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!

After Celebrity Photo Leaks, 4chan Introduces DMCA Policy

timothy posted about a month and a half ago | from the they'll-get-right-on-that dept.

Your Rights Online 134

davidshenba writes In the wake of leaked private photos of celebrities, 4chan has added Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown policy to its rules and policies. Under this new policy, the site will remove any notified and verified "infringement." It is not clear how effective this could be, or how 4chan is going to handle the inflow of notifications to restrict the content provided by users.

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

April's Fools Early? (5, Insightful)

The-Forge (84105) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824083)

When I saw this I had to make sure it wasn't April 1st and that the article wasn't from The Onion.

Re:April's Fools Early? (2, Funny)

JosKarith (757063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824647)

Well, I always wondered what would be the straw that broke 4chan's back - now we know.
4chan is as good as dead, just like Alt.Tasteless before it. Time for the hordes of trolls, sickos, wannabes and script kiddies to find another pit to infest. Wonder where it'll be?
So long 4chan. It's been fun but in time, all things pass.

Re:April's Fools Early? (2)

kheldan (1460303) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824945)

This.
4chan's fate was sealed as soon as it became mainstream; it was just a matter of time after that.

Re:April's Fools Early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825667)

4chan.onion

Too soon?

Re:April's Fools Early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47827505)

4chan changed ownership a while back and they've been cracking down on various things since then. Most notably CP. In the Before Time, 4chan was a truly despicable place that was used by all sorts. Since the change, most of the real perverts and sickos moved to other places(which are likely being kept dark and exclusive).

I mean sure, the current community of 4channers are offensive and spew obscenities left and right, but they're not the fucked up 4chan I knew a decade ago. They carry the same weight as angsty, middle class teenagers "that no one understands". The difference is the teenagers are annoying and whiny, and the 4channers are obscene and hilarious.

Re:April's Fools Early? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825055)

I'm wagering this was forced on them.

ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824089)

Can we expect 4Chan DMCA compliance to be just like hmm... 4Chan?

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824117)

I'm looking forward to being one of the first people to sign upto 5Chan

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824165)

There's already 1chan, 151chan, 314chan, 420chan, 4chon, 573chan, 7chan, 888Chan, 8Chan, 99chan, and many others.

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824189)

You forgot neinchan.

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824207)

I named only those with numbers in the name, obviously. There are many many more, depending on what language you speak and what you're interested in.

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824265)

neinchan == 9chan

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824809)

"Nien" is actually "no" in German. So "neinchan" is actually "nochan" as opposed to 9chan.

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824899)

"Nien" is actually "no" in German.

FAIL. "Nien" is a Sullustan smuggler.

Re:ROFL LMAO LOOOOL (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824695)

Somebody will start submitting DMCA takedown requests on everything.

Is this a joke? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824099)

So is 4chan going to hack 4chan for supporting the man?

Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (4, Insightful)

Wycliffe (116160) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824103)

I thought the whole purpose of 4chan was that "anything goes".
If they start censoring it then all the people that are there will just move somewhere else that is not restricted.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (4, Informative)

Himmy32 (650060) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824119)

They've had a good amount of censorship for a while. Especially after they starting providing information on member posting very illegal content. It didn't kill the site then.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (2)

rockout (1039072) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824233)

Whatever passes for censorship in this case is pretty much irrelevant anyway. The pack of photos that started this was almost instantly on piratebay, and after almost four days it's still there with about 27,000 seeders. That won't go away on its own for a while and you don't see piratebay taking it down. The initial leak just happened to be from 4chan; the next such leak could come from almost anywhere.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

rhazz (2853871) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824447)

But a huge amount of what is posted on 4chan are just copied images or gifs created from (one would assume) copyrighted films/videos. And I'm not just talking about the porn sections. If they go down this path and actually enforce it I think it's very likely a number of the forums will dry up.

