from the incumbent multinational publishers requires substantial financial resources. If you're not a corporation, you likely lack the resources to defend your copyright from false accusations of infringement.

In theory, a big corporation could drag it out for as long as they wanted, depending only on the amount of money in their bank account. In practice, if you can take the labels as far as the court stage, they'll probably drop it if as soon as it looks hopeless. There's simply no real financial sense to wasting their money trying to extract a few thousand dollars at the expense of much of their own time and money. They're not exactly defending a pristine reputation to begin with, and it appears that their business does not hinge on said reputation. Copyright infringement just happens to be one of the things where people can defend themselves, if they can be afford to go to court over it (and if they can actually defend themselves, of course).

Actually suing the labels for copyright infringement, that's another story...

Nor do you have the resources to check the work that you are preparing to publish against every existing copyrighted work to make sure that there is no substantial similarity.

Um, you do realise that a case actually needs to be made in order to successfully sue someone for copyright infringement? The onus is not on the accused to cross-check their work against every other work in existence.

That's a fairly hefty misconception about copyright law (and, I suppose, the legal system in general). Perhaps this also contributes to the animosity against copyright law?

Re:But if you're not a corporation, you lack (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525871)

technically true, but since it's a civil case with a "preponderance of the evidence" criteria, if the prosecution can identify that substantial similarity, the onus is then on the defense to refute it, and by then they're already in court. Cross-checking may be cheaper.

Avoiding the next My Sweet Lord (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39530375)

There's simply no real financial sense to wasting their money trying to extract a few thousand dollars at the expense of much of their own time and money.

Then explain record labels suing individual file sharers, and explain George Harrison losing a million dollar lawsuit.

The onus is not on the accused to cross-check their work against every other work in existence.

Then what should one do to avoid losing a case like Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music or Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton? Accidental infringement cases like these serve to bolster this "fairly hefty misconception about copyright law".

Re:Avoiding the next My Sweet Lord (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#39533755)

Then explain record labels suing individual file sharers, and explain George Harrison losing a million dollar lawsuit.

Sure. If it's not a clearly lost cause, then they'll give it a try. Most people just settle anyway.

Then what should one do to avoid losing a case like Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music or Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton? Accidental infringement cases like these serve to bolster this "fairly hefty misconception about copyright law".

Ah yes, indeed you're correct. I thought you were claiming that people, in order to defend a lawsuit in court, would have to do something profoundly ridiculous like show the judge a comparison of every song ever released by the plaintiff.

Re:This Can't Be! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522505)

i think you missed the tag.....

Re:This Can't Be! (1)

Rasperin (1034758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523577)

How is YouTube liable for this? Shouldn't it be the one who put in the DMCA claim?

It has now.... (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522355)

At time of writing, YouTube does not appear to have caught up with the decision

It has now... Damn You Tanya Stele!

Re:It has now.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522369)

FIRST TAKE DOWN!!!

Darn...I'm too late.

Re:It has now.... (1)

Soruk (225361) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522611)

No, that video is still down.

Re:It has now.... (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523033)

I don't understand what this "youtube has not caught up" phrase means? Did they pull they pull the artists video & refuse to put it back? Well it IS google after all. They do evil.

No wait. I think I got that motto wrong?

Re:It has now.... (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523161)

Yes, you did. The motto never talks about doing evil or not.

Re:It has now.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39524419)

Ah, you mean their motto is "Better to do than to be" and they left the "evil" out? No, I still got it wrong I think...

Re:It has now.... (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524795)

[Google's] motto never talks about doing evil or not.

Right; they're just doing evil; they're not being evil.

I'm sure there's a real distinction hidden in there somewhere ...

Re:It has now.... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39525145)

In common terms, a person isn't necessarily evil even if they did in their lives evil things. How many people do you know that have never did anything evil in their life? Are all the others evil people?

(This is not even going into whether what they did is actually evil; since I don't believe in objective moral standards, I don't think that can be determined).

Note: I'm not saying Google is perfect, and I'm actually moving away from some of their services (and refuse to join G+) because I strongly dislike some of their decisions and I don't really trust them as I did.

Re:It has now.... (1)

Sam Andreas (894779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39533737)

It means the video is still unavailable on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLTZgqSAjQs [youtube.com] You'll get the following kind message:

"Blackfella's Guide to ..."
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tanya Steele.
Sorry about that."

