Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Takedown Notice For a Fake ID
TrippTDF writes "Rachel Hyman, an artist and bartender in New York City, maintains a blog where she regularly posts images of fake IDs she confiscates from would-be underage drinkers, along with a description of the confiscation. Recently, one of her posts (Google cache) was taken down when the owner of the fake ID invoked the DMCA against Blogspot. Can one claim a forged document as a copyrighted work of art?"
Wouldn't the picture at least be copyrighted?
In much the same way that I can claim to have invented computers, someone can claim that an illegal document is covered under the DMCA. It is an invalid claim, as no illegal document can be protected in such a manner, but it is a claim none the less.
...or land of litigation and bullshit? you decide.
"Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer, what's wrong?"
and a good writer and apparently an artist as well. She just doesn't just take the id and post it - she writes some hilarious commentary to go with it. I wish her the best and hope that this young gal isn't as rich as she says, or I fear that it may not go well. While Rachel is completely in the right, justice is expensive.
Here is a great gem from her site, "Oh Kathleen O'Brien.. what terribly unjust irony that your fake Id would be confiscated on St. Patrick's Day."
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture." says the U.S. Copyright office.
A fake ID, besides being illegal to create in the United States, is a derivative work of the United States Government, and is not an original creative work of authorship.
At least the article answers the questions of the summary directly. I like not having to think. Either way, trying to claim it was an original work seems really dangerous as its basically an admission of forgery. To any lawyers out there, is a DMCA Takedown notice considered a legal document for which charges could be filed if they implicate themselves within it?
Good question concerning the image of the individual itself from the FPer, does the fact that its included on an unauthorized document void the persons right to control over their own image? If not will video stores be forced to ban "BAD RENTER" walls and such other devices for shaming/controlling problem customers?
Ice Cream has no bones.
Identification forges YOU!
Was Google Cache actually worried about a lawsuit from some punk kid who committed several crimes in making the 'artwork' ?
The forger him/herself violated the copyright of whomever designed the document in the first place.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
... isn't claiming to be the "creator"/"artist"/"author" of a fake ID admitting to counterfeiting? Perhaps not the smartest move ever. And since a DMCA 'takedown notice' is a legal document denying authorship of the fake ID later would probably be perjury.
I sure hope this ends badly for the underaged drunk wannabe.
Hollywood makes forged comedies all the time, so why not?
Even if it is art, would it matter?
Say you've got a website discussing a certain aspect of book cover design. You post example images for the purpose of demonstrating and discussing it. You're in the clear in this case, yes?
Sounds like the same thing.
In fact it is a piece of "original" art. Though I doubt they'd want to go through court with it, over here they could.
... pffft, let a lawyer get creative, they get money for that. And see if the other side is REALLY interested in seeing this in court. But then, that would be here. I dunno if in the US, copyright violations are already superior offenses to crimes against the state.
Though in reply they'd immediately get charged with forgery of an official document. In other words, you go to a civil court, they hit the criminal one. You stand against their lawyer, they stand against the general attorney.
It's a bit like disassembling a trojan. In theory, it is a piece of software, protected by copyright. But I doubt any writer would ever drag you to court for it.
In fact, if I was in her place, I would not comply and instead challenge it on grounds of
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Fixed in a tangible medium? check.
Expressive? check.
Modicum of creativity? check.
I don't recall copyright being denied for illegal subject matter...
Forged documents should be removed from the web for other reasons. DMCA aside the forged IDs could have real information. Information such as drivers license numbers and addresses gained from real IDs. Many fake IDs I saw while working as a clerk where modified legitimate IDs.
I would be really surprised if the fake ID contains a statement of transfer of copyright, or that the holder of the fake ID holds such a document. Such a document would required revealing who the forger is.
Therefore, any copyright would reside with the forger, and whoever issued the original ID (assuming that the usual method of modifying an existing ID was used).
calls into question the DMCA takedown notice process.
If Google takes content down without questioning the process or the content, they stay safe from being to blame for censorship, but it leaves the door open for people like Viacom et al to blindly request content be taken down. If some proof of copyright ownership could be shown at the time the take down is requested, might it not prevent some of the more ridiculous take downs?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
here is the posting from google's cache that got this started. haha
w ww.rachelhyman.blogspot.com/+rachelhyman.blogspot. com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Dear Ashley Heyer,
There was no way you could've known. You had this really astoundingly good Maryland fake ID, and you were on a date with a boy who was over 21 and would show you the world of beer. Except, one hitch, me.