Re: Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825103)

Do people really file notices on those? I doubt it, because I see them in buzzfeed all of the time.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

scubamage (727538) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825819)

You are 100% correct. This is yet another place where the victims (and they ARE victims), in their move to try and stop the information from spreading, completely ignored that the Streisand Effect is a very real and powerful thing. Honestly, a better approach would have been the Paris Hilton/Kim Kardashian approach, "Ok, I can't get rid of this, may as well make an official distribution channel and make money off of it." But obviously, given the personal nature of the leak, they'd have to be ok with that decision and its moral implications. It's a shitty way to make lemonade out of lemons though, but lawsuits and DMCA notices will almost always backfire on the internet.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824127)

It would be like /. getting rid of Taco, making it impossible to follow comment threads, and selling out to slashvertisers. I mean, could you even IMAGINE that??

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824939)

Yet you're still here.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825625)

Woosh?

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (5, Interesting)

rioki (1328185) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824131)

The funny thing with this is that, since the half life of most posts is something around one or two hours, the system will remove any offending post before the DMCA can be processed. I expect that 99% of all DMCA requests can be forwarded to /dev/null. So yea...

s/4chan/ebaumsworld/

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825323)

The DMCA policy isn't new. What is new is that 4chan appears to be cataloging hashes so that once they receive a DMCA notice for an image, that image can no longer be reposted again.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825571)

This. So basically 5 minutes until 4chan popularises a link to software which subtly changes an image to change the hash and other identifying features.

You're welcome, Internet.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a month and a half ago | (#47827023)

Depends on the board. I'm not a huge 4-channer, but I know /fit/ posts can last 12 hours, and glancing at a slower board, /cgl/ posts last for a few days. [4chan.org]

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824135)

"ZOMG NONE" hasn't meant anything in a long time.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824173)

Since one of the "celebrities" was under age when the photos were taken I suspect that the ante with respect to the legal ramifications may be a little higher than just a nasty letter from a lawyer. That sort of thing tends to focus the mind.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824249)

Since one of the "celebrities" was under age when the photos were taken I suspect that the ante with respect to the legal ramifications may be a little higher than just a nasty letter from a lawyer. That sort of thing tends to focus the mind.

Thats interesting. Since its then illegal to have those images it is not possible for anyone to give consent to storing them on iCloud.
What is the legal status for hosting a server with illegal information on it?

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

wiredog (43288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47826093)

What is the legal status for hosting a server with illegal information on it?
If they don't know, then they are not responsible. It's in the DMCA, or possibly the CFAA.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824299)

From what I have heard, it is not that clear. Seems that few non-nude photos were done underage, while nude photos are already after 18. It was worded confusingly by lawyers on purpose to scare people away.

If there are underage nude photos there, the lady in question is in a trouble herself...

Re: Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825125)

Underage nudes without erect dicks, sex, or masturbation, in the photo are almost certainly legal.

To be illegal, the photo must be sexualized, and the definition in law tends to not include nude shots on their own.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824849)

Shouldn't it be illegal for under-age boys and girls to take nude photos of themselves? It is like "I took these pics of myself, that are highly illegal to distribute and when they get leaked I moan and expect law enforcers to take care of the mess with taxpayer's money". This smells of legal loophole.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

Sique (173459) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825111)

Why should it be illegal, and who should get the blame if it happens anyway?

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824219)

I thought the whole purpose of 4chan was that "anything goes".

4chan has always had rules and restrictions. Things like loli and guro are not allowed to be posted outside of the Random board, certain boards are considered SFW and don't allow porn, and posters are required to be over 18 to post. All of these are enforced quite a bit, even so far as public bans for people who admit to being under 18 on the boards.

Now this usually doesn't stop the users from just posting what they want (i.e. you can still find people posting porn on "worksafe" boards), but they do usually end up banned if they keep up with inappropriate behavior.

