If you thought GDPR is a joke, joke's on you

[duderuud]

That's true. But right now it is suffice to add a notice-and-takedown procedure so there is no need for pro-active image checking.

 

[imno007]

Looks like the law has been rejected https://www.theguardian.com/technol...e-billions-in-copyright-payouts-after-eu-vote

Yep, good news...for now. Gotta love how some of the biggest proponents of the new rules rant against people "fear-mongering" on behalf of the big online social media platforms, when they themselves represent the interests of the biggest entertainment and media conglomerates on the planet. Far as I'm concerned, it's all the little guys, including online business startup's, who really benefit from these laws not passing. People in the States will already have their hands full now trying to keep track of all the hundreds of different tax rates (not to mention just having a harder time competing), now that the Supreme Court has given the green light on online sales taxes....

 

[TPerry]

their hands full now trying to keep track of all the hundreds of different tax rates

Oh, it gets even more fun. Texas has a tax free weekend that they DON'T charge sales taxes on certain items (and don't think it's the same calendar period each year)... so any automated process will have to be able to adapt to that also. Other states that have sales taxes may do the same thing. It will simply increase the prices (even more than what the sales tax does) of the product now.

 

[imno007]

Oh, it gets even more fun. Texas has a tax free weekend that they DON'T charge sales taxes on certain items (and don't think it's the same calendar period each year)... so any automated process will have to be able to adapt to that also. Other states that have sales taxes may do the same thing. It will simply increase the prices (even more than what the sales tax does) of the product now.

Yeah, Texas isn't the only one...

https://blog.taxjar.com/sales-tax-holidays-2018/

 

[Dragapult]

Some states were already collecting sales taxes on online purchases before the opinion was made. At least that's the case every time I buy things on Amazon.

 

[wedgar]

Some states were already collecting sales taxes on online purchases before the opinion was made. At least that's the case every time I buy things on Amazon.

Some of the larger online retailers were voluntarily collecting sales tax from their customers even though they were not required to.

 

[TPerry]

Some of the larger online retailers were voluntarily collecting sales tax from their customers even though they were not required to.

And some still aren't. This transaction was through Amazon and with a third party seller.... if you notice, Amazon collected no tax so I'm responsible for filing it this year myself.

The reason is that the seller has no presence in my state so collection is not being done (yet). All transactions that are handled directly (fullfilled) by Amazon has taxes collected at that time since they do have a physical presence in my state.
You will find that usually the taxes that were collected in other state sales tax areas were for a similar reason... Amazon had a physical presence in said state and the order was actually being filled by Amazon.

 

[Mr Lucky]

I would have thought that with images, this law has changed nothing. It is already an infringement to upload and/or host copyright images (or text, audio, video etc) without permission.

That's true. But right now it is suffice to add a notice-and-takedown procedure so there is no need for pro-active image checking.

That's like burgling someons's house and saying "I'll give the money back if you can find me, and I won't expect to go to jail"

 

[duderuud]

That's the only way how a forum can operate. How do you want to proactively check if an image is copyright protected while it is being uploaded to a forum? It's not possible to my knowledge.

 

[Mr Lucky]

That's the only way how a forum can operate. How do you want to proactively check if an image is copyright protected while it is being uploaded to a forum? It's not possible to my knowledge.

What I mentioned above is if there is an obvious infringement, for example a watermark or copyright notice on the actual image. You or your moderators can see it and remove, and warn users not to do it in future. In fact the warnings and infraction actions applied can go a long way to stop your members uploading copyright media. If you do nothing, then they will assume it's OK.

 

[S Thomas]

You should get familiar with Youtube's Content ID system. Vimeo has something similar aswell, DailyMotion aswell. And these kind of stuff work on videos, so images should be no problem at all. Obviously, you would need a database provided by the license holders to compare your uploads against.

 

[Mr Lucky]

You should get familiar with Youtube's Content ID system. Vimeo has something similar aswell, DailyMotion aswell. And these kind of stuff work on videos, so images should be no problem at all. Obviously, you would need a database provided by the license holders to compare your uploads against.

Yes, I'm familiar with that which is why I allow Youtube embedds on my site - I think if you presume that YT has checked via its ID system, and if the rights owner allows the video to stay (with mentisation usually) then presumably they agree to YT's embedding system.

I would have thought such content ID systems may be prohibitively expensive for hobby sites though.

 

[Jake B.]

