Slashdot Mirror
EFF Forces DMCA Abuser to Apologize
destinyland writes "The EFF just announced victory over a serial abuser of DMCA copyright notices. To set an example, their settlement required Michael Crook to record a video apology to the entire internet for interfering with free speech. He's also required to withdraw every bogus DMCA notice, and refrain from future bogus notices, never contest the original image again, and take a remedial class on copyright law.
He'd attempted to use flaws
in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online — but instead the whole thing backfired."
Who will own the copyright to the apology video?
He'd attempted to use flaws in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online
That's it? They finally get a serial abuser of the DMCA to apologize, and it's just some guy with a nudie picture that he didn't want people to see? How about getting an **AA or something to apologize for *really* infringing on free speech/expression?
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Since the guy appears to have made knowingly false statements under penalty of perjury clause of the DCMA when will the DA file the criminal charges????
No sir I dont like it.
Isn't it ironic - not only that a very large number of people will see his picture because he was an &^*hole, but also that the site that he apparently tried to have taken down, is offline (presumably due to the /. effect or because it was linked to by other sites).
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
apology to the entire internet
I think he should be banned from the internet, hey they did it to mitnick.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
The best apologies are the ones that are forced by court order.
BTW, here's a good indicator of how sincere he is: http://www.stopfairuse.info/
... with shallow pockets. Once the precedent is established you use it to go after people (scumbags or otherwise) with deeper pockets.
That's why prosecutors start a child molester, if possible, when they're prosecuting the first case under a new censorship law.
Works just as well for the good guys:
- Start with some idiot who both exposed himself in public as part of a scam and used bogus DMCA takedown notices. Get the precedent established that bogus DMCA takedown notices are wrong and you can be punished for them.
- Next go after somebody who used bogus takedown notices without exposing himself or committing other previous (but somehow related) scams, but DID cause a bunch of financial and/or other damage by his activities. Establish that he has to pay for the damage plus a penalty.
- THEN take on the MAFIAA.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... just post a link to the embarrassing picture in question ? I don't care about TFA being slashdotted, I just want to make fun of the idiot.
:wq
For anyone who missed the original article it's all about this image which is not owned by Michael.
It's not even that bad...hehe.
He got off easy. The original settlement required that he be sodomized by a Clydesdale.
No Clydesdales were willing to go near him. Even with blinders on. It's the smell, apparently.
He wants to stop fair use, but I'm guessing he doesn't hold the copyright for the picture of Emma Watson that he used in this post on his blog
I didn't know who the guy was so I looked him up.
Man's a creep. So he posts pictures of men he baits on craiglist posing as a woman but his image should be considered off limits? Hypocrite, to say the least.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Every action has a reaction. Play with the bull, get the horns. Crap, I just ran out of clichés.
For those who can't access 10zenmonkey, you can read a short blurb here.
Not sure why he got all worked up for that picture anyway. I look way worse on most of my photos. And usually with my eyes closed.
No sig
I can see why he wanted his photo removed permanently from the 'net: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/02/michael_crook _sends_.html
It could have been worse. Just image Goatse's video apology. (shudder!)
what a scumbag. He's creator of http://www.stopfairuse.info/
Just what we need, He's bitching the the DMCA doesn't go FAR enough. He goes on national TV, and complains someone snapped a shot of it. Scumbag.
understood (see sig)
watch "the money masters" on google video
Just posted a comment on that post, asking if he'd be willing to pay the copyright holder of that photo of Emma in order to make use of it. Will be interesting to see if he approves it.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
This guy is a bare faced liar. He does not seem to have learned a bit about basic decency and continues to remain the perfect example of a "griefer".
"I had an honest belief that one could control their image when it was used contrary to the original intent"
And what was the original intent of the posters Crook tricked into giving their private pictures. It is unbelievable that he expects people to believed all this while doing the exact opposite. He must live in some kind of bizzaro world.
"Who knew you can't control your own image?"
Wasn't it the same confidence that one can't, that allowed him to do this in the first place? And yet when it comes to him the rules don't apply.
"The appearance on Hannity and Colmes was very embarrassing for me"
And I thought all along that he did not know the meaning of embarrassment. Or maybe, he just lacked empathy. For those out of the loop, he called the troops "scumbags" and "pukes" on his web site for which he was called to the show where he was completely unprepared to give any valid response. Other quotes from Crook on the soldiers - "What idiots risk their life for a country...? Let 'em die in combat - we don't need their ilk in this country!".
"I firmly believe that he chose the photograph in an attempt to attack and unduly humiliate me"
Unlike his compassionate treatment his victims? Crook said "he's enjoying exposing the perverts" and "pathetic men".
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law. It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission. But make no mistake about it. If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
I thought it was the CowboyNeal option...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Your parents, on the other hand....
emt 377 emt 4
No, it's Colmes. Or did you mean...