Something seemed wrong. Maybe it was the way the hologram reminded me of iridescent paper I had used once at an art studio, maybe it was how my old Maryland license had a bump where the rather ghetto real hologram was- and yours didn't.
So I asked you for a back-up ID. It was a NYU undergrad ID. Never the fool I asked, where did you go to high school? You replied, actually I went to school in Iowa.
Iowa.
No one from Pikesville goes to school in Iowa. I know, because I went to school with half of Pikesville. It's a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, which would also bring into question that altruistic organ donor choice. And the road, oh Ash, you couldn't have known that only rural or inner city (DC) roads are labeled like that. You definitely couldn't have guessed that I knew the road naming patterns from Pikesville, because I drove home so many kids from my high school, and developers are never creative.
You jumped to the rescue with, it's the new Maryland ID, and I said, no, it's the old one. I have the new one. You can't drink here, darling, and I'm keeping your ID.
But you went to high school in Iowa. Your father, Bradley, donated 125$ to a campaign for Iowa State House representative, republican, Carmine Boal. You were a a page at the Iowa State House for a bit too. You did grow up on 3601 NW 92nd Place-- in Polk City IA 50226.
It does have a very nice photo on it, better than the real Maryland machines take. And you were sweet and sad and smiley, in that friendly Iowa way - even though you're a republican. I'm sure you cursed me when I was out of sight.
Maybe, some day, you'll come back to the castle, when you're 21, with your totally real Iowa ID, and order that glass of Lucifer you so desire. Perhaps we can talk politics for a while. Maybe you'll know how to defend yourself.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:jirEhYabN6wJ:
Do you really believe the DMCA is about copyright? Its about having a stick to poke when anybody says anything you don't like on the Internet. The people that created and passed it don't care if others use it as well, as long as *they* get to use it
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
This may be slightly redundant but I'm expanding. At best, the forger's work could be considered a derivative work. It was mentioned that the forger, however, while claiming copyright, is making his work from a goverment designed document. There can be no copyright protection on a government work.
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
There is an artists who create his own currency, in US denominations. It is obviously not US currency, but it looks like money. He then tries to spend it. People who accept the currency get a visit from a collector later on who buys it for much more than the face value. In fact, the "money" is worth more to collectors if it is honored at face value by somebody.
He did get in trouble with the treasury over "counterfeiting", but I believe he eventually worked that out. Clearly what he is doing is art, not counterfeiting.
This is the opposite case, somebody claiming for their counterfeiting protections intended for art.
I don't think that a person can legally claim ownership of a thing which he has created for an illegal purpose. You can't ask the Secret Service to give your counterfeit money back on the grounds you paid for the paper and ink and they belong to you. They don't belong to you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ashley Heyer was stupid enough to use her real name while committing a crime. as the blogger says, she needs to suck it up and live with the consequences of her actions.
One thing is not so clear to me here. Is this *definitely* a case of a "fake"-ID or a stolen/borrowed ID? I have not seen the ID in question and didn't find it in a 1.8 second search of the page. I'm probably also not familiar with what the state's real ID's look like. My question here is.. which is not 100% clear to me is.. was this truly a fake ID?
People often refer to using their older brother's ID as a fake-ID as it is not them on the ID. The same goes for a stolen/found ID. If someone is using an ID that is not there's, it's considered a fake-ID and it's illegal for them to use it. Thus it can be confiscated. Is the ID in question really a fake.. scanned or one of those "not official" IDs? Because if someone stole my ID, used it at a club, got it confiscated, and then it was posted online.. I'd do whatever it takes to get it down.
...yes, you, Ashley Heyer! You could have left it alone, but you went the bratty way and got your gang of Facebook friends and sorority sisters to start a fight with a woman who just might be the coolest bartender ever and now your story is on Slashdot. Congratulations, Ashley! Thanks to the power of Slashdot, your political career will never be able to get this story off the top link in a Google search for your name. Here's to you, Ashley Heyer, you're a real American Hero!
