I hate Tumblr's copyright system! **PLEASE READ**

I love Tumblr. It allows me to post the things and interests that I love. I also hate Tumblr. It’s broken anti-piracy system prevents whatever I want to upload. An audio post that was meant to be harmless and nothing more than a harmless prank gets backfired. It was originally meant to be a rickroll-type thing but because of its broken copyright system. I’m going to make this perfectly clear: I’m not a thief. I don’t like being treated like a thief. Tumblr’s system is very broken especially if the music your trying to use falls under Fair Use. The Copyright Act of 1976 prevents copyright removal from happening if the content falls under education, satire, parody, commentary etc. The audio that I was trying to post fell under parody and for the sake of satire, and heck, even I sneak tiny bits of education into there as well. It was a meme that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, and it was satire that was meant to poke fun at memes in general. Unfortunately, Tumblr’s copyright system as far as I know doesn’t have a ‘FAIR USE’ button on it anywhere, so I can’t post it, and now its bullshit. I know that Tumblr has this system to prevent piracy and keep its cash flow going. They also do this to avoid getting sued by the content creators themselves. I am aware that Tumblr does have every right to prevent copyrighted material from getting off of Tumblr. They have no problem with that, whatsoever. But what I do have a problem with is that they are preventing us, the people from the freedoms that we were born with. Also what Tumblr doesn’t understand is that many bloggers who go on this dear website are nonprofit. This means that they are not trying to make money off of the blog in any way, shape, or form. I think that a robot must of tried to prevent me from uploading the song. Since it very well may be a robot who is preventing me, that means that the bot can’t tell if my blog is nonprofit or not. Tumblr needs to fix its system. DMCA needs to be reformed. Tumblr and DMCA, you may try to outsmart me this time, but no copyright law in the universe is going to stop me!

To show your support of this post and let Tumblr and co. know, please:

- Like this post

-Reblog this post and let others know about the issue

-Share this post with everybody

-Please show your support and take action by:

Visiting the EFF website, a charity designed to defend your rights in the digital age:

Make a petition to demand reform to copyright laws:

This post is very important. I would greatly appreciate it if you show your support. Thanks!

anonymous asked:

are you an idiot? Why do you mislead the fandom with that post? Isn't it bad already that they buy every little bullshit you tell them? You know that of I report this as a dmca you get a strike to your account

OMG this is the first hate message I EVER received and it’s from, probably, a fellow shipper… This is sad.

You know, I give you the reason that it is indeed kind of misleading information on the fandom, and I’ve been aware of that since the post exploded. Seriously, do you think I enjoy the thought of some shippers addresing the gifset on the future as a fact in some shipping fights? Because no, I don’t.

It was done with the purpose to make people laugh at the parallels of what have been happening on the eremika tag lately, with the boring “eremika is incest” argument. I worked on that gifset to make it look funny, and I made up the dialogue so it could fit Isayama’s troll style. Sadly, I can’t force everybody into finding it laughable. Sadly, it was well done enough to make people think it was official, even when I did not even sourced it.

Do you really think an eremika shipper would post something so important related to his/her ship without a damn official source? Something that “Isayama himself” would say in a magazine, a TV interview, etc? Of course not. If it was legit, I would have added a source to the post because IT WOULD BE PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR ME, and for everybody that ship eremika. 

I’m really sorry if I offended you because of the thing a did though… but why are you threatening me? Why are you taking a joke into a whole new level? Seriously, think straight.

PS 1: If something looks kind of legit but it don’t have a source, then just don’t “buy” it right away, it’s simple.

PS 2: don’t send hate to your comrades, since you know that because of our ship (IF you ship it indeed) we, as a group, already had enough of it. You could have perfectly send this to me without going on anon. 

Final Update on the Randy Queen/Escher Girls situation

Okay, so hopefully this will be the final update on what’s been going on. :)

Since yesterday evening, I have had private email communication with Mr. Queen.  I am satisfied with what he said.  He’s personally apologized to me, and is withdrawing the DMCA takedown complaints against this blog.  I’ve accepted his apology.

