User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 9

Thread: Just for Whimgrinder (and others really)

  1. #1
    swords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Cernunnos Woods
    Posts
    8,120
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Just for Whimgrinder (and others really)

    I know you are always chasing down folks using your imagery to sell plants, just like I'm chasing down people bootlegging my label's releaes releases or giving away downloads or using my art on their commercial products without paying me.

    I received this today from ASCAP Daily Breifing (The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) which discusses a ruling on issuing DCMA take down notices. We could end up owing the copyright infringers money by unfairly taking down their infringing content... It doesn't just relate to music, it includes audio, video, artwork, photographs, etc.


    Here's a plain language discussion of the Lenz Ruling:

    Burns Auto Parts Super Premium blog Blog Archive The Danger of the Lenz Ruling

    What a wonderful modern world! Maybe artists were starving before, but now you can be openly robbed of your work and then owe the robbers money.
    Last edited by swords; 09-16-2015 at 08:40 PM.

  2. #2
    For the love of Science! Dragoness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Oakland County, Michigan
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is like the burglars suing the homeowner when the dog bites them. So wrong.
    Jen- My Grow List: http://www.terraforums.com/forums/sh...00#post1154900
    "Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar."
    -Bradley Miller-

  3. #3
    theplantman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    973
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are you kidding me?? Well shoot, let's all stop producing anything that's unique! I hate to imagine the kind of society this can lead to.

  4. #4
    Plant Whisperer Bio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    503
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What? How can anyone be THAT stupid? I know there are a lot of dumb people in the world, but whoever came up with this must have a negative IQ.

  5. #5
    I Am the Terror Of the Night! NemJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Zone 5
    Posts
    830
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bio View Post
    What? How can anyone be THAT stupid? I know there are a lot of dumb people in the world, but whoever came up with this must have a negative IQ.
    Lol you actually expect the law/other people will do the right thing
    or actually use a couple brain cells?

    Society disgusts me more and more by each passing day

  6. #6
    Whimgrinder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    3,875
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now hold on a minute. The Lenz ruling isn't suggesting that people don't have a right to protect their work from misappropriation! It's simply stating that if - as a copyright holder - you are not willing to carefully consider whether or not the perceived infringement falls under the Fair Usage heading and act without due consideration, you could be responsible for damages. That does not seem unreasonable to me. Nobody is suggesting that as a copyright holder you can no longer file an appropriate DMCA take-down request! That's absurd.

    Please do some reading: https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Fair-Use

  7. #7
    War. War never changes. Est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    3,935
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    On fair use, nabbed from wikipedia. Emphasis mine.


    17 U.S.C. 107

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. 106 and 17 U.S.C. 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    the nature of the copyrighted work;
    the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[3]
    For the example of unauthorized use of photos in an ebay listing: If you feel your copyright is being infringed upon, with your DMCA takedown notice a simple note "unauthorized use of work for commercial gain" shows due consideration of fair use, no? Or paste in the above and suggest whatever reason why it fails to fall into a protected category. I haven't read the entire ruling but it sounds like basically you need to show a "subjective belief" that the material does not fall under fair use.

    Any time there's a ruling there'll be a party that abuses it, but this seems like a correction in the right direction. For too long have content creators had their content removed/blocked/deleted by large groups more-or-less arbitrarily submitting DMCA takedown requests with no options but to accept it.
    \(_o)/ ಠ_ಠ
    My Growlist
    NASC Website Come join in on the fun!

  8. #8
    War. War never changes. Est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Champaign, IL
    Posts
    3,935
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Further, I don't see how the article got to their hypothetical about the youtube user suing the copyright holder and winning even if the item was not in Fair Use. The cited statute as described in the ruling

    See P. 16 of the ruling here -- copy and paste doesn't work because of the formatting. Basically states that there needs to be a knowing, willful misrepresentation about the DMCA takedown request on the part of the copyright holder in order for any sort of countersuit to be valid. The copyright holder can even act "unreasonably in making the mistake" and not be liable. It seems like a really high bar if you look at some of the cases brought to the court by DMCA recipients that have been thrown out.
    \(_o)/ ಠ_ಠ
    My Growlist
    NASC Website Come join in on the fun!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •