Received C&D today demanding removal and payment

[Mike Edge]

I did a little more than that

-A INPUT -s 193.32.20.88/32 -j DROP

- snip -

inserted into my rules.v4 that iptables-persistent loads upon reboot.

Why not just install CSF and block by country if your trying to black list known spam countries?

 

[MikeMpls]

Not that I particularly want to deal with them, but how do they track and substantiate their copyright claims. Copyrights in the U.S. are valid for varying times depending on when they were originally published, whether or they contained notice of copyright, whether or not the copyright was registered, and registered, the lifetime of the original creator, etc. In a nutshell (from about.com):

• Published before 1923 - now in public domain
• Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with a copyright notice © or "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" - copyright protection lasts 28 years and could be renewed for an additional 67 years for a total of 95 years. If not renewed, now in public domain.
• Published from 1923 to 1963 - When published with no notice - now in public domain
• Published from 1964 to 1977 - When published with notice - copyright protection lasts 28 years for first term; automatic extension of 67 years for second term for a total of 95 years.
• Created before 1/1/1978 but not published - copyright notice is irrelevant - copyright protection lasts for the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2002, whichever is greater
• Created before 1/1/1978 and published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts the life of author and 70 years or 12/31/2047, whichever is greater
• Created 1/1/1978 or after - When work is fixed in tangible medium of expression - notice is irrelevant - copyright protecion lasts for the life of author and 70 years based on the the longest living author if jointly created or if work of corporate authorship, works for hire, or anonymous and pseudonymous works, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation.

Note that anything published before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S., yet Getty has collections of images from the 19th century. Do they send demand letters for these?

Then there's the class of works created before 1/1/1978 but not published -- they have to track the lifetime of each & every original author; if they can't or don't, then it expired on 12/31/2002.

And do they know when/if many of them were ever published? How often might they say that something was never published (which could provide a long copyright), yet generally if the photo was published in a newspaper prior to 1964, and in most cases prior to 1978, it's now in the publish domain.

In other words, the copyright status of many of their images is going to be quite nebulous. It's not a simple matter of, "Yo, dude, it's our picture and you owe us money."

 

[DFI]

Anyone have idea if India have anything like DMCA ?

 

[TPerry]

Why not just install CSF and block by country if your trying to black list known spam countries?

Main reason is I'm not per se targeting spam - more towards hack attempts. And Amazon AWS just because there is nothing there for them. Spam would be a secondary or tertiary benefit as the spam related stuff I have in place is working just fine so far.

 

[dutchbb]

Long story short, receive a lawsuit draft today demanding that I remove a picture (which I have) that a member posted in a thread on one of my forums as well as payment for use of said picture. This is the first time I've received a C&D that also demanded payment. Do I have any recourse at all especially since a member posted said photo?

We've had these many times. Total over many thousands of euros. They are scammers or just copyright owners trying to scare you so you would pay, don't, unless a court is involved of course. They make the documents look very real and intimidating. Just remove the picture and make sure you have a statement somewhere on the site that you're not responsible for anything a member posts, and that you will remove the content if it violates copyright as soon as they contact you. Again I've had these many times over the past 12 years, never paid them, never heard of them again. Of course I'm talking about Europe not US. In corporatist/fascist US anything can happen these days.

 

[vijaichander]

Anyone have idea if India have anything like DMCA ?

It depends on the place where your site is hosted. Not the place where you live. And in India, some host do care but some just forwards the complaint to you without interfering unless they are troubled.

 

[DFI]

It depends on the place where your site is hosted. Not the place where you live. And in India, some host do care but some just forwards the complaint to you without interfering unless they are troubled.

Thanks for the info. Getting it further, if my hosting server is in US and someone else who is copying content too have hosting server in US, then he can be made accountable using DMCA ?

 

[vijaichander]

Thanks for the info. Getting it further, if my hosting server is in US and someone else who is copying content too have hosting server in US, then he can be made accountable using DMCA ?

There is no restriction on who can use DMCA takedown. It depends on the host how do they handle it. Sure, a USA based host would respond to DMCA takedown if they are going to do good business.