As of this post’s writing, Tumblr has not yet restored the content, but I am hoping that they will soon.  I am also checking with them that the now-retracted DMCA complaints will not be counted against Escher Girls or the Tumblr users who submitted content to Escher Girls that was removed.

I consider this situation resolved with the restoration of the removed content, and I wish Mr. Queen well.

If you spread around the initial controversy, please spread this around too.

If you are a media outlet that has been covering this situation, please update the story with these new details.

I know sometimes that the controversy gets a lot of play but people miss the retraction/resolution, and I don’t want that to happen here.

As a sidenote, I discovered today that Tumblr did send me an email explaining what happened about the apparent removal of my post about the initial DMCA takedown requests.  The email was eaten by my spam filter.

According to the email, Tumblr processed the DMCA takedown against that post and removed it by accident.  They restored the post shortly after, but I assume in the process, all the reblogs were lost.

I hope that clears up something that people had been wondering about. :)

Thank you everybody so much for your support and help during this stressful time, it’s been overwhelming and I feel really touched <3

And again, I want to specifically thank Ken White at Popehat and my amazing lawyer, Kate Andrews for all of their help.  Without both of them, I would have been so lost.

Hopefully this is the last time I will be addressing this situation, and we can all put it in the past and move on.  :)

~Ami Angelwings, owner of Escher Girls

Edit: Changed a bit of the phrasing to be more clear what happened.

Update (Aug 8, 12:40PM): Tumblr has said they’ve now restored all the content removed.  I am making sure nothing has been missed.  If you were one of the users who submitted content & had it removed, I’d encourage you to check with Tumblr that no mark will be held against your account for this incident.  Let me know if there’s still an issue.  Thanks :)

The Tumblr Police Have Lost Their Shit This Week

I got a copyright infringement notification over leaked images of the new Ninja Turtles that were all over the goddamn internet the other day. Not to mention that every-other blog was posting them as well.

What asshole is policing the internet for leaked images of the Ninja Turtles that are already everywhere from toy blogs to movie blogs. It’s good press if people are saying “hey, these new Ninja Turtle designs are really good”. 

I’ve been on tumblr since 2008 and not once have I gotten a Copyright notification until this week when I signed-off on Tumblr’s new terms of service. Now I’ve already gotten two? There’s no way that’s not a coincidence. 

HEY, if you enjoy my work, PLEASE take the time to read this

I received this email from Tumblr (it’s legitimate) regarding a copyright infringement notification.  It was in reference to my Team Rocket audio post with Meowth cursing (it’s been removed by Tumblr), and apparently, it contained content from all of the artists listed above.

The post did not contain content from any of those artists.  The voices were my own recording, and the background music was from the FIRST SEASON OF POKEMON.

I will be submitting a DMCA counter-notification, which I doubt will do any good.  I will upload the clip to my YouTube channel, but I will not post it here unless I am cleared.

What’s scary, though, is the thought of potentially having my Tumblr deleted in the future just because someone erroneously claims copyright infringement against me.  

SO, in case I ever get terminated on Tumblr, this will be the backup Tumblr: prozdvoices2.  Hopefully, I will never have to use it, but if you’d like to follow it as a precaution, go ahead.  I will not use it unless necessary.

If I’m ever in a position where Tumblr is not an option, I will upload my content to my YouTube channel:

If you ever want to contact me if this Tumblr is deleted, I am available at my personal Tumblr or on Twitter.  Twitter’s probably your best shot.

And, you know what, if this pisses you off as much as it did for me, complain to Tumblr!  Cause a ruckus!  it probably won’t do any good, but that’s okay!

ATTN: Free! Artists, Please be Cautious of this Blog!

The following Tumblr user animefreefanclub has been repeatedly reposting uncredited and unattributed fanwork to their Tumblr.

Their askbox is not open, so we must take the next step forward to ensure they understand what they are doing is wrong.