(hum the theme song as you click the link, folks...)
http://www.google.com/search?q=ashley+heyer
If the plaintiff can prove that the fake ID is his/hers, then he/she has the legal right to post the takedown. Then again, this will confirm to the legal authorities that he/she is a forger of fake ID's and can be arrested and charged. It's a double-edged sword, and in this case, the sharper edge of the blade is poised over the accuser's neck. He/she needs to reconsider the ramifications of the legal action that they took. The feds might just take notice since they take a dim view of folks that make fake IDs.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Officer! Officer! That man stole my cocaine!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
when i was going to Tech School i used to work nights at the 7-11 there at Baylor.
i used to get a kick out of all the fake IDs the good Baylor kids would come up with to by beer with. my manager was the one that collected them though.
A lot of problems with the DMCA would be solved if the people receiving DMCA takedown notices would RTFA when they receive them. I could DMCA just about anyone or anything, and the ISP of the victim wouldn't even read it; all they'd see is "ew, possible litigation", and *poof*! Offending content gone.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
The author should most definitely file a counter-notice against Blogger, and have the page restored.
Directions for such can be found on ChillingEffects
The girl is stupid. Stupid in the same way that every person we interview here gets a MySpace and Google search done on them, informally, just to see what kind of things the Intarwebs have to say about them. It's nothing official, but if we're borderline about bringing on someone, that search might tip our decision one way or the other. If we're "eh" on hiring someone, and find out they prefer to spend their nights playing games until 4 AM, then coming in late to their last 4 jobs, we're probably gonna go with "poor work ethic" and not hire them. In the same way, if she's, say, at NYU Law as an undergrad, when it comes time for internships, all those law firms are probably going to be very interested in the fact that she got caught with a fake ID when she was an undergrad.
As the author states in her writings, "actions have consequences" . In this case, for a young woman who is "going places", her actions are that those places she's going are going to know she, when she was underage, she was willing to break the law just to go out drinking.
I hope Rachel gets the post back online...and maybe even gets the chance to file suit for abuse of DMCA Takedown notices. We'll see what kind of places this girl goes when it's not just a post about her fake ID, but her disregard for the valid use of the law.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
The artist's name is J.S.G. Boggs, he's in the wikipedia with some links. Here is web page with some samples.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I can't say I have much sympathy for either of them. In the short span of reading some of Rachel Hyman's blog, she seems quite vindictive and equally purile in tone as the ID holders she confiscates. Plus, what guarantee does Rachel have that any of those IDs are truly fake, and then she goes posting those pictures and names on her blog without permission.
It's one thing to deny entrance into your business based on suspicion (as thousands of bar owners do silently each day) - yet another to make a public spectacle of the whole ordeal. Rachel must like dipping her hand into a can of worms.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Can't they both lose?
On whose authority is she confiscating the ID cards?
Forged or not, ID cards are private property. No private citizen should be able to summarily seize them.
Even if you argue that bartenders are proxies for the law and are thus, in a sense, working on behalf of the government as far as ID-checking is concerned, there still should be a formal, even-handed, appeal-able application of due process prior to any form of seizure. "I have it, and I'm not giving it back" is bullshit.
The GP never said that making an invalid claim was illegal. Invalid does not equal illegal.
I stole this Sig
Because the fake ID should already be copyrighted by the agency that printed it. The fake ID user has no claim to the copyright of the ID anyway. Otherwise anybody could make a duplicate of any document then copyright it as their own.
Lots of money, no brains. Admitting that fake ID was hers that she created is an instant Federal Offense! Daddy won't save her this time around!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If the plaintiff can prove that the fake ID is his/hers, then he/she has the legal right to post the takedown
EVERYONE has the legal right to post a take-down notice. No proof of anything is required.
But, as part of posting a take-down notice, you must state, under penalty of perjury, that you are the owner of the material in question, or an authorized representative of the owner.
So if you file a DMCA complaint about a fake ID, you would be screwed one way or the other - either you created (or paid someone else to create) the ID, or you committed perjury when filing the DMCA request.
paintball
This sounds a lot like when a spammer tried to sue me for publishing their "copyrighted" spam.
Previous slashdot story.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
i had my 'real' license taken by a bartender who claimed it wasn't me. it's at least some risk to have my real information with drivers license number posted by someone who's self-righteous just to 'teach me a lesson'.