And contrary to what people unfamiliar with 4chan believe, posting CP is a big no-no and will get you permanently banned. It's pretty much the most enforced rule, as reports for "illegal content" have higer priority than the site rules.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825461)

will get you permanently banned

top kek

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (4, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824433)

Like Usenet, it really isn't anything goes. Stuff that most people don't like is pushed off to alternative locations, there, bug not where anyone has to deal with it. What would kill 4chan, because evidently it runs with no significant budget or profit, would be a single lawsuit. By creating a belated DCMA policy, the site is protecting itself from such an event. Look at it this way. If Arthur Anderson had created a policy stating the conditions and intervals that documents would be destroyed, it might still be in existence today. But it did not, and panicked, and is gone. It is good that 4chan is being more forward thinking.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47826137)

And now you see how the DMCA is a tool for censorship of the poor by the rich.

'Murca! Fuck yea!

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47826543)

Like Usenet, it really isn't anything goes. Stuff that most people don't like is pushed off to alternative locations, there, bug not where anyone has to deal with it. What would kill 4chan, because evidently it runs with no significant budget or profit, would be a single lawsuit. By creating a belated DCMA policy, the site is protecting itself from such an event. Look at it this way. If Arthur Anderson had created a policy stating the conditions and intervals that documents would be destroyed, it might still be in existence today. But it did not, and panicked, and is gone. It is good that 4chan is being more forward thinking.

Arthur Anderson was cleared of all wrong doing, but public perception had killed the name by that point.

Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824507)

> If they start censoring it

Start? They've been censoring discussions about this crusade against gamers rather heavily lately.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825451)

4chan isn't anything goes, and Moot/4chan's reputation as a bastion for anonymous and open debate is a farce. If they really believed in open discussion, they shouldn't be modding anything except illegal material or detrimental behavior, but 4chan's admins actively shape conversation and erase threads they don't like. It defeats the purpose of self-pruning threads, which is that the users decide what stays up longer or gets more exposure.

People still use 4chan because of the speed and breadth of discussion that exists in spite of their moderation. This DMCA policy (which isn't new) isn't going to change that.

Re:Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a month and a half ago | (#47827423)

I thought the whole purpose of 4chan was that "anything goes".
If they start censoring it then all the people that are there will just move somewhere else that is not restricted.

it's a formal policy that really means nothing at all because practically speaking, the material disappears very quickly.

It does however confer benefits like legal protection.

And I think 4chan's founder has stated he's received many threats of lawsuits before, but no one ever followed through. But given celebrities tend to have a LOT of money and a LOT of high powered lawyers, a lawsuit threat that turned real could be devastating to the site. (And hell, more publicity, something celebs generally like)

So for probably 99.999% of requests, the offending material has been purged by the time it was received and nothing happens. and probably 99.999999% of it would be purged by time action is taken to process it. But having the policy means legal protection just in case someone actually decides to follow through. This is probably the closest it's come to getting sued.

We are Anonymous. We are Legion. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824105)

We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expe

This message was removed due to DMCA infraction.

Re:We are Anonymous. We are Legion. (2)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824155)

All your base are belong to DMCA

Re:We are Anonymous. We are Legion. (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824675)

You know what you doing

Effectiveness (2)

Himmy32 (650060) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824109)

Image board like 4chan don't permanent host data. On the quick moving boards, images are gone before someone even could type up a DMCA request. Maybe they'll prevent that picture being posted again. I wonder how their members are going to react to new censorship.

Re:Effectiveness (1)

Whatsisname (891214) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824197)

You think the media publishers type up each individual request?

Re:Effectiveness (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824267)

You think the media publishers type up each individual request?

I used to have a job where I handled them. They are pretty much auto-generated by companies that charge the content owners for each notice. Most are fake and it's a massive scam to steal money from them. We ended up deleting most of them as the data in them was clearly made up. Basically they are required by law to do "something" about DMCA complaint, and you're seeing it. The net effect will probably be nothing. We rarely got to then in under a week, so I suspect they will take even longer. By then, the threads would be dead anyway.

Re:Effectiveness (1)

Smerta (1855348) | about a month and a half ago | (#47826701)

Serious question: Do you know of any instance where the originator of a bogus DMCA takedown request was punished?

From what I understand, the originator can't just search for "Lindsay Lohan" on BitTorrent and Usenet, and fire out a bunch of takedown requests -- the signed/authenticated takedown notice stipulates that they are the owner of the material.

