Letters to my copyright infringers
blogs.scientificamerican.com
blogs.scientificamerican.com
I deal with these often enough that I can attest to the general badness of takedown notices -- usually, they include the victim's name, the accusation that I'm infringing, and the demand for a takedown. Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site (I can't find an image by name if one of my members posted it -- I just can't), etc.
As these include all of the above, I have to say kudos.
Somewhat offtopic, perhaps I should post my "Here's why I'm not complying with your DMCA takedown notice" standard letters as a response. (Not because I'm a dick, but because I don't personally violate image copyrights, and if my members do, it's hosted externally by design -- what I do instead is redirect the complainant to where the image is hosted and offer any assistance I can, short of editing user posts on my properties.)
DCMA is highly abused but that doesn't mean we cannot make things more civil when there appears to be a breach. These kinds of templates help with that.
Feel free to use / adapt / modify however you want. I relinquish copyright on it altogether. It's world-readable, and commenting is enabled, so feel free to make suggestions.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv...
If somebody owns something, it's not mine to take from them, even if I want it really badly.
On the flip side of the conversation, if someone posts something on one of my websites, it isn't my place to tell them "No, you can't do that". The only exceptions to that are for obviously spam messages and attempts at breaking the site (whether phishing, hacking or whatever).
The easy answer for me, that I made long ago, was to just not allow self-image hosting, which at least defers some of the harder decisions to somebody else, and thus far has saved me from having to deal with lawyers or cops, except for one situation, which was... awkward.
Thankfully, I haven't run into any issues of plagiarism to my knowledge, because those would be obviously infringing, and I wouldn't be able to pass the buck to anyone but me.
Edit: Oh, and thanks. That was all I meant to type originally, but for some reason, I'm exceptionally wordy tonight.
That's the crux of much of the copyright debate, right there. Copying doesn't take someone's work from them, he or she still has access to it. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's not theft. Unfortunately, much of the public debate surrounding copyright circles around appeals to emotion about how much like theft copyright violation is.
Personally, I'd say not at all. It might be similar conversion -- the use of someone's property without their permission -- but I'm not sure about that.
There's also the "thingness" of a work. In the usual sense, even if your first copy of a work is a thing, it's not the same thing as a copy of it. And copyright necessarily acknowledges that, as the property like component is not the work, but the copyright itself. So the thing that is (sort of) yours -- if it exists enough to call it a thing -- is not the thing you created, it's the legal instrument that controls replication of the thing you created.
You're right, copyright is complicated. But it's not so complicated that confusing it with possession or ownership of physical property is a useful approximation.
1) Copy isn't theft, copy and modify/reuse is very central to human learning etc.*
2) If I copy something I can still pay for it because it's "the right thing to do" (especially if I profit from the copy in any way) and/or because I want the original content creator to continue doing what he/she does
*The law is usually not on this side, don't forget that. I try to follow most laws if they don't offend me too much.
Understood, but as I guess I didn't state myself very well, I personally choose that it's theirs to control distribution of as well, so much as they're able.
I always think of it in a 'tragedy of the commons' sense -- what if everybody did it? What would happen then? And in the case of many of my favorite artists, if everybody pirated their work, they'd be insolvent, and likely stop making my favorite songs.
In similar comparison, what if I stood on your yard? You still have your yard. I haven't taken anything from you at all. I'm just in your yard. What if I invite 200 people to stand in your yard. What if we stand in your house?
Anyway, like I said, it's complicated, and I don't begrudge anyone for where they fall on the particular spectrum, because I by no means have what I consider 'ironclad' arguments that aren't informed by my own bias. That said, I choose to err on the side of respect for copyright.
Those are both good reasons for protecting physical private property that don't apply to ideas.
I simply choose to respect the creator's wishes. If they hadn't created it, I wouldn't have been able to get enjoyment out of it, and to me, that's worth something. Yes, I appreciate that copying something isn't necessarily theft, but it does violate their wishes, and that seems a poor way to repay someone for creating something I like so much that I would consider taking it.
This is probably an incomplete conception of theft.
For example if you steal a TV, the value of the theft is set at the retail price of the TV, even though the store only paid wholesale. That is because you have deprived them of not only the TV itself, but also the revenue they could have earned by selling the TV.
Digital copies are so cheap that the "wholesale" is effectively zero, so it's true that the owner is not deprived of any property. But there is still the question of the opportunity to earn revenue.
However, it is important to note that by copying digital content you don't prevent the retailer from selling the content to another customer.
If someone sends a polite, specific, with-links-and-supporting-documentation email, don't you think it might be fair to remove the link, if not the post?
> Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site
I'll leave the Google Doc up for posterity, but I might eventually pull it down, or just modify its contents to be a link to the repo.
It does seem a little have-your-cake-and-eat-it that they would do this on the one hand, and publish a blog article encouraging people in my situation to go after violators with a form letter. On the other hand, the article does note:
> The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
[1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/
[2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en
[3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-t...
I do not mind them making money on the design (which has since been improved) largely because guy #2 had just gotten married with a baby on the way, but the lack of attribution irritated me, so I had a talk with them and with someone from Make about it.
The fact that they changed the design a little means that the ROV's battery life is about two thirds of what it was supposed to be, and cannot recharge while stopped underwater.
I may release the intended version next year if there is any interest.