Anyone from the NYC Slashdot crowd want to go to her bar (where is it?) and spend an obscene amount of money?
I agree with you completely except for the part about her being cool... It seems like a 'bit' of a power trip...
Look upon me and behold the mighty barkeeper... Give the damn idiot his fake back and let them be on their merry way... Posting fakes behind bars or at liquor stores I mean I buy that, its a deterrent but posting it on your blog... doesn't serve anything except self gratification.
Also laws may differ, but just because your id is fake doesn't mean I can steal it from you
Considering that Vint Cerf, the real inventor of the Internet, says that Al Gore's claims in the (admittedly not very good) way he worded them were correct, I have only one thing to say: "What's a groovy ex-vice-president?" "An algorithm!"
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Does she have a legal right to confiscate the ID's in the first place? She is not the place. If someone possesses property which is illegal for them to possess, is there therefore no laws protecting it from seizure by a third party?
It just seems a bit odd. Unless there's some law that specifically empowers her to seize fake ID's, I just find it odd that she feels empowered to keep them -- unless she simply feels that no one would call the cops of having something illegal to own stolen from them.
Give us your weak and poor, we shall give them every chance to get sued!
Ashley Heyer oh, oops, how'd that happen.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Two points.
The DMCA takedown notice couldn't have been filed in good faith without the admission of creating a fake ID to which the individual is claiming the rights due her by creation of this document. Also attempting to use a fake document to gain entrance to the establishment would be a crime in itself. Seperate from making the ID. To issue a DMCA takedown requires at least the admission of attempting to use a forged document and even if someone else created it, she would have to name that person or accept the responsibility of creating it herself. Which would be admission to committing a second crime.
If the ID was real and illegally confiscated, the notice would have been delivered by law enforcement officials and would not have been a DMCA takedown notice, it would have been a search warrant based on the account given by the victim and the supporting admission on the theifs website. Stealing someones ID is a crime and someone on the right side of the law can use the police to get justice especially if the theif freely admits it in their blog.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Ahh . . Nevermind. I see that my question (yes, I can spell it properly!) has already been answered above.
(IANAL but...) US Government agencies are not allowed to claim copyright. For this reason, a government-issued ID might not be covered by copyright. In this case, the design would be in the public domain (unless held by a private individual or firm and licensed to the government). Derived works of Public Domain pieces may still be copyrighted, and so it is quite possible that this really is a copyrighted work. Owning a fake ID might or might not be illegal, but attempting to use one is fraud, which definitely is.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That's why I explicitly stated that the fake ID may not be copyrighted anyways so the DMCA wouldn't apply (same effect if the agency holds the copyright as the person couldn't act on their behalf). The argument I was making was that contrary to the original posters assertion the legality of the document should be irrelevant as to whether it's protected by the DMCA as long as it's under copyright.
However, I'm now thinking of an interesting scenario, what if the takedown notice was from the agency who printed the ID (to avoid bad publicity). Does that agency actually hold the copyright, would the posting of the document be protected under some kind of safe harbour, for instance is whistleblowing protected, would it apply?
I stole this Sig
"Can one claim a forged document as a copyrighted work of art?" ....Only if they work. If you get busted, then it's no "work of art", Eh?
So her dad gave a piddly donation to some GOPer in flyover country. What the heck does this have to do with the story? It would be just as stupid if you insert (Democrat|Libertarian|what-have-you).
<conspiracy>
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot, never known to miss an opportunity to front-page something negative about the GOP, no matter how tenuous or silly the connection.
</conspiracy>
-- Brad Felmey
Does anybody know of a website that has a list of what to look for when checking IDs for each state? That sort of thing could be a big benefit to bartenders who could probably memorize the major features of each state's ID in relatively short order. Google only turned up a bunch of individual DMV websites that didn't actually have a picture of the ID and one book that you can buy in quantities of 100 with the same information. This seems like exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to see online. Wikipedia let me down too.
I read the internet for the articles.
... what a lame bartender. Why should she care so much about underage drinking? The girl was underage, but the bartender is the child. As long as she looks at the ID and it has a valid picture and date, she can't be held responsible if the ID is fake. After all, there are some very good fake IDs out there, some that are completely indistinguishable. I wish bad things upon people who think its fun to be a jerk when they have nothing to gain from it.
