dmca takedown notices

I feel like an offender when I report a picture I drew, that got desecrated and misused as a profile picture on twitch.
The person in question is pretty big raider.
And has a really nasty moderator on the channel.
I got cursed, banned and called a liar numerous times.
Now it’s time to write a dmca takedown notice.
I wanted to be nice, but that’s not possible.

Fanart Theft

Bonjour Everybug and Kittycats

As many of you know, there’s a rampant problem in the Miraculous Ladybug fandom with art theft. This leaves artists distressed, and as a result many stopped drawing fanart for the show altogether.

MLSubbing is tired of it! So we’ve formed an internal anti-art theft task force. We’re going to systematically find instances of fanart misuse, such as unauthorized “tehehe I don’t know who drew this but I’m uploading it anyway!” videos on youtube, and find the artists so they can decide how they want to proceed. We’ll also be providing information on making DMCA claims or takedown notices. This information will be on its own page on our blog for general use, and will also include how to tell us or artists directly about potential thefted artwork you might find on your own.

Proceeding as a group will spread out such a large task, and make it easy and fast to do. This means we can work swiftly, and make a large dent in the massive problem of fanart theft. Soon, thieves that argue and say, “but so many other people are doing it,” will get a clear message that volume absolutely does not mean it’s okay to do. We might even be able to clear most of it out.

If you want to join MLSubbing to help out with this project, send us an ask with your name and email. Please remember to break up your email in the following format to ensure it arrives: “yournamehere@gmail.com” would be “yournamehere gmail com”. If you aren’t sure it arrived, send another ask stating you asked to join. We’ll reply to all submissions with “your application has been received” to make sure you know it came in. If selected, you can chose to help a little or a lot, it will be up to you. (To prevent harassment, we will not be making a specific list of the anti theft members)

Feel free to ask us if you have any questions!


🐞 🐈

(as a general note, this will not include gifsets or other artwork that consists of items used straight out of a show. These do not fall under copyright for fanart or derivative works without substantial alterations and permission from original copyright holders.)

It’s a sad day in Mentats Land. I just received a DMCA takedown notice from TeePublic for my Mentats & Chill design. I have angered the ZeniMax gods it seems. They haven’t issued a takedown for Redbubble yet, but I’m sure it’ll happen in the next 24 hours, so if you had plans to get this design on anything, I’d do it quickly.

Hopefully they leave the rest of my designs alone (they never describe exactly WHAT part of the design is breaking their infringement rules), but I’m kind of preparing for the worst since I mainly design with words, and that has been the problem twice for me so far.

anonymous asked:

Just for clarification, if someone on WritScrib found that someone else had reposted their art on another site, would there be someone on staff to help the original artist with this if they already tried and the reposter and/or other site didn't cooperate when the artist tried to get the repost taken down on their own? Or is that just completely out of your power?

We’ll try to help out! Most likely a DMCA takedown notice will help!

Hey guys

I think it should go without saying at this point but don’t repost people’s work and remove attribution. I’m not even going to preface this with a “please,” because I’m a little done with being polite about it.

I’ve sent more DMCA takedown notices in the past month than in my entire career as an artist. I don’t know if ‘tis the season for people misunderstanding the seriousness of removing art from its context, but come on. There are no excuses, especially if the work already exists on the platform you’re reposting it to.

Chill with the reposting. If you have enough energy to save every picture to your computer, re-upload it, and strip my name from it, you’ve got enough energy to just click reblog and not piss everyone (ie me) off. 

If you’ve got any respect for me or other artists who are out here trying to do our own thing, please stop robbing us of opportunities. You may not think a re-upload without attribution is doing that, but it is. I’ve gotten jobs from here before because people have seen my work spread around with my name attached to it. Removing that is removing my ability to further my career and pay my bills.

Thanks to all of you who have been sending me messages with links to re-uploads, there’s no way I could possibly keep tabs on all of this stuff. I appreciate it so much.