 

[gooma2]

Long story short, receive a lawsuit draft today demanding that I remove a picture (which I have) that a member posted in a thread on one of my forums as well as payment for use of said picture. This is the first time I've received a C&D that also demanded payment. Do I have any recourse at all especially since a member posted said photo?

If you search their name, you'll see that they're sending these out in bulk form. The normal route for most companies is to send an e-mail and ask for the image to be removed. Then if the person doesn't do this, they can move on to a lawsuit. Like with many things, companies see who'll settle quickly. Some of the photo agencies are doing this to radio stations who've unknowingly used one of their images on their website and the stations are doing payouts to avoid any problems.

It seems that if sites are knowingly doing this that's one thing, but if that's not the intent and it was added to your site by yourself or a member not knowing this was owned by an agency, it's a whole different story. If you do a quick google search on them, you'll notice they're going after rather large sounding companies (+++https://www.google.com/search?q=bwp...08,d.aWc&fp=d335c522ec94dfcd&biw=1920&bih=955+++)

 

[Svoboda]

Like I mentioned in my first post, I deleted the image right after opening the packet and called/emailed them. No response today.

 

[John82]

Svoboda - what happened? Did you ever get a hold of them?

 

[Anthony Parsons]

I wouldn't worry, to be perfectly honest. There are different things governing you as the site owner versus the poster. My solicitor has outlined some of these aspects to me for my own site due to DMCA's and legal issues due to members posting things that aren't known to me as infringing... and basically, if you take action when outlined to you, you are not in the crapper. The member can be... You can be if you did nothing, OR, if you were intentionally running some site allowing lots of illegal image posting and distribution or such copyright work... but a member finding some image online and sharing it as part of their post is their problem legally if pursued. Pass their details and let lawyers pursue them via ISP's and such.

To cover your backside, just make sure your legal policy outlines something to that affect. The default Xenforo one already covers this out of the box... you just need to keep something similar in your own:
You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

I've had to remind my users of copyright quite a bit... and Google images doesn't make life any easier. People think because they find it in Google images it's a free for all in posting it anywhere online.

I am in Australia, yet my server is US... so I have certain obligations under both jurisdictions my solicitor pointed out to me. The web is complicating things with this ease of International access, hosting and obligations nowadays.

 

[MikeMpls]

A couple of 1.2 features relating to images (copy & paste, drag & drop) likely will lead to more dealings with these trolls in the future.

 

[OSS 117]

The company connections on the first page are like reading a political thriller. You would think these companies would go after a micro-blogging site like Tumblr since it generates thousands of pieces of unique content daily.

 

[OSS 117]

To clarify so I don't come off as an ass, the current book I'm reading is pitiful compared to this thread. Anytime the Carlyle Group is involved with ANYTHING you know it's going to be really interesting!

 

[Mr.Rick]

I've been threatened by Getty Images and Ferrari before. I think you need to respond and say that the image will be removed and that the site is driven by public user content and is not necessarily owned by you. I think they just want it removed and will not pursue the fines. Every company is different though.

Getty doesn't play games. They are known for going after people.

DMCA seems to be a bit of a joke to be honest. Unless the complainant is willing to file a suit against an infringer your are pretty much SOL.
You can turn to Google, Godaddy, Hosting companies, uplink, advertisers etc to cause grief but the reality is people can just hop around.

 

[John82]

It would still be nice to see what happened with Svoboda's case. I'm in a similar situation and I'd like to know how his conversation went with Sanders.

 

[OSS 117]

Getty sent hired thugs and Svoboda is unfortunately no longer with us.













He's likely on vacation.

 

[Svoboda]

It would still be nice to see what happened with Svoboda's case. I'm in a similar situation and I'd like to know how his conversation went with Sanders.

As I mentioned in my last post, I removed the image as well as sent them an email and left a voicemail. I've not heard anything back since doing so and I'm certainly not going to go shaking a hornet's nest.

 

[Svoboda]

I finally received a call back. I reiterated I removed the image and that I could provide IP address/email for the user that posted it if legally required and he said he would pass that onto his manager but that that didn't legally absolve me of any claims. I started a LLC for the site so if push comes to shove and they decide to sue the LLC, I'll simply close the site and wash my hands of it. It would suck for my users, but the site is a hobby and the Google ads onsite clear enough for yearly hosting fees.