Please take a moment to make sure your work hasn’t been stolen. If it has, then you may consider filing a complaint using Tumblr’s handy DMCA form and they will see to deleting the reposted work as well as all reblogs from said post. If you see your friend’s or favorite artists’ work reposted, then please inform them as well! Even if you do not see your work, then please spread this message for the consideration of others.

Stealing artwork from someone who has contributed their time and effort is not only rude, it is also incredibly disrespectful. Let’s work together make sure this does not continue. Thank you.

Tumblr’s Frogman asks image sharing site Imgur for $10,000 to make a point

Despite having his original content stolen and hosted on Imgur, an image hosting service, more than 200 times over the last three years, Tumblr icon Benjamin “Frogman” Grelle is not mad.

He understands that it can be difficult crediting the content source depending on a site’s structure, and realizes that the content thieving community can be relentless.

“I can’t tell you how many times I get someone from Reddit telling me I stole something from Reddit,” Grelle told the Daily Dot. “One time someone told me I stole a picture of myself from Reddit.”

What Grelle is upset about is how Reddit and Imgur, which hosts a majority of images that appear on the social news site, have no easy way of crediting a source without pissing off the community.

“You cannot message the [Reddit] mods and have them change the link,” he said. “You cannot contact Imgur and tell them to add attribution. You can only have them delete the post and then you end up looking like a jerk.”

Fan Video & Multimedia is once again working with our Legal Committee as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to petition for a DMCA exemption granting vidders, AMV makers, and other creators of noncommercial remix video the right to break copy protection on media files. In 2010, we won the right to rip DVDs; in 2012, we got that exemption renewed and expanded to include digital downloads (iTunes, Amazon Unbox, etc.). In 2015, we’ll be pushing to add Blu-Ray. Right now we’re in the data-gathering stage: asking fan video makers to talk with us about how they get Blu-Ray source and why Blu-Ray is important.


The exemption will expire if not renewed!  The big copyright industries fought really hard last time, and renewal is not a foregone conclusion, even though we’re still right.  As always we need (1) examples of vids that make a critical commentary on the original source, particularly examples from the past 3 years, as well as (2) vids that need very high quality source, in technical terms, to do what they do.  With Blu-Ray, we need (3) explanations of how getting Blu-Ray source can be done, so we can educate the Copyright Office, and (4) explanations for why Blu-Ray source is important.  

If you can help with any of these, please let know!

"copyright infringement" part 2

So a few days ago, I made a post about one of my Team Rocket audio posts being taken down for nonsensical copyright infringement.  I did contact Tumblr support, and this is what they said, copy-pasted below.


Thanks for bringing this to our attention. To clarify, the email you received was not implying that the removed blog post from your account featured all those artists. It just meant that the post on your account was part of a larger group of posts, in which the artists mentioned int eh email were featured.

However, we understand your dilemma, as the post in question seemed to feature a sound clip of someone voicing Team Rocket from the Pokemon TV series.

Please read the information below for more information.

We have received the DMCA notification below regarding the posts located at:

They then showed me a list of completely unrelated links from different Tumblrs that had NO association with my post or my Tumblr.

So here’s the thing.  The only possible way my post could’ve been linked to these posts is if one of those Tumblrs reblogged my Team Rocket post, and it was lumped in with the other audio posts on the Tumblr.  This is not confirmed, but this is the only way I could see it being included.

If true, then what I’ve learned is:

1.  Groups like the IFPI that send out DMCA copyright complaints do NOT check to see if every post in their list is actually copyright infringement.

2.  Tumblr does NOT double-check to make sure that your posts are actually copyright infringement and instead takes the word of the IFPI.

3.  Tumblr immediately removes your content without checking with you to make sure it is copyright infringement.

4.  Potentially, if your post is reblogged by someone who happens to have copyright infringing material on their Tumblr, YOU can be punished for it and have your content taken away.  Again, this is not confirmed, but this is the only way I could see my post being included.

If true, though, this is not acceptable.