So thanks, thanks. Just be cool, ok?

youtube

by harnessing the power of 6 human lawyers, the fine bros become a wonderful community driven business greedy corporate abomination. In Undertale you get 20 HP, but in Youtube your channel only gets 3 strikes! 
In this Youtube, its copyright or be copyrighted. 
In this legal system, its sue or be sued. 
In this world, its incorporate or be incorporated.

instead of a death screen you get a DMCA takedown notice. 

striderfatigue  asked:

It's obvious that sopa isnt back, but I was wondering about the "notice and staydown" thing everyone is talking about. I just cannot find a source for the life of me past reddit and a few tech sites.

Rebecca Tushnet blogged about it when she covered a hearing in the House of Representatives on the DMCA last week; techdirt then wrote about it, focusing on her notes and I think that’s what’s showing up on reddit etc. 

There are discussions about “takedown/staydown” (the worst ship EVER, I think we all agree) and they are in the early stages, but it’s a good thing to be aware of. 

Basically, certain copyright-holders believe that if a site gets a notice about a work being infringing, they should immediately take it down - and take all copies of said work down, too - and block any subsequent uploads. In the US right now, that’s not what happens, because caselaw requires that sites/hosts/ISPs engage in a Fair Use analysis to determine whether a work is not a copyright infringement; works that are Fair Use (and they can be commercial and noncommercial, nonprofit or sold) do not infringe on another’s copyright.

In other words, the tech is not there yet to properly do an automated Fair Use analysis, and it is doubtful that it will ever be at 100%. Plus, most of the businesses that we now love and use - or at least know people who love and use - like Google/YouTube, Yahoo!/Tumblr, Facebook and Twitter would never have been able to launch if they had to do so with a content matching system, because they’re expensive and complicated and full of false positives and abuse. 

Here’s how TechDirt summed it up: 

The business model that the legacy players [like the record industry] used to rely on has melted away in the age of the internet. Rather than truly adapt and change, they just get jealous of successful tech companies, and think that those companies somehow “owe” them money. And the best way to legally do that is to get politicians to magically place legal liability on those companies, so they have to pay up. Notice and staydown has nothing to do with actually stopping copyright infringement. It’s about taking the burden off of the legacy players, easing the need for them to adapt and change, while trying to force big tech companies to pay up. The irony, of course, is that in the process it would harm much needed innovation from startups and entrepreneurs (the companies that the content creators really need the most) and lock in bigger, more powerful internet players.

There’s a lot of people beyond the massive world of creative fans who do not want takedown/staydown to be required by the law, or even existing on a voluntary basis. There will be some roundtables at dates still to be announced, and Stakeholder meetings starting this week - but we don’t know the dates of the other ones yet. The OTW is planning to be a part of this discussion, and so are other fan-creativity sites. 

It’s a discussion that is just starting and may last the next year, or the next five years. But nothing is changing for the worse this week. 

There’s a new petition on WhiteHouse.gov that asks for the government not to put more restrictions on sites to monitor for infringements and take things down even if they may be Fair Use, and while I generally think that people put a lot more stake in what they think petitions can do, especially when it’s an issue for the legislature, the one that just reached 100000 signatures is so poorly crafted and nonsense-filled that I don’t even know how the WH is going to respond to it - what is there for them to actually even respond to? Maybe if they say SOPA doesn’t exist in 2014 as it did in 2012, they’ll be listened to. 

youtube

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC3NIdiZF_E)

Not what I usually post here but this is pretty important. I’ve seen it happen to a lot of other channels on Youtube, but sadly barely anyone talks about it. If you have a Youtube channel, no matter what it’s for, back your shit up ‘cause you don’t know when it’ll hit you.

I’m just glad people are addressing it publicly, or else I wouldn’t have known what was going on.

We’ve seen some questions and comments in the reblogs of our earlier post about SOPA that specifically ask about dealing with copyright strikes by YouTube and other hosting sites. Both of the writers/maintainers of fyeahcopyright are vidders and we both have a number of vids on YouTube as well as on other sites. Back in 2008, Heidi got an email from YouTube re her Welcome to the Black Parade fanvid for Supernatural, and responded to them with the following letter:

The use of the copyrighted material is justified as fair use under 17 USC 107 because it is (a) trasnformative and (b) does not adversely affect the market or potential market of the original work or derivative works. The central purpose of this 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)

Neither of us have had an issue with a YouTube claim re a fanvid in the last three or four years, but if we were updating that letter, we’d probably mention this journal article:

“In assessing transformativeness, the courts generally emphasize the transformativeness of the defendant’s purpose in using the underlying work, rather than any transformation (or lack thereof) by the defendant of the  content of the underlying work.”
R. Anthony Reese, Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right, 31 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 101, 118 (2008)

We’d also include mention of Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Ca. 2008) where the court held that fair use is a lawful use of copyright. 