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Getting yourself off and jail are not mutually exclusive. It happens all the time in prison. Usually some guy named bubba is even there to help you!
Here's a link to the bogus DMCA takedown notice he sent out. http://www.boingboing.net/images/dmca-boing-boing- nov-1.doc
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Has anybody actually read what he says in his blog?
) screenshot of his:
Taken from http://www.michaelcrook.org/thedmcacase.html, where he's talking about this (http://www.michaelcrook.org/extrafiles/crook.jpg
"And hey, I rather like this screenshot. It makes me look like Hitler and shit. Cool beans-- it was exactly the statement I was trying to make."
I'm still sitting here with my jaw hanging down after having read this! I think not only should he be sent to a basic lesson of copyright law, but also to a history lesson focussing on WW2!
In the cases above, and even your newspaper example, the work is being used as part of a commercial work. Newspapers sell ads. Therefore, the paper is making a profit off of my image.
It's called "editorial use," and that's a specific case. An image that illustrates news or editorial information is different than an image that is sold as the image. So, selling a poster of you is different than publishing an article about you that happens to include your image. It's a little vague, because it has to be, but most people know editorial usage when they see it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's good to see that he has learned his lesson, instead of revelling in the destruction caused by the inefficiencies of the legal system.
What a seriously evil asshole.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...isn't from slashdot. It's the last part of this page:
"I can foresee a day when this community of nihilistic pranksters hold its first convention, and they spend a week at the Marriott sneaking up on each other, flicking each other's ears and laughing until they drool."
As mentioned earlier, the apology was a sham.
On his blog, he returns back to gloating
- that he recorded the video to just get out of the case
- that it didn't cost him much.
- that he got free publicity that would otherwise have cost him
- that he will go back to his old ways.
"but the DMCA is but one of the many tools available these days. This was merely a battle in the war"
http://www.michaelcrook.org/thedmcacase.html
"Whoever creates a work owns the copyright, unless the creator signs away the copyright (in the case of work for hire, etc.) So if I take a picture of you, your dog, even Michael Crook, I own the copyright on that image." IF I am a public figure, I have no right or expectation to privacyy. Should I not be a public figure, or person of note, Then I OWN MY IMAGE and you need a release to publish.
This is NOT rocket science.. If I appear in public, that changes the outcome.
Being a film and television producer who deals with this kind of stuff on a regular basis, I should point out the errors in your post. If what you're claiming were true every paparazzo would be up to their necks in litigation, since making money off unauthorized photos is their business.
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law.
It isn't part of copyright law at all: people's faces are not subject to copyright (and if they were, the rights to your face would be owned by your parents, since they commissioned the work, so to speak).
It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission.
Care to cite the clause in copyright legislation or case law that says that?
Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an image by the rights holder in any way at all (where do people keep getting the word "commercial" from? Copyright ownership is neither enhanced or diminished by commercial exploitation). However, if the image is used in a defamatory manner, attributes fake product endorsements or otherwise misrepresents the individual, or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy the individual can sue. A release form is simply an agreement not to sue, and as such falls under contractual law.
Example 1: the NBC "Today" show can do their weather report outside the studio because the assembled audience have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rockerfeller Plaza is a public space). No release forms required, even though individuals are clearly identifiable in a commercial broadcast.
Example 2: watch any news report about obesity that uses footage shot in public, and you'll see people from the neck down. This is because it is apparently defamatory to identify a lard-arse as "fat" (unless they've signed a release like the contestants on "The Biggest Loser").
Example 3: an actor plays a character in a film, but then refuses to sign a release. Does that prevent the film being released? No, because an actor invited onto a film set has no expectation of privacy, and by playing a character they aren't representing themself, thereby eliminating the question of misrepresentation or defamation. The actor could sue claiming that the editing was done in such a way as to make them look incompetent, but then they risk having the unedited footage presented in court and their incompetence proven (BTW, all this is paraphrased from my response to a genuine nastygram I received from an agent, based on advice from two entertainment industry specialist lawyers and a professor of legal studies. No, I don't mess around; getting it wrong could cost me thousands of dollars). Again, copyright doesn't enter into it.
If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
Copyright law does not distinguish between commercial and non-profit use in this regard; whoever owns the rights owns the rights, period. If I make money off a photo of you without your permission you may have a basis to sue if I'd expressly said the photo wasn't for commercial use, but again that's contractual law, not copyright (and even then you only have a claim if your identity is central to the image and you weren't in a public area at the time).
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
There's no law protecting aesthetic sensibilities, so there is no basis for litigation if anyone publishes a legitimately acquired image you find objectionable. "Public interest" is a fair use defence for publication of unauthorised material which must be argued in court if challenged, so wherever possible news outlets try to avoid it.
You were initially right in saying "whoever creates a work owns the
Blank until