\zg
Not quite. As the lady's website tries to explain, a fake ID "is a derivative work of the United States Government, and is not an original creative work of authorship." This seems to be the same thing you are saying, but it is wrong.
1) Derivative works have their own copyright, separate from the work they are based on. That is why Disney's version of any number of fairytales is not in the public domain.
2) The copyright the creator of the fake ID has is probably "thin" but that doesn't mean he or she doesn't have a copyright. If the fake ID was created from "scratch," there is at least a copyright-protected photograph on the document. There may be other potentially copyright protected content as well, but we can't know without knowing exactly what the ID looked like.
Why can't an illegal document be protected under the DMCA?
Because the illegal document would be illegal because its likeness is already copyrighted by someone else. So the US Mint would be able to issue a takedown, but not the person that made the illegal forgery of the US $13 bill.
Learn to love Alaska
It seems you can copyright a random number (like an encryption key).
Vint Cerf?
Robert X. Cringley and Bob Kahn would like to have a word with you.
Al Gore is a moron.
So Rachel posts a photo of a fake ID. The copyright situation is an utter mess.
Rachel took the photo of the fake ID, so she would own the copyright on the photo. But there would be restrictions on her use of that photo since it contains an identifiable person as well as another copyrighted work.
The photo contains copyrighted forgery, and the forger owns the copyright on that. But there are restrictions on its use because the State of Maryland (presumably) owns the copyright on the license design from which the forgery was derived. (this ignores the obvious legal restrictions on presenting false identification... we're just talking copyright here)
About the only person who has zero claim to copyright in this matter is the underage drinker, herself. And yet she is the one who filed the DMCA takedown notice.
That's just rich.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I've worked as a bartender myself, and it's actually quite easy to spot a fake, plus, there's a sure way to test it: Tell them that you think it's a fake, and that you will call the cops in to verify it. If the ID is real the party that gave you the card will agree and wait for the cops to show up. If it's real, they will wait. If it's not real, they run out the door, or try to bribe you.
If you scroll back through this girl's blog, you'll find a handful of other allegedley fake IDs. But what if one of these is actually real? It seems awfully risky for a bartender to post these pictures when she has no way (or authority) to verify that they're fake. In fact, she's got someone's ACTUAL birth certificate up here:t ificate-1.html
http://rachelhyman.blogspot.com/2007/02/birth-cer
So regardless of whether the fake IDs are copyrighted, surely THIS can't be legal! I think the copyright issue is a farce, and the real crime is posting somebody's sensitive information (name, address, photo, signature).
I'm just surprised with the audacity of this bartender.
Either way, trying to claim it was an original work seems really dangerous as its basically an admission of forgery.
Yep, it was not very smart. Until the DCMA request was filed, the only thing the underage girl could be reasonably convicted of when she hands a fake ID to someone is uttering, ie, presenting forged papers as legitimate. Well, and any additional laws she broke that may be specific to presenting false ID for the purpose of buying alcohol and being underage.
If she filed a DCMA request which implies she's the creator of the work, it's not terribly hard to prove that she's guilty of both forgery and saying.
Sidenote: I've seen half a dozen slashdotters declare "OF COURSE you can't copyright a forged document!", and yet have not offered any citations, explanations (that make any kind of sense) or case history. A cookie to the first poster that does.
Sidenote number two: I'm not really cheering for this waitress. She's got a severe "big fish, little pond" complex going.
Please help metamoderate.
I quite agree, Ashley Heyer is now forever going to have her name associated with the Ashley Heyer fake ID scandal. So if she decides to run for state office in a decade or two the name Ashley Heyer will always link to the story about the girl who broke the law, then ran and hid behind a DMCA notice to try and cover her crime. Here's to Ashley Heyer, the fake ID creator.
Doesn't the DMCA take-down procedure require you to swear upon pain of perjury that you actually own the copyright for the item in question (or are acting as their authorized agent)? It would seem to me that, even if the fake ID IS copyright-able, the copyright would belong to the forger. (Remember, the CC license exists because authors have copyright whether they want it or not.) I DOUBT any forger would be stupid enough to draw up a contract transferring the copyright of the illegal fake ID to the customer, since that would be an admission of guilt to a crime. So, it would seem to me that either A) the girl forged the ID herself (a far greater offense than mere possession and attempted use) or B) she misrepresented the copyright status of her DMCA takedown notice. Pretty darned stupid.