Yes, the number of cases that are strictly on-point regarding fanvids and fan films hosted on third-party sites is extremely limited, but by looking to the larger body of fair use law, one can often legitimately argue to a site that is hosting noncommercially distributed fanworks that the work is noninfringing because of the doctrine of fair use. YMMV IRL, of course.

nicocoer  asked:

Have you heard about the tumblr using bots to perma ban people who uploaded music, and because it's bots even stuff under fair use is likely to be flagged for perma bans?

fyeahcopyright has heard reports about this and seen the FAQ about what may be going on, the script so people can find what they need to delete if they’re concerned about this, and a how-someone-got-her-account-restored FAQ but we are still looking into (a) whether this is still happening, (b) whether this was a glitch that staff is working to fix, and © whether vids and other transformative works that are clearly Fair Use that people have uploaded here on tumblr could also be caught up in all this. 

We’ll have a broader post later today once we’ve learned answers to these questions. 

We also wanted to address the issue of DMCA takedown notices in general. The DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, has been part of US law for almost 20 years, and means that a service provider like tumblr is not responsible for copyright infringement if they remove infringing works - and yes, uploading a song that you don’t hold a license to or the copyright in can be infringing but if it’s a Fair Use then under US law it isn’t infringing because Fair Use is a lawful use of a copyrighted work

Keep reading

A New Way To Battle Music Piracy

Hello, everyone! After weeks of promotion we are using this post to launch the latest tool in our ongoing efforts to defeat digital piracy. We have been working on this project for the better part of the year and believe it has the potential to make a significant impact on the liquidity of illegal music online. If you have any questions about the content of the blog, or if you would like more information regarding the distributional services offered by Haulix, please email james@haulix.com and share your thoughts. You can also find us on Twitter and Facebook.

Today is a very exciting day for all of us at Haulix. For more than a month now we have been teasing a new tool to help in the fight against digital piracy, and this afternoon we are beyond thrilled to finally make that offering available to all Haulix clients. We call it ‘Piracy Takedown,’ and in the paragraphs below we will look at what it is, what it does, and how it will help keep your music safe.

Keep reading

Just what is Reddit’s current position on copyright issues?

Above on the left, you’ll see reddit’s “Rules” as of July 14, 2015. On the right are proposed rules for reddit per a post on July 15, 2015 - maybe they’ll change in the future again - who knows with reddit? 

Here on FYC, we’ve gone through Terms of Use agreements and Site Rules a few times, like when someone posted a screed lying about tumblr’s, and another time when we looked at whether YouTube’s ToU needs updating. 

So today, as reddit posts their proposed updates to the Rules of Reddit, we thought we’d look at an element of their new Rules - the one that talks about copyright, specifically. 

Yes, Reddit has long had a DMCA policy; but the announced changes from today are so poorly worded that may restrict the use of copyrighted content on reddit in a way that limits things that would otherwise be fair use. Also, if they pre-screen content before it’s posted to the site, they might not be able to take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor - but we’re not sure they’re going to do that; we just think they didn’t word this properly. If they don’t clarify the language, reddit users may find lawful uses of copyrighted content limited by reddit - and if the behind-the-scenes policies change, too, then counternoticing DMCA takedowns with accurate statements about fair use might not get content restored. 

Here’s what the proposal says (in part)

These types of content are prohibited [1]:…

Anything illegal (i.e. things that are actually illegal, such as copyrighted material. Discussing illegal activities, such as drug use, is not illegal)….

Here’s our question: does reddit really think that posting any material that is copyrighted by a third party is “illegal”?