Said another way, if you uploaded a Linux distribution and called it "Rihanna Nudes" or something, and Rihanna's people sent a DMCA takedown notice for this, I think (at least theoretically) they'd be in hot water.

Of course, that's the theory, and that's my question: is there any incentive for content creators to not shotgun-blast out a ton of notices?

Re:Effectiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824305)

You think the media publishers type up each individual request?

No, I think they have a million monkey typewriter army to type up the requests.

Re:Effectiveness (1)

JosKarith (757063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824673)

Who needs a million monkeys when you have automated scripts...?

Re:Effectiveness (1)

kenj0418 (230916) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824989)

Filing tons of bogus DMCA reports sounds at lot like flinging poo at people. And I've never written a script that was anywhere near as good at flinging poo as a million monkeys would be.

Re:Effectiveness (1)

biodata (1981610) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824773)

The point is, by the time a request has been submitted, received and acted on, the content has probably already expired and disappeared. Everything is temporary there. I can't see much actual censorship resulting from any of this. The memory of 4chan is not on the website, it's in the dark corners of its users' hard disks, where no censorship reaches. Enforce takedowns as much as you like, but once an image expires or is taken down someone else will post it, probably under a different name or with a silly face photoshopped in, and so the cycle continues.

Re:Effectiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825089)

The point is, by the time a request has been submitted, received and acted on, the content has probably already expired and disappeared.

My thoughts exactly. Sure, the sender might be spamming the boards and sending notices microseconds after coming across infringing material, but there's still the other end, the 4chan administrative end.

From TFA:

The DMCA policy post designates a DMCA agent for the company (though not by name) at Corporation Service Company in Wilmington, Delaware. Corporation Service Company is an organization that acts as a corporate office and compliance agent for Delaware-registered companies.

Which sounds to me like 4chan's end is not automated, that someone must actually open up the notice, read/skim it, check out the link, and _then_ remove the post. Which if the sender does send out notices as quickly as we all imagine they will, only makes it more likely that by the time the person gets to any given request, the content will already be gone.

But hey, I guess they can now at least say "we have a system in place for handling DMCA notices".

Re:Effectiveness (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825273)

No, of course not. The point is how quickly the images fall off the board. More than likely quicker than an DMCA request.

Re:Effectiveness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825479)

It's not about whether they permanently host the data. 4chan is now employing hash identification so that a DMCA'd file cannot be reposted again.

After but not because of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824123)

This doesn't have much to do with /b/

it is more about /tv/ and other boards

Re:After but not because of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824139)

wait, does this mean that all of my beautiful porn on /s/ could be taken down?!? NUUUUUU

Mostly a formality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824129)

He really couldn't care less about them.

There is an auto-ban for unsavoury content that has been expanded to it.
Most people will see 4chan and think all of these images are there forever, but they don't understand things vanish after so long, depending on the speed of the board. (RIP marked for deletion (old))
Now that they have a legal page with DMCA, they can't do shit to the site, even though almost all posters know how to get around the filter by adding pixels, changing hue, sat, literally anything with the picture will break it because it is an exact match algorithm, not something similar to the dupe-detectors you see on places like some Usenet groups that hash thumbnails. (I did suggest this to him, but he never added it because lolmootcoding)

Of course, one wonders if moot will cave to even more pressures and implement even more stupid content rules, similar to the examples seen with the hilarious UK nanny filters over the past few years.
Only time will tell.
Not that I care. The site has been dead since 2006 onwards. Even the smaller boards are being harassed by the massive influx of the new, shitty internet generation. Fuck Phones.

Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824157)

4chan, a website built entirely on user submission, whose main bread and butter is the spreading of potentially copyrighted material (e.g. photos of celebrities, pop culture stuff, etc...) is now going to allow the content industry to troll it's thousands (millions?) of posts and slap some DMCA notices?

Given that DMCA is thrown around for a blurred picture of a musicians toe. They're looking to gain more publicity through offending content, lawyers salaries, and the Streisand Effect. It's a bold move, lets see how it works for them.