To clarify: I have no doubt that Rachel Hyman is legally in the right here. But taunting and publicly humiliating people (who know where you work and who by definition aren't the greatest respecters of the law) is just begging for much worse trouble than she wound up catching.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Public shaming is perfectly legal and I think works in general as most people are terrified of being exposed to their peers. It would be the same as if she had a bulletin board behind the bar where she pinned all the fake IDs she got (if she is not legally required to destroy them). She just pinned them up on a REALLY BIG bulletin board...
What? of course it can.
It's absurd to think otherwise. Just because it's a work of fiction doesn't mean it can't be protected under copyright laws.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So, what you're saying is that Ashley Heyer's political career in Iowa is ruined, just because she (a) went underage drinking with a fake ID, (b) tried to retaliate against the bartender who caught her, and (c) left a record of her misdeeds that can't be conveniently snuffed later? Won't this just give Ashley Heyer greater name recognition? Can't she just say, "Hey, I'm Ashley Heyer and I used to be an abusive jerk with poor judgement, but now you should vote for me because I have Agribusiness backing ..." and so on? This is the same Ashley Heyer who was a page in the Iowa legislature? That Ashley Heyer?
Let's analyze this problem step by step.
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. 102.
1. What is original in the driver's license?
The graphics? No. The layout? No. The selection of the fields of data? No. The photograph? Arguably. The data? Arguably.
2. What is original and protectable in the driver's license?
Are photographs protectable? Yes. Is data protectable? No. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
3. Is the reproduction likely to infringe the protectable content?
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. 107.
The purpose and character appears to be criticism, or at least not commercial. The nature of the copyrighted work is at least allegedly a government ID, which does not favor copyrightability by someone other than the government. The amount and substantiality of the portion used is essentially all, which does favor copyrightability. However, the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the photograph is, at least to the best of our knowledge, none, since Google is bereft of interesting content regarding Ms. Ashley Heyer.
The fair use factors balance out somewhere along the lines of 3 against, 1 in favor. There could be a more involved analysis, and there could be ancillary factors for consideration, but if I were the one being faced with this DMCA notice, I would file the counternotice and take my chances.
It's not her job to play Twenty Questions, or Detective, or engage in religious profiling. Apparently the girl is from a "mostly Jewish" neighborhood, and while Jewish law prohibits desecration of a dead body, that does not mean someone from a "mostly Jewish" town WOULDN'T be an organ donor. Maybe their parents were Jewish, and they're agnostic, for fuck's sake. Why should someone have to explain all that to get a beer?
actually, most rabbinical authorities are totally cool with organ donation anyways as saving a life is a bigger mitzvah than avoiding 'desecrating' a dead body.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
This might differ state to state, but I doubt. Through the miralce of the interweb:
This comes from Virginia, and a quick search showed similar laws in NC and CA. It is illegal to own a fake ID, regardless of your intentions.
This guy must be drunk to think this would work.
The girl should just have claimed that the ID wasn't hers, and have filed a libel suit. She is accused of committing a crime without having had a fair trial, so it is ridiculous that she is publicly named and shamed for it.
Dear sir,
I am writing to confirm I have recived your DMCA take down notice. It is my position at this time that the document your take down notice referenced is not protected by copyright. I wish to be in full compliance with all laws and desire to respect the property of others. If you feel my assesment of your rights to this document is infact in error please contact me to discuss the matter in greater detail. I am sure we can reach a mutally agreeable resolution.
PS.
Just as an FYI you may be asked to appear in court in the near future. I casually mentioned the situation to somone at the prosecutors office they mumbled something about forgery and uttering charges and asked me to send the origial documents to them. I did so because its a bad idea to make those people upset. I tell you this in case you would like to contact them about recovering your original media incase you thing it will be helpful for our discussion.
Sincerly,
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
AFAIK it's illegal to reproduce / publish images of money and i suppose the same goes for IDcards.
Privacy is terrorism.
These people are about as stupid as you can get.