Seems to me that the Youtube pulling is a more recent development as it appeared to be available as of the writing of TFA: "The trailer for the video is now on YouTube. Click here to watch the trailer." The original complaint had to do with the video being pulled from Vimeo.

The defendant didn't show up (4, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522407)

And didn't bother having counsel show up.

And lives on the other side of the world to the court's jurisdiction.

Hooray for a meaningless judgement.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522527)

Is it meaningless? It sets precedence. The next case in that jurisdiction is more likely to go the same way; that seems meaningful to me.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522573)

+1 Insightful
Precedent is very meaningful even though this guy will likely never see the money.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (5, Interesting)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522743)

Is it meaningless? It sets precedence.

Not from a legal perspective it doesn't. It's just a claim for damages, with nobody disputing the claim. No consideration at all is given to the law because it is not actually tested.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523251)

It doesn't really set any precedence. To do that there must be something meaningful in the judgement other than summary judgement because one side did not appear. An example of precedence is Lenz v. Universal [wikipedia.org] which established

Copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39528083)

Copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.

you see. there's the real precedence
copyright holder only need to consider fair use before issuing takedown notices
ownership is optional

Re:The defendant didn't show up (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522531)

1. Not showing up is often an indication that they have no leg to stand on.
2. The Australian government has lots of ways to collect, the simplest being that if the defendant does any business in Australia the government can simply seize assets up to the amount of the judgment. If that isn't an option, they probably have agreements with other countries to collect judgments.

So it's not meaningless - they lost their case, and have to pay.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522677)

Not showing up is also often an indication you don't care about that court.

I predict not a cent of the judgement will ever be collected. Of course I could be wrong, but the US doesn't usually give a toss what some lowly foreign court says.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (4, Interesting)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522883)

The courts in the U.S. enforce foreign judgments* on a regular basis. The big question here will be whether the Australian court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or whether there's some other defect to the fairness of the judgment. For example, if the defendant could show that she had no notice to defend the suit in Australia, then she could raise that as a defense in the U.S. court. See the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act [upenn.edu] , a version of which has been passed in many states, for more information.

*In the U.S., "foreign judgment" can refer to either a judgment rendered in a foreign country or a a judgment rendered in another U.S. state.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39531097)

In this case they do, specifically because the case reflected her actions in Australia and not in the US. Once she acted in Australia she subjected herself to Australian laws part of which is any statement of fact must be true and the defendant in a accusation of defamation must prove their statements true or lose the case.

Basically she was trying to hide behind American legal exceptionalism but got carried away with herself when she tried to take it out of the US.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522567)

And didn't bother having counsel show up.

And lives on the other side of the world to the court's jurisdiction.

Hooray for a meaningless judgement.

Yep .. the respondent didn't show up and also ignored the judges order to basically explain why she held copyright. So it seems that she cried wolf and couldn't back her claims up.
 
While Bell may find it a bit hard to collect from Tanya Steele, I'd say that she has now lost out on a lot of future work - who'd want to employ someone on a "work for hire" basis if after the fact they are going to dick with you over who owns copyright?
 
So in a sense it is a meaningless judgement, but I think it will have real world repercussions.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

Daas (620469) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522645)

And didn't bother having counsel show up.

And lives on the other side of the world to the court's jurisdiction.

Hooray for a meaningless judgement.

Yet they still want to claim copyright infringement there?

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522717)

Of course. Eat cake and have it to, you know?

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527057)

If the cake is digital, of course you can have your cake and eat it too!

Re:The defendant didn't show up (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522907)

May be the FBI can extradite her to the Australia.

Re:The defendant didn't show up (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39527019)

It might be one thing if it were a country where she might conceivably never be inconvenienced by the decision. However, given that she's in the film industry, having a judgment against her in a major 1st-world country which shares much culture, language, and (most importantly) professional players in the media industry could be seriously inconvenient down the road.

Obviously she's already done business there once. This could, if not dealt with, forever close many doors of opportunity to her.

Background Findings from FCA 62 (3, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522447)

While the award was made in FCA246, it is based on background findings in Bell v Steele (No 2) [2012] FCA 62 (7 February 2012) [austlii.edu.au] which gives a bit more detail on what happened leading up to the award judgement.