Re:Let me get this straight (2)

Megane (129182) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824505)

You do know that all 4chan threads auto-expire, usually within an hour or two, sometimes a day or two if carefully bumped, right? DMCA basically says remove THAT item. Sure, bro, just a minute... oh look it's gone now!

A recent change allowed threads on some boards (well, I only know /a/ does) to auto-archive on expire, which lets a thread hang around un-indexed for another two days or so. This is great when you have to go somewhere for a few hours, just leave the thread up and you can catch the rest of it when you get back. But eventually even those threads vanish into the primordial ooze like a zero-point energy of social media.

There are also external sites which archive threads, but that's not 4chan's problem with regards to the DMCA.

Technicalities (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824169)

Well with the ephemeral nature of 4chan posts, it seems like this is more of a technicality than anything. The big boards are pretty fast, so posts are automatically wiped after a few hours at most. Infringing content will probably be off the site by the time a content owner's lawyers have time to fire off an email. On slower boards, they can be up for days or maybe even months, but I doubt anyone would bother sending a DMCA for something on, for example, the papercraft board.

All in all, it's probably just for moot to cover his ass and claim safe harbor, especially since content usually deletes itself in a few hours. Most of the time, he won't have to even do a thing.

If this is true... (1)

Guy From V (1453391) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824203)

Then Encyclopedia Dramatica [encyclopediadramatica.es] will be the unbiased source on how long they will sarcastically abide the policy before they just trash the hell out of it and forget the whole thing and not care anymore.

Re:If this is true... (1)

Megane (129182) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824543)

I didn't read it in much detail, but apparently it's merely there so that they have a policy. And apparently it's intended to give the complainers hoops to jump until the subject of the complaint is auto-expired anyhow.

Wow, maybe that'll clear up all the KP, too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824205)

Somehow, I don't think this is going to work.

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824259)

Another arrow in the quiver of the indie game developer looking to silence critique.

What about the blind... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824519)

They are missing out on all the fun!
We need to post graphic descriptions of each nude photo.
My question: Would such descriptions also be subject to a DMCA take-down.?

Collecting data (1)

Phisbut (761268) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824537)

The legal owner of the copyright is most likely the person who took the picture, either the celebrity herself in the case of a selfie, or her boyfriend for non-selfies.

4. Contact information about the notifier including address, telephone number and, if available, e-mail address;

Basically, they're trying to build a full address book of everybody in the leaks.

Re:Collecting data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824627)

It says "contact information" not "home address". A celebrity would just use her agent's address. That's what agents are for.

to clarify what this means. (4, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824589)

many people think 4chan is a place where 'anything goes.' thats not the case. the /b board is where the most shocking content submission and conversation happens, and its arguably been the one 4chans owner moot (christopher poole) has had the most trouble handling in the past. Poole determined rather early on that he was willing to sacrifice 4chans freedom of speech so long as someone was willing to foot the bill for his posh new york condo and hipster pedigree. He used to at least make a passing attempt at participation by dredging up old 4chan memes like 'crescent fresh' but lately its mostly mods and ops in his name that enforce the christmas hat overlays and such. Its nothing new though, 4chan has had a DMCA policy for nearly a decade and will gladly redact link content and ban users for posting torrents.

poole has always done the DMCA shimmy because while leaks like this draw traffic, they also have the ability to draw him into protracted litigation and harm his advertising revenue stream. hes worried about celebrities in this case growing a pair and sending him to court personally, or attacking his advertisers.

Re:to clarify what this means. (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825013)

At least one of those celebrities was underage. He's worried about more than civil suits.

Re:to clarify what this means. (1)

strstr (539330) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825317)

remember w/ McKayla Maroney, she claims the pictures were faked though. if truly faked, there is no claim for prosecution, and she has no claim for damages.. :)

and I doubt the original model if faked will be identified unless they come forward to make a claim.

fakes = legal so. it really only matters the age of the actual models/flesh used.

Child porn site 4chan has a policy? (-1, Troll)

tekrat (242117) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824633)

I'll believe it when I see it.