It isn’t, of course. They probably want to say “…such as unlawful infringement of copyright” - like a selfie that someone took of herself; she holds the copyright in the photo, and sharing all of the pic where she doesn’t want it shared is infringement - sharing a corner of it is probably fair use, though. Reddit probably also means digital downloads of songs that aren’t permitted by licenses, livestreams of major league sports, certain torrent links, etc. 

But it’s too easy to read it as saying “all copyrighted material” because they didn’t use any qualifiers. 

Keep reading

so I tweeted a screenshot of domhnall’s name misspelled in the credits of the burberry ad, accompanied with screenshots of him smashing shit up, because I’m hilarious like that, and 4 hours later Twitter have actioned a DMCA takedown notice burberry filed against me. W O W.

Two Ways To Get A Site To Take Serious Complaints (More) Seriously

One question that came up at the Tumblr Culture panel at WisCon was what to do if someone is reposting your art without permission/attribution. 

Lots of us have had experience with submitting complaints to support/abuse departments and being ignored or having it basically written off as an internet argument. This kind of thing is usually treated no differently, but there is one channel that they legally cannot ignore: the DMCA takedown notice.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was created for the benefit of big corporations, the media content owners (music and movie companies) and the media content servers (YouTube and blogging sites). The point of it was to make a speedy way to take down copyrighted content while absolving the content servers of any responsibility for it having been posted.

While it was intended for corporate use, anyone can file a DMCA notice. You don’t need to be a lawyer. You don’t need to have a lawyer. Most community-driven sites even have a simple online form. If you Google “DMCA” plus the name of the site (Tumblr, Wordpress, whatever), they’re usually pretty easy to find.

On a legal level (IANAL, and also, I’m not a lawyer), the procedure basically consists of you affirming that you own the material in question, that you super seriously double secret swear you really truly own it, and it was posted without your permission. You can do this–again–by just filling out an online form. 

Even though you’re just typing into a box, doing this is equivalent to giving sworn testimony, so lying about this constitutes perjury. Do not use this tool as a frivolous way to get back at someone, or because you know someone is doing something wrong for other reasons and you want to take it down.

DMCA takedown notices are usually enforced pretty quickly, because the whole point of them is to allow for a rapid resolution.

If your material ends up on a private site… like a commercial site somewhere… you should submit DMCA notices to the site’s host. You can sometimes glean that information by Googling for a “reverse DNS” site and typing in the URL of the store.

When dealing with sites that don’t have a DMCA takedown form, you can use email. You can find sample versions of a takedown notice through Google and copy and paste with your details put in, or just look at a web form to figure out the information you need to give. Do not be intimidated by the requirement of an “electronic signature”. That’s not some expensive crypographic thing. Your name typed at the bottom of the notice is your electronic signature. You’re simply affirming your identity.

So what about people putting up not privately owned content but private information, like your name or address or a picture of you or your house? (Note that a picture can also be copyrighted… but if it was taken by someone else, they are the default copyright holder, not you.)

This is a little more hit-or-miss because there isn’t a single standard in place for dealing with privacy violations the way there is copyright violations. Nevertheless, many community-powered websites–including most major blogging platforms–include language against sharing “personally identifiable” or “personally identifying” information of other people in their terms of use or community guidelines. 

Broadly speaking, this is information that leads back to you… information that could be used to take the internet user sherstuckfeelsforgravityfalls and turn them into Byron Wallace O'Chansky of Perth Amboy, NJ, or lead people to Byron’s house or place of employment.

When you make your complaint, phrasing it in that way is more likely to get your complaint heard than simply referring to it as harassment or “doxing”. Harassment could be anything; posting personally identifiable information is something specific that might have legal repercussions in certain jurisdictions and so to cover themselves, sites ban it.

As a more general rule, it’s helpful to tailor all reports to the community guidelines/rules of the site that you are submitting the report to. If the person receiving the email has to stop and think about why this is their problem and not yours, you’ll probably get a form letter.

Though if the behavior in question is having real-world repercussions on your health, safety, and/or livelihood, it can’t hurt to mention that. That can be the detail that separates your case from any of the number or reports they get of people being wrong on the internet.