So let me get this straight... (0, Troll)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522519)

... Show of hands. How many of you think it's OK for a single artist to pursue getting money over a copyright dispute, i.e. collecting money for "lost sales" and due to misappropriation of the artists' material (which is what happened here)? Now how many of you think it's wrong for a GROUP of people, say, a record label, or a group of record labels, to seek the same monetary compensation for misappropriation of material they own? Huh....

False contradiction (4, Informative)

Another, completely (812244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522675)

The lost sales weren't due to copyright violations, they were due to a baseless legal action (actually, a threat of a baseless legal action) to enforce a non-existent copyright. It's easy for a person to think copyright is over-zealously enforced in general, and also be happy that people fail spectacularly when they try to use that zealous enforcement on copyrights they don't even have claim to.

Re:So let me get this straight... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522683)

This wasn't about "lost sales" or "misappropriation of the artists material", this was about somebody else trying to prevent Mr Bell from using his own material by claiming that they owned it. Essentially using the legal system to bully somebody, that's a different scenario to what you're suggesting. Don't think you're going to get many hands...

Re:So let me get this straight... (3, Insightful)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522727)

I believe that the majority of the people you seem to be raging against in your post don't like the record labels for quite a few reasons. The biggest being is that the contracts are largely on the record label's side, and any damages they'd win in any copyright infringement case wouldn't go to the creator, but to the copyright holder.

I could be going out on a limb here, but I suspect they like rewarding people for their creations, not for their ability to sue anyone and everyone because they can. I'm fairly certain we all have discussed this topic to the point where I don't need to cite relevant articles for this... i.e. suing dead people, grandmother's who don't know how to use a computer, etc...

Re:So let me get this straight... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522747)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation [wikipedia.org]

STFU and learn something, douchebag.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522755)

Well, the situations aren't quite the same... In the one case we have people sharing material w/o profiting from it, to the [possible] detriment of a business, and in the other a business [all for profit] falsely claiming to have copyright, blocking an artist [essentially 'nother business] from profiting on the material. Feel free to call me a hypocrite, but I do feel that different levels of sanctions for the two are in order.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522851)

Your argument is nothing more than a equivocation [wikipedia.org] of the word misappropriation, trying to draw parallels between two very different cases:

A - Someone claimed a copyright monopoly over someone else's work, cutting off the original creator from all his rights and prohibiting him from licencing and distributing the work he created;
B - Someone enjoyed a copyrighted work without a licence from the creator, case in which the creator still has all his rights and can still distribute his work as he pleases;

There is a big difference between A and B.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524317)

Currently,the United States views copyright infringement as a form of theft [nytimes.com] , but as Stuart Green points out

From its earliest days, the crime of theft has been understood to involve the misappropriation of things real and tangible. For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.

Copyright infringement can be understood as a "theft" of a monopoly-- the monopoly is destroyed,but that's stretching things a bit.
But here, the artists are prevented from exercising their rights to publish. Not only are they prevented from enjoying the fruits of a monopoly, they cannot even exploit their own property under less monopolistic conditions. The thief now has something of value, which the original artists do not.

If you understand copyright as a form of trespass, and fair use as a kind of stipulation that others have the freedom to roam [wikipedia.org] and that man traps are illegal [wikipedia.org] , the misappropriation of copyright can be understood as someone forcing you off your land, at gunpoint, and erecting an electrified fence to keep you out.

Re:So let me get this straight... (-1, Troll)

Tolvor (579446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522909)

Why is the parent on this modded "troll"? The point raised is fair. Does the fact that you disagree make it a troll?

Oh wait... This is Slashdot... never mind.

How fucking stupid are you? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523021)

This article is not about copyright infringement. It is about someone falsely claiming ownership of a copyright. The post you are referring to is modded troll because the guy was pompous but had no idea what he was talking about.

How fucking stupid are you? How can there be such arrogant and idiotic people around?

Oh wait...This is Slashdot...never mind.

Re:So let me get this straight... (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523261)

(1) You shouldn't have been modded troll. We can disagree with one another w/o the name calling.

(2) Most record labels are seeking their OWN wealth, not to compensate the artist. I think this was more than proved when record labels stole over 1 billion dollars worth of songs from Canadian artists (for use on greatest hits compilation CDs) and never paid those artists for use of their material.