I will let you know what happens if they respond.

In the last few days, a number of Teen Wolf fanartists with stores on RedBubble have posted/tweeted about takedowns by RedBubble of some of the items in their stores. From what we’ve been told, all the items either had “Teen Wolf” in the tags, in the item or store description and/or in the item/store title; RedBubble isn’t claiming ownership of the works, and the language in the emails doesn’t say whether Viacom complained, or whether someone “authorized to act on their behalf” (namely, Redbubble themselves) cited the work as having issues.

This is not the first time RedBubble has taken down merch and sent an email to the store operator; RedBubble does this when their bots ”see” something that could be infringing (even if it isn’t) and generally RB tells the site operator that they were taken down after RedBubble ”received a complaint from [a major multinational rightsholder], the claimed owner or licensee of related intellectual property, and in accordance with Redbubble’s IP/Publicity Rights Policy.”

Back in 2003, CafePress took down fanart inspired by the Harry Potter characters from HPEF’s Nimbus - 2003 fancon store, because the site’s bot did some image recognition thing and CP’s policy was to take things down if the image matched up with images submitted by the copyright and/or trademark-holders. We replied to CafePress, explained that the works were transformative works and didn’t have any trademarks on them, and they were put back up shortly thereafter. Similar things have happened over the past 11 years. Every single popular show/film/brand/band/comic/series is included by CP and RB in their “usage review” systems.

As CP said in a recent annual report, ” We maintain content usage review systems that, through a combination of manual and automated blocks, monitor potentially infringing content of which we become aware.” Redbubble said something similar this summer:

Although we’re not required by law, we take further proactive efforts on many occasions and work closely with numerous content owners, brands and individual artists to minimize instances of third party infringement of intellectual property rights via the Redbubble marketplace.

They don’t always notify the copyrightholders or trademark owners expeditiously; CP and RB’s bots check the images and the descriptions and take things down just because the IP owner has put their brands and sometimes their art into the CP and RB content management system. That doesn’t mean there aren’t “false positives” - the content management system doesn’t check for fair use or parodies or commentary/criticism, and we’ll explain how to make them aware of that below.

The laws in the US regarding transformative works and copyright infringement have expanded over the last decade to define more things as Fair Use - and the bots that stores like CafePress and RedBubble use have become more precise; they’re similar to “Search By Image” on google. However, the laws regarding trademark infringement in this sort of situation are relatively unchanged.

Fanart shared in the “gift economy” is fair use; we posted extensively about noncommercially distributed fanart back in January. Selling fan art may also be fair use as a matter of law, for purposes of determining whether it infringes on someone else’s copyright.  However, even if a work is fair use under copyright law, selling it in connection with someone else’s trademarks may constitute trademark infringement.

It’s not a given - it won’t always. If the marks are used descriptively, if they’re used to compare things, etc., it may not be trademark infringement. But you are less likely to get a takedown notice if you don’t include tags that are a show or film or band’s trademark - use a shortened version of the show title (TW, ST, SPN, AOS, etc.) or a ship name or a character’s last name instead.

If you do get a takedown notice and you think that what’s been taken down is fair use, you are allowed to respond and explain why the work is noninfringing. You can discuss these factors:

1. The purpose and character of the work (Is the fanart transformative? Was it made for non-commercial purposes? Selling something on RB impacts on this factor, but it’s not the only element at issue, especially if the fanart doesn’t replicate something seen on screen or in a comic strip panel.)

2. The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used (How much of the copyrighted work was used and why was it used? For fanart, usually little if any of the copyrighted work was used.)

3. The effect on the market of the copyrighted work (Will the work be used as a substitute for the original copyrighted work or impact the market for sales of merchandise related to the original copyrighted work?)

You also might want to include language inspired by this:

As fair use is a lawful use of a third party’s copyright, to the extent that this art uses another’s copyright, it should be deemed fair use under 17 USC 107 because it is (a) transformative and (b) does not adversely affect the market or potential market of the original work or derivative works. When determining if fair use is applicable and thus a work noninfringing, the central purpose of said investigation [into purpose and character of use] is to see … whether the new work merely “supersede[s] the objects” of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), Zomba Enterprises, Inc.; Zomba Songs, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Panorama Records, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007).