How do you want to proactively check if an image is copyright protected while it is being uploaded to a forum? It's not possible to my knowledge.

You can check for IPTC metadata on images, it'll be there on most stock images and photos/illustrations from most large blogs/news sites (the ones most likely to send mass DMCAs). We built an add-on for a client on XF1 that checks these and blocks a post if it contains an attachment containing IPTC metadata from certain sources. Obviously, this isn't 100% reliable and only works if the image has not been manipulated in any way (cropping, adding a random line somewhere, or even just opening it in PhotoShop/Paint/whatever and just saving it)

 

[S Thomas]

I was reffering to @duderuud actually, but yea, no one ever said an upload filter would be cheap

 

[dknife]

On the subject of GPDR and copyright, I've been demanded by a user to remove their account all their content, including forum posts. The claim is that anything they have submitted on the forum is an expression of his ideas which would fall under Copyright afaik. All the information I find is based on protecting the site owner from anyone posting copyright material on our site, but it's very difficult to find anything regarding simply forum posts and how that constitutes a claim of copyright on posting thoughts on a 3rd party content system.

Since this person is in the US and I'm a US site, I'm not really required to delete their account as a claim of GPDR but I don't really have an issue with deleting accounts and the content being associated with an anonymous user, it's the removal of their posts in the threads causing a break in the conversation flow I have an issue with.

 

[Mr Lucky]

On the subject of GPDR and copyright, I've been demanded by a user to remove their account all their content, including forum posts. The claim is that anything they have submitted on the forum is an expression of his ideas which would fall under Copyright afaik. All the information I find is based on protecting the site owner from anyone posting copyright material on our site, but it's very difficult to find anything regarding simply forum posts and how that constitutes a claim of copyright on posting thoughts on a 3rd party content system.

Arguably, unless your terms and conditions explicitly state that they give you the rights to publish their posts, then they have a point and probaly do own the copyright in any posts if they deem it to be "creative" writing. I'm sure you would find a couple of lawyers happy to bill both sides for that argument.

My T & C includes this:

By uploading or submitting any materials to this forum, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us a perpetual, royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, disclose, post, remove such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium, or technology now known or later developed throughout the universe. You will still retain all rights you hold in regard to the materials outside of this forum.

 

[sbj]

The default Terms and Rules of any XF installation says:

You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

Unless you changed it, I don't think they have a case against you.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Unless you changed it, I don't think they have a case against you.

Exactly,

Since this person is in the US and I'm a US site, I'm not really required to delete their account as a claim of GPDR but I don't really have an issue with deleting accounts and the content being associated with an anonymous user, it's the removal of their posts in the threads causing a break in the conversation flow I have an issue with.

Not quite true. If you don't have such a clause, copyright is a law in the US anyway, irrespective of GDPR (which is more about privacy anyway. Copyright laws exists in a quite possibly most countries in the world, not just the EU.

 

[dknife]

The default Terms and Rules of any XF installation says:
Unless you changed it, I don't think they have a case against you.

I haven't changed it and I reviewed that part of the T&C, I'm just not sure how much it would hold up legally since it states they retain copyright. I've felt I'm quite safe to retain the content and I believe I'll continue in that direction.

Not quite true. If you don't have such a clause, copyright is a law in the US anyway, irrespective of GDPR

I'm referring to the GPDR right to remove user personal identification requirements, not copyright claim. Does DMCA give US users the right to demand removal of all personal identification, including username etc, like the GPDR does?

 

[Mr Lucky]

I haven't changed it and I reviewed that part of the T&C, I'm just not sure how much it would hold up legally since it states they retain copyright. I've felt I'm quite safe to retain the content and I believe I'll continue in that direction.

That's right they retain their original copyright (Ie you can't stop them using it elsewhere) but you have the right to keep it on your forum.

I'm referring to the GPDR right to remove user personal identification requirements, not copyright claim. Does DMCA give US users the right to demand removal of all personal identification, including username etc, like the GPDR does?

Probably not but I think it's good practice to remove personal data when requested anyway. It absolves you from any possible issues if for example there was some identity theft due to what was on your site. Removing that data when requested makes you squeaky clean and doesn't harm your forum (as would removing all their posts) so I'd advise you just do that and keep the posts that have no personal data.

If they posted a picture of their children, pets, house or posted birthdate, mother's maiden name, first school attended then remove that - and possibly the onus is on them to tell you what is personal - not just "all of my posts"