4chan has been the site most noted for "to be raided by the FBI', and how they've managed to stay in business all this time frankly has me scratching my head.

wat? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824641)

This is why I always copyright my nude selfies...oh wait, no I don't.

Re:wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824835)

You don't have to go through some sort of registration process to hold copyright on images you create, it's the default. You hold copyright on every photograph that you take.

Re:wat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824841)

Copyright is automatic, dumbass.

Re:wat? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824877)

LGPL naughty bits FTW.

Probably just a gesture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824667)

On the more active boards, threads don't stick around long, so I'm not sure what this policy will accomplish.

Unless the lawyers make a full-time job of "monitoring" the site. "It's for work, I promise!"

In other news... (2)

jayhawk88 (160512) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824747)

Kappa Beta Phi has announced that it has a under-aged drinking policy, which it expects it's members to respect.

The NSA has a policy against eavesdropping on phone calls, which it pinky promises it will observe.

And finally, Slashdot is instituting a "No Trolls" policy, which First Post, Natalie Portman Naked and Petrified.

Re:In other news... (1)

Frederic54 (3788) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825631)

you forgot GNAA and pouring hot grits down your pant :)

This probably won't work. (3, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824755)

This probably won't work, because either:

1) The influx of content will overwhelm 4Chan's very few mods.
2) Trolls will flag every single image and overwhelm 4Chan's very few mods.
3) 4Chan's very few mods will not care.

Mods are asleep (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47824817)

Post Ponies!

Who cares. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47824831)

4chan is a cesspool of shit that deserves nothing less than to be obliterated from the internet. It spawns and encourages the bottom feeders of society to plague it.

Re:Who cares. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825135)

Yeah, how about you shut the fuck up, you insufferable faggot?

nude selfies copyrighted? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825059)

i thought copyrights had to be applied for like a patent?

so i can take some nude selfies and then leak them and then sue for millions?

i smell an Underpants Gnome method of profiteering brewing here, must be some stinky underpants if i can smell them from here

Re: nude selfies copyrighted? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825199)

No, international treaty requires copyright not need to be registered (from the 70s I think)

Re:nude selfies copyrighted? (1)

Sique (173459) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825221)

No, since 1973 copyrights don't have to be applied for. It is sufficient that the Work of Art was created, and that the level of creativeness was high enough. And yes, in theory you could leak some Work of Art of you and then sue the people who distribute it. But the problem is: Your Work of Art has to be appealling enough for people to actually wanting to copy and to distribute it.

Re:nude selfies copyrighted? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825231)

i thought copyrights had to be applied for like a patent?

No. You own the copyrights on content you create, by the very act of creating it. You take a photo, you are the copyright holder, right then and there.

so i can take some nude selfies and then leak them and then sue for millions?

No, not on the basis of your holding the copyright. Not unless you can show that you'd normally make millions off of the use of that image anyway. Because unless you REGISTER the copyright, federally, you can only sue to stop infringing use and claim - at most - the customary fee you'd normally have collected if the infringing person had agreed to license the image from you in the first place. There is no punitive damage $ possible unless you take the matter to federal court, and you can only do that if you've taken the additional step of registering the material with the copyright office. THEN you can hire a lawyer and go to town. Of course, you'd need to have the material registered BEFORE all of that happened. Otherwise, your main option is to simply use your copyright power to stop the infringing use.

Of course, that's all completely separate from suing someone for defaming you, or using your likeness commercially without your permission ... those aren't copyright matters, that's separate. You might indeed be able, as a celebrity with a valuable public face, to sue for a pile of money based on someone else's mis-use of your image without your permission. But the average basement-dwelling slashdot user? No.

Re:nude selfies copyrighted? (1)

PPH (736903) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825287)

You own the copyrights on content you create, by the very act of creating it.