 Takedowns like this happen all the time; they happen when they’re justifiable because someone’s uploaded a show-created poster as a Redbubble tote bag or CafePress coaster, they happen when someone “markets” their fanart using a trademark that the show’s creators or distributors own, and they happen when works are completely noncommercial and only on display. Absent other information, it’s not practical to assume that it’s part of a crackdown on specific artists or ships, and with regard to what’s happened to some Teen Wolf artists this week, it’s impossible to even know if the takedowns were because the trademarks were used, or because of the images themselves. We’d love more info, though - so if your art has been taken down on RedBubble and you weren’t using Teen Wolf - or any character names - in the tags or descriptions, and you’ve submitted a “Fair Use” counternotice, and it still hasn’t gone back up even though a few business days have passed, please let us know and we’ll see if we can learn more.

Follow FYeahCopyright for more on legal issues of concern to fandomers.


Libraries: Let Profs and Film Students Continue to Rip DVDs

In a rich submission to the Copyright Office on behalf of the Library Copyright Alliance, Jonathan Band asks the Office to renew its rule allowing college professors and film and media students to decrypt DVDs for educational uses.

The submission is part of the administration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which created a new statutory protection for digital locks, also know as Digital Rights Management (DRM) or Technical Protection Measures (TPMs). Under the DMCA, it is against the law to crack a digital lock, even if you ultimately use the underlying work in a way that is perfectly legitimate. This gives copyright holders who sell their works in digital formats a kind of super-copyright; they can control their works in ways that copyright law ordinarily would not allow, blocking fair uses and educational uses that the law would otherwise allow, and even encourage.

DVDs are a perfect example, because every DVD is protected by an encryption system called CSS. Only authorized DVD players (not rippers!) can decrypt the discs and play the underlying movies. That means that under provisions of the DMCA, video works stored on DVDs are not available for fair use such as copying clips from a movie to include in an online review, or for educational uses that involve copying from the DVD, and so on. Indeed, users of some open source platforms complain that they can’t even watch a DVD because they don’t use software that licenses the CSS decryption technology.

Sidebar: It’s also illegal to “traffic” in tools created expressly to “circumvent” digital locks. SOPA copies some of its key provisions from this part of the DMCA and makes it illegal to create tools that route around the digital censorship mechanisms that SOPA would create. Now, see how long it takes to find a DVD-ripping tool on the Internet. Not long, right? So how successful do you think SOPA’s anti-circumvention provisions will be? Not very, right?

In an attempt to alleviate these foreseeable points of friction between the DMCA and legitimate uses, the law also empowered the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress to consider and approve exceptions to DMCA protection every three years. DVDs have been the subject of several exemptions in the past, thanks especially to the important work of Professor Peter Decherney on educational uses.

Because the law requires that existing exceptions be renewed each cycle, rather than extending them automatically, the library community has weighed in this cycle to ask for an extension of the existing exception for professors and film and media students.

The bulk of the filing, and the most fun reading, is a series of stories from professors and students around the country describing how they use the exception for DVD ripping to teach better courses and create better class projects. There’s a lot of talk among copyright policy geeks about e-reserves and streaming video, and you could get the impression from the more conservative voices that professors and students are just looking for a free ride, that they should be paying a recurring license fee for the privilege of incorporating their library’s lawfully acquired DVDs more seamlessly into their teaching and learning. I think these stories create a pretty powerful rebuttal to that idea. It seems clear to me, at least, that these folks have made exciting fair uses and legitimate educational uses of these films.

So, again, check out the LCA filing here.

Other folks are weighing in, too! Documentarians, the EFF, Public Knowledge, and Professor Decherney have all filed. Enjoy!