The bottom line is that there’s no way to force a site to sit up and take notice (unless you are a giant corporation with giant corporate lawyers), but understanding how their abuse/support processes work can help make you harder to ignore.

anonymous asked:

Sorry, this isn't really an ask me thing so much as I saw your artwork being sold somewhere and wanted to inform you in case you didn't know. I can't seem to link here so I'll tell you where I found it. It's on redbubble being sold by the user thememeshop, it seems they're selling more than one of your works.

Yup, you’re right – they’re selling a lot of stuff, including some images that aren’t even mine.

Thanks for the notification. I’m comprising a DMCA takedown notice right now. RedBubble is actually pretty good about removing this stuff. Further reports shouldn’t be needed, and usually I’d censor their name. But man. Fuck ‘em.

UPDATE: They’ve removed my stuff. The other stuff is still there, but I don’t believe I have legal authority to remove it. :\ Womp womp.

Fear and Loathing: Tumblr, Music and Termination

Tumblr has been my guilty music pleasure since 2008, posting over a thousands songs, exploring thousands more, enjoying Cover Day Friday among my peers and queuing up songs on ex.fm.  I’ve relished in the freedom that sharing among a small set of followers expands our appreciation for music, emboldens our love for the craft, and encourages us to dig deeper, purchase more and go see more live shows.

All that changed for me in 2014.

I’ve received a scant few DMCA takedown notices from Tumblr over the years, twice due to posts with music by Lewis Taylor who is notorious for removing all his music from the internet including YouTube.  In each instance, the post was removed in accordance with the takedown request mitigating any further harm.

At the end of 2013, I posted an Apocolyptica cover of Metallica’s “One”  that was reblogged many times outside my normal set of followers.  I received a very different DMCA takedown notice from a post-Yahoo! Tumblr stating the following:

We’re writing to let you know that, due to repeated uncontested notifications of copyright infringement against one or more of your blogs, your Tumblr account is one more uncontested notice away from termination. Please consider this a final warning. [emphasis mine]

This constitutes a grand total of 4 takedowns across almost 6 years amidst thousands of songs posted and reblogged.  

The fact is Tumblr is 100% correct.  Nearly every audio post I’ve done has infringed upon a copyright, and I clicked the checkbox stating I had the rights to post when I didn’t, so there is nothing for me to contest in the notification.  Just like everyone else doing audio posts on Tumblr.  Tumblr is a cesspool of music copyright infringement.

With fear of termination after 6 years of creative non-audio content, I panicked.  I deleted every single audio post out of fear that a singular notice would remove everything I’ve contributed to Tumblr.  I’ve not done an audio post since.

Now for the loathing.  Given the risk of loss, I investigated how to export my blog content.  I was surprised to find that Tumblr no longer provides an export mechanism as they had for many years.  So, in one breath, Tumblr prides itself on saying that we the users own our content, but if Tumblr doesn’t provide a means to claim our creations seamlessly, that claim rings false.

Now, Tumblr has a few choices here when handling DMCA takedowns that don’t involve termination:

  • Push uncontested infringing posts and consequent reblogs into purgatory - hell ban the post such that only the blog owner can see it, show that there is a takedown notice pending and the post is unavailable until it is settled
  • Transparency regarding all claims against your blog - email notification is not enough.  Clearly show how many repeat uncontested offenses are the limit before more drastic measures are brought forth.  The process of notification and to contestation for takedowns is not part of Tumblr’s Dashboard interface. 
  • Rather than terminate an entire account, Tumblr should remove the ability to post audio for music offenders, images for picture offenders, or text for plagiarism - this makes more sense than terminating the entire user’s account.
  • If threatened with termination, provide reasonable and clear methods for exporting users’ blog content to their computers.  If users own what they post, allow them to claim it at anytime and back it up as often as they wish.  The walled-garden of Tumblr is a locked box when it comes to user content.

Goodbye Tumblr audio posts.  You were great while you lasted.

TL;DR verion: It is not a matter of if but when you will eventually cross Tumblr’s unspecified copyright infringement limit, resulting in your own fear and loathing.  You don’t own what you can’t export.  You’ve been warned.