We're based in Berlin, Germany, so not entirely sure if (or how) the DMCA applies. But if we were to send a takedown notice (DMCA or otherwise), we're still not sure about one thing:
For user-generated-content sites, do we have to keep policing those sites for "repeat offenders"? Or is this the site's responsibility? Users are likely to keep uploading our content and it can become labour intensive over time...
[1] https://www.kenhub.com [2] https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas
As for policing user-generated content sites... it kinda depends. If used on a forum, for example for educational purposes (explaining something), I wouldn't bother. Fair use, live and let live, etc - they're getting a watermarked version (link to the source, copyright etc) anyway.
For commercial use, do keep policing them. There should be software and websites out there (google image search by image, for example) to make it easier for you.
disclaimer: IANAL etc.
We're doing some searches, but it takes time. Of course small forums for fair use is fine, but we've seen our illustrations on sites that allow users to build online quizzes and flashcards, which kinda competes with our own product. If we have to keep searching for our own images on those sites, this can be very costly for us in the long run. We hope the site owners will take responsibility for this. In any case, we haven't contacted them yet, so we'll have to wait and see. We hope they understand our situation and will do whatever they can to help.
Was just curious about the legal (or even ethical) situation in these cases of repeat offenders which are user-generated...
I'm not sure how this can be arranged with a CDN, but it's probably relatively easy/there's a painless way
Furthermore, there's a small hidden benefit of people who do hotlink to our CDN - it makes it potentially easier to trace.
Copy&pasters would require a more sophisticated search which is either labour intensive to do manually for us, or costs money to do via API.
My main concern is not about technical aspects, but rather legal, ethical and practical. Primarily, how to deal with sites that rely on user-generated (or user-stolen) content where offenders might keep on doing this...
Disclaimer: IANAL
Nice site! Like the illustrations, had fun brushing up on things from my medical school days.
It is not the site's responsibility. Under the DMCA they are obligated to remove infringing material but there is no requirement for ongoing "monitoring".
I wonder if anybody has first-hand experience in a similar situation. This will be really helpful.
It was a 64px icon version of a generic photograph of a pill bottle and pills that he had used the larger version on his site.
I don't have a problem with playing nice and abiding by the law, but geesh. We spent a ton of money screwing around with a small image that wasn't even directly related to his site or work, much less mine.
Made me wonder if there was some other part of the story I was missing.
I'm working on a tool to help people out with this problem. My tool will monitor the internet and email you when your images are used on other sites. For a current solution, you'll need to do a google reverse image search, one by one for each image, periodically. This is tedious work nobody really wants to do. My tool will be making this process a whole lot easier. All you have to do is type in your site address, the tool will scan your site for all images and will email you a report every week on where your images are being used.
To join as a beta tester or early adopter, please submit your email on my landing page www.checkmypics.com .
I'm also looking for other techies to help out with development. Experience with scraping is a plus!
- Diran (YC S13 rejected applicant)
In fact, an awful lot of characters usually excluded are valid. There's a spec somewhere.
rofld
http://www.zeropestsolution.com/mission.html
or another one just like it... :(
It should be obvious from these letters that drive-by "lift it from the web, slap on own product" infringement is unpleasantly common. A person I knew in university has had book reviews lifted word-for-word from her site and used elsewhere for endorsement/advertising purposes. At least with text it's relatively easy to find identical snippets.
Without any attribution, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to track down an original photo once it has passed through a dozen different image sites.
"My original, copyright-protected work is here"
Should be "My original, copyright-restricted work is here"
"I don’t mean to be harsh, but photography is how I make my living." — implies that stopping sharing of his photographs is necessarily fundamental to living as a photographer (may be today, but this shouldn't be accepted as the only way our economy can work)
"On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive." Wow, yeah, but it's the use that's offensive, not so much the infringement. I would have sent this anyway, and if they kept using it, I'd make a public stink about it.
"Such infringements are illegal, they waste my time, and they devalue my work." The first part is true, the second part is only because he chooses to waste his time, and the third part is completely wrong.
It remains totally unclear whether these take-downs are actually benefiting the photographer. It is nice that he's human and reasonable, but there's still so many assumptions here.
Also, there are attempts to implement precisely what you are arguing here. In Germany, there is the Leistungsschutzrecht for Text, which says that you have to pay for excerpts like Google creates them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_p...
They are usually a horrible mess.
I wonder if there is a lightweight solution that can be built, something that will search for your images online, try to find contact info for infringers, and (on your authorization), send email takedown requests and track the replies?
I know you can retain legal help to do this now, but it might be an interesting SAAS sort of offering.
If anyone wants to help out. Message me at diran@dirango.com
To get on the list for launch, subscribe at www.checkmypics.com
Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while ignoring the subject.
That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a 'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright law.
We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.
Other industries could follow the fashion industry's lead and drop copyright infringment altogether. Somehow they manage survive and innovate without it using just social pressures, not legal pressures.
Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.
Have you seen this guy's shots? I've tried taking pictures of ants and other insects and it takes lots of luck or lots of shots that you throw out to get something even vaguely decent. Even then, nothing I've ever done looks anywhere near as good as the stuff this guy was pointing to as stolen. (And some of those shots likely required getting up close to insects in uncomfortable positions, all while trying to not interfere with the light or scare the buggers off)
Does anyone has a tool to check if pictures are being hosted somewhere else ? I don't want to run 100 queries on google.
Google reverse image search seemed to produce many more results, including images appearing inside youtube videos!