They are just mad because they got caught breaing the law and now have to suffer the consequences of their own bad decisions.
If people were able to hold copyrights on works that they forged or counterfeited, then everyone who copied a DVD or CD would then become the copyright holder of works that some other entity created.
The morons are just like the criminals who hurt themselves, or are hurt by the people that they are violating, in the commission of their crime(s) and feel that they should be compensated for the troubles they had to endure while committing their crimes.
Only in California do criminals get to have rights *while* they commit their crimes. I guess it's starting to infect New York as well.....
Pathetic.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
if there is a giant copyright letter c on the fake ID. Maybe it would be justified then.
This is why we need Real ID. Think of the poor bartenders.
this chick sounds like a real bitch
A better question is whether or not the person is admitting to committing FRAUD by stating that they are the owner of the fake ID.
Google Michael Crook for an object lesson.
That's really not fair. Especially as other people with the same name are going to now be tarnished by the same Google brush.
Not to be a dick, but that statute contradicts you. They all explain a fraudulent use of a fake ID, that of representing yourself as someone you are not. The title of the section is even "Fraudulent use of" and not "possession of". The line that's throwing you off is the last one because it says "possess" but that section is defining the penalties and is not intended to reiterate the offenses themselves,.
Think about it. How would Hollywood function? They need fake IDs for movie and TV all the time. Good ones that would look just like the real thing in a close up shot. Are you saying that the prop guy would be committing a crime if he carried that around with him on a movie set in Virginia? No, clearly not because he's not using it for fraudulent purposes.
Around here, the 'pouring license' is a personal license for the bartender, separate from the establishment's alcohol sales license. in the same vein as other trade/craft licenses (e.g. barber's, driver's).
Because the illegal document would be illegal because its likeness is already copyrighted by someone else. So the US Mint would be able to issue a takedown, but not the person that made the illegal forgery of the US $13 bill. Well that assumes that the only scenarios where a document is illegal is when that document would also violate copyright. I'm not sure that a $13 bill would be copyrighted by the US mint if it was sufficiently different from normal money (it wouldn't be a very good forgery of course), either way I'm sure there are other possible examples I just want to point out that a document being illegal doesn't necessarily imply the lack of a copyright.
I stole this Sig
Blogspot should ignore the takedown notice. The DMCA covers digital content, not digital reproductions of non-digital content. Further, it's not clear that any access-control technology was circumvented in the process.
...when you get a fake idea, get one with a fake name.
Let me start off by saying I look young. Really young, I'm well into my mid-30's and I can pass for a 15-year-old (I'm tall, just really young looking).
My driver's license doesn't work because it's all beat to hell. The mag stripe won't read and the bar code won't scan. People sometimes think it's fake because of this but it isn't. If this blogger confiscated my ID (which I believe is illegal in most states) and posted on a blog about it I would be pissed. I would be pissed because it has my real contact information and it's a real ID.
She shouldn't be posting the fake ID's anyway. She shouldn't have possession of them herself... Besides the fact they could have someone else's real information on them, who's to say she didn't create them?
Gather up some young looking 21 year olds, throw a bit of lcd protector film or somesuch on their ids to make them look tampered with and get this bitch thrown in jail when she steals valid id.
No. The DMCA would not apply. Not for this. Firstly, the fake ID does not rise to the level of creativity necessary to be copyrighted. Secondly, although the photo may be copyright (by the person who took it!) this would not really apply if it were a DMV photo. Third, as a corrupt instrument and evidence of a crime, copyright doesn't even come into it.
Maybe not 100% orthagonal to what you're talking about, but it seems like an open-and-shut unclean hands defense.
Ashley's DMCA notice only claims infringement on the photo and the signature. At this point, nothing except Rachel's testimony would verify that Ashley was even in possession of the ID. Hell, for that matter, maybe Rachel made the picture of the ID herself. All that the take-down notice claims is that Rachel posted Ashley's photo and signature without her permission.
It should. But then slashdot would vanish in a puff of logic.
She should have called the police to come out there to give the fake id to the police.
"...if such a thing even exists..."
Counterfeit money, stocks, bonds, etc.
No it (my previous post) shouldn't (state that). making invalid claims isn't illegal, unless you're under oath or a few other specific things. IE - claiming you're