Record labels are in it to enrich themselves, and screw the singer or writer or musician. As is true with most corporations & their employees.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39526323)

I'm perfectly fine with an individual or group seeking monetary compensation for misappropriation of material they own. What I dislike is
  • punishment that is disproportionate to the actual damage (I have a very hard time believing that $150,000 is a reasonable penalty for misappropriating a 99 cent 'product' with no monetary profit),
  • lack of due process and/or consideration of fair use,
  • attempts to make other parties do the copyright holder's job for them without the other party either agreeing to do the job or receiving compensation for the extra work, and
  • hypocritically attempting to use copyright law against enemies while not obeying it with regard to your suppliers.

Google is the worst (-1, Offtopic)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522689)

Every time I report some child pornography on a Blogspot blog, the report gets ignored. Google is horrible.

Re:Google is the worst (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39522973)

Never report that dude, you're essentially admitting it entered your RAM, and if it ended up on your cache, you're now in posession. DO NOT EVER REPORT THAT CRIME.

Just some free legal advice.

Re:Google is the worst (0)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522985)

I'm not American.

Re:Google is the worst (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523003)

I can't imagine what circumstances would lead that to be a common occurrence for you.

Re:Google is the worst (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39533251)

Using the Internet.

anyone can block anything without checks (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39522745)

is the new way. it's about time some sensibility is being pressed on the system.

fyi though, the cases should also penalize the sites which do the take downs based on no merit. of course they don't take down stuff from emi&etc if some random guy claims copyright on them, on pictures used in them or in samples used in the music. that's just how sites like youtube roll right now. the takedown requests should always be accompanied with proof of ownership, if they can't provide that then it shouldn't be copyrighted by them... in worst cases, probably quite many cases, they would need to get a court to agree with them.

in this case, youtube is stil applying the copyright as complainable by steele, despite there being (an australian) court decision saying otherwise.

who benefits from this bullshit? big media companies.

Re:anyone can block anything without checks (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39523181)

False.

According to the DMCA if someone takes-down your video, all you have to do is tell youtube, vimeo, etc that you DO in fact own the video and it should not have been taken down. The video then HAS to be restored per the Congressional Act (otherwise you could sue youtube, vimeo, etc).

Re:anyone can block anything without checks (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524023)

False.

According to the DMCA if someone takes-down your video, all you have to do is tell youtube, vimeo, etc that you DO in fact own the video and it should not have been taken down. The video then HAS to be restored per the Congressional Act (otherwise you could sue youtube, vimeo, etc).

Unless its Time Warner or Universal filing DMCA, then you are boned.

Re:anyone can block anything without checks (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39531163)

What this really points to is the importance of net neutrality and the lack of bandwidth caps to ensure everybody can self publish, that no one can abuse the system by establishing anti-competitive publishing cartel contracts that lock the majority of people out of self publishing commercially viable content.

More still needs to be done to protect individual rights over publishing cartel greed and corruption of due process.

Fucking Abos (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523341)

Always trying to scam money out of somebody ....... give them a crate of Jack, they'll be happy ......

Copyright is Broken... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39523649)

Copyright was granted to Ms. Steele for a "Motion Picture".

Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PAu003596424 / 2011-10-25
Application Title: the blackfella’s guide to nyc.
Title: [No title on deposit]
Description: Portable Hard Drive.
Notes: Collection of audio and film files.

Not a finished product, but the raw files.
Based on this she filed a lawsuit - 1:11-cv-09343-PKC

She was paid for her time and work, and decided she should get more. Reading the lawsuit information from the case filed in Oz, she still has HIS laptop and hard drive. So she took his materials, filed a copyright claim, and then decided to try to get paid more. Her actions caused provable financial loss for Bell and made one of the more hurtful claims to an artists reputation... that he stole anothers work.

Judge says.... (1)

wwiiol_toofless (991717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39524455)

That ain't a false copyright claim, THIS is a false copyright claim!

Trailer was taken off Youtube (1)

Diamonddavej (851495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39530563)

Looks like Tanya Steele is still at it, now on Youtube...

"Blackfella's Guide to ..." This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Tanya Steele.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLTZgqSAjQs [youtube.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?