This is why I’m so careful and cite original sources, read blogs’ policies on copyrighted material, and don’t collage entire tutorials. I just look at what happened to Bohemea - a blog that was much bigger than mine (150,000 followers and 100,000 posts). Bohemea was deleted after receiving several DMCA notices for several images on her blog. According to Bohemea she wasn’t given the option of removing the material in question. 

  • 1940’s – movie studios had to divest their distribution channel – they owned over 50% of the movie theaters in the U.S. “It’s all over,” complained the studios. In fact, the number of screens went from 17,000 in 1948 to 38,000 today.
  • 1950’s – broadcast television was free; the threat was cable television. Studios argued that their free TV content couldn’t compete with paid.
  • 1970’s – Video Cassette Recorders (VCR’s) were going to be the end of the movie business. The movie businesses and its lobbying arm MPAA fought it with “end of the world” hyperbola. The reality? After the VCR was introduced, studio revenues took off like a rocket.  With a new channel of distribution, home movie rentals surpassed movie theater tickets.
  • 2000 – Digital Video Recorders (DVR) like TiVo allowing consumer to skip commercials was going to be the end of the TV business. DVR’s reignite interest in TV.
  • Today it’s the Internet that’s going to put the studios out of business. Sound familiar?

(via Artist uses DMCA to remove criticism of his impossibly-shaped female characters | Ars Technica)

[a long but fascinating article…]

Comic book artist Randy Queen has reportedly sent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests to Tumblr asking that posts that reproduce his illustrations and comment on them in a negative light be taken down. Queen’s requests were directed at the blog Escher Girls, which lobs criticism at illustrators who draw female characters in contorted, overly-stylized, and anatomically-impossible ways.

The drawings Queen wanted taken off Escher Girls’ Tumblr were taken from his Darkchyldeseries of comics, which saw success in the late 90’s after the first issue was released in 1996. On Escher Girls, Queen’s drawings were occasionally posted with a “redraw,” where the submitter redraws the scene in their own style, generally to reflect a more realistic human anatomy. When Queen first submitted the takedown requests, Tumblr complied and even removed some of the user-drawn art, it seems.

Posting select drawings from an illustrator to criticize the work is protected by Fair Use exemptions from the DMCA. Still, websites like Tumblr and YouTube, which rely heavily on user-generated content, have a history of cowing to copyright holders when they cry for their work to be taken down, even if the poster of the work is legally in the clear.

Earlier this afternoon the manager of Escher Girls, who goes by Ami Angelwings, wrote on her Twitter account “I just got a tweet saying Tumblr rep says they’ve restored content. But I’m not sure which content.” Currently, some Escher Girls posts exist completely restored, and some just have the image removed while the post remains intact.

Ami Angelwings said that neither Queen nor Tumblr ever contacted her before the posts were taken down. After learning of the takedowns, she posted a note explaining what happened and warned others to make their posts private if they’d reproduced Queen’s drawings. “If you’ve submitted redraws of his stuff to these sites, you might want to ask them to put them private for now (if [Queen] complains about a submission you’ve made, Tumblr will count it as a complaint against your account),” she explained.

But that angered Queen even more, and he wrote an e-mail to Escher Girls which TechDirt published, threatening legal action for defaming him with “various allegations” on Escher Girls’ takedown notice thread. Queen also alleged that Escher Girls’ DMCA post “publicly challenges my right to protect the perception of my IP as it exists today.”

Queen continues, “instead of taking shots at art someone did 18 years ago while they were still learning—which are no longer representative of their current art style or direction for their character—I encourage you to spend your time and energy on creating your own characters and comics which you can mkae [sic] your own personal sacrifices to bring to the world.”

But Queen’s outrage didn’t end there. As the Escher Girls DMCA post gained steam, Queen apparently decided to send another takedown request to Tumblr, asking that the post alerting readers of Queen’s DMCAs be taken down as well. Tumblr, curiously, removed all re-blogs of Ami Angelwings’ DMCA-notification post, but did not remove the original post.