So the problem this will solve is answering all the subsequent posts of 'source?' or 'Who's that?' following an unidentified shot of some hottie going up on /b/.

this is a jokeh (1)

strstr (539330) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825247)

you don't have to follow DMCA if you don't want. basically there are things that weren't copyright violations under the old system before DMCA, and in that case if it was legal before it's legal now. this includes fair use of material, transformative and educational works.

with the DMCA system, anyone can submit a take down notice, claiming to be the copyright owner, and in my experience on YouTube and Facebook, this leads to mistakes and content that is knocked offline simply because someone else states a claim to ownership, even fake owners. Someone did this to Neowin's Facebook page, knocking it offline when Facebook refused to acknowledge who the true owner of the name Neowin was. plenty of content is forced offline from YouTube simply because "in the background" someone is playing a copyrighted song.

if DCMA was honored 100%, technically all material is copyright owned that is not in the public domain. this includes clip art, graphics, logos, jpegs, gifs, audio, movie clips, pictures of other peoples copyrighted works, etc.

a site like 4chan if copyright was 100% enforced thus could not exist. because almost all the content is someone's copyright or trademark. pictures of animal characters for example, movie clips, even the art of someone else that they post is copyrighted..

with DCMA there is a system in place of no due process, so technically they don't even have to prove ownership in court to force 4chan to comply with take downs. It will be hard for 4chan to weed out who is a fake or legit filing of DCMA take down notices, and it opens the system up to both abuses from people who want to sabotage this type of site & finally over aggressive filing of legit complaints that seem absurd but are actually allowed under the DCMA.

DCMA enables full censorship of a site like 4chan, and thus the internet community, all with no due process or court oversight.. They don't even have to prove damages before requiring content to be taken offline with that law.. Rip 4chan if someone decides to take advantage of any of this. ;)

http://www.obamasweapon.com/ [obamasweapon.com]

Good luck with that (1)

Lose (1901896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825431)

The only board this kind of thing could really matter on is /b/. Any of the others slow enough to persist threads for days (3DCG, oh no someone might post a 3D model of a cone) are benign and thus this policy amendment won't accomplish anything.

Celebs get protection, Serfs get nothing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825573)

So there you have it, if you are rich enough to send DMCA notices, happy days, however if you are an ex-girlfriend/boyfriend without significant USA legal resources, you are fucked.

Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825767)

It's disgusting how a few celeb whores can strongarm the rules and regulations to meet their whims.

How about not taking naughty selfies in the first place, or at least don't store them all on The Cloud (tm), hm?

Copyright infringement is the last refuge of censors. On Youtube, controversial videos get taken down all the time because someone had flagged them for 'violating copyright', even though nothing could be further from the truth. Someone, somewhere was upset and did not want the videos to be viewed, that's all.

Pics! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47825863)

Pics, or it didn't happen!

magnet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47826395)

88007423228e6736aa2e72f3d4ac43e6efe03ed9

welcome! nsfw!

4chan has always done this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47827107)

Submit a DMCA request.

4 Chan then looks at the thread where the offending piece was posted, finds a 404 and concludes they have already done the take down.

Want to go to court? Clearly you can see the pic/vid is no longer there.

funny how this works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47827211)

millions of normal people lose credit cards, thousands of women (and men) get their naughties posted up and spammed by angry ex's, and no one gives a single f**k. 4Chan makes most of its popularity recycling art taken from others, and proudly posts any photos given to it.

But some rich movie stars who can prove their @ss is worth money, deliberately create valuable content and choose to store it in the most insecure means possible, and suddenly there's outrage and political action and attention by authorities.

what a load of crap. anyone with a brain has been told you don't share anything without knowing there's a risk of abuse. You don't put anything accessable online without being ready for damage control. Yet these celebrities, who are supposed to be so brilliant they can dictate social, economic, environmental, technological, legal, military and political policy, are still so dense that without their handlers in control, they're as dense and ignorant as "the rest of us" that they believe they can dictate to the rest of us.

I bet now the best Hollywood agents, after already needing to run interference on stars' social media accounts, are now gonna have to monitor all phone transmissions and camera capability to keep their clients from more self destructive behavior. Gotta keep 'em appearing smart when they're needed, by any means necessary.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?