Ars has reached out to Tumblr for comment but has not received a response.

But the antagonism wasn’t over yesterday. It seems that today, Queen sent another e-mail to Escher Girls, which Ken White at Popehat reproduced this afternoon:

So, at this point it becomes harassment.

Instead of simply removing the content you do not have the right to electronically distribute, you wish to persist in character assassination, and alleged abuse of copyright claims via armchair lawyers.

Let’s say I take someone’s old copyrighted photography and ‘corrected’ it for them, as well as posted disparaging comments to circulate along with what may be someone’s first exposure to the work. Guess what? I don’t have the right to do that, it’s not my content. And based on the comments in this thread, it’s an easy argument to make that it is damaging.

There are people and animals suffering and dying in the world, and real human rights issues in certain countries, and this is what you take issue with? Art nearly two decades old? I think there are greater causes to champion with the limited time and energy we are given on this Earth.

For anyone this may apply to – instead of taking shots at art someone did many years ago while they were still learning – which are no longer representative of their current art style or direction for their character – I encourage you to spend your time, energy, and courage on creating your own comics, and then make the necessary personal sacrifices to bring them to the world.

If you think you can do better work, or have more success with it – I encourage you to do so. I promise I will never attack anything you create, and would only wish you only love and happiness.

Since you enjoy posting private emails, and needlessly escalating matters, I’m sure this will be next, and would again ask you to please stop.

I am sure there are more positive uses of both of our time.
~ R

As Ami Angelwings pointed out in her original notice post, getting DMCA notices from illustrators is rare for Escher Girls, despite the blog’s critical nature. “To date, Mr. Queen is the only artist who has taken this kind of action,” she wrote. “Other artists and publishers seem to understand Escher Girls & other similar sites are fair use and criticism, and that fan discussion, positive or negative, is important and helpful to their business. (In fact, the creators I’ve interacted with are either fans of EG, or expressed disagreement but know that it’s fan criticism.)”

Listing image by Randy Queen

How has YouTube managed to stay alive despite having obvious copyright violations up the wazoo?

YouTube has ‘common carrier’ status. What that means is they’re not liable for the content that people upload, as long as they respond to DMCA takedown requests (which they do).

The onus is on the copyright holders to find and report infringing content. But it’s a lost cause because of the sheer volume of uploads.


  1. Who the heck is Jeremy Banks?
  2. How could I possibly infringe on the copyright of five different artists at the same time?
  3. Out of the five artists listed, I only own music by one of them (The Breeders) and I’m pretty sure I’ve never posted any of it to Tumblr.
  4. If I had posted it, it would have been a regular audio post like I’ve done literally hundreds of other times without a problem.
  5. The mp3 link which supposedly identifies the post in question gives an Access Denied error, so I can’t even be certain which post from my archive has been removed.
  6. But I’m free to contest the notification based on the complete lack of knowledge I have about what I apparently did wrong in the first place.
  7. And if I do whatever-it-is again, my account could be terminated.
To anyone who fails to respect my copyright..

I have just submitted a very large DMCA form to have a lot of work of mine from blogs that have posted it with out accreditation to my blog, removed.

REBLOG my work, don’t COPY it and create a new post!!

I’m sorry if your blog gets deleted by tumblr, but to be honest it’s your own fault for breaking my copyright. THIS IS A WARNING TO ANYONE ELSE.


Freddie Ardley Photography

A post at JD Supra focused on the way fair use is being seen in U.S. courts following a decision in Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc. “More broadly, decisions like TVEyes suggest that courts are moving away from viewing fair use as a narrowly-drawn exception to copyright holders’ exclusive rights in their works, to the view that fair use promotes the creation of transformative works and thus serves one of the goals of copyright law itself. The TVEyes opinion, which essentially presumed transformativeness of the work at the outset of the fair use analysis, suggests that the trend toward this broader view of the role of fair use continues to gain traction in the federal courts.”

OTW’s position is that fanworks have fair use on their side & the history of copyright shows it wasn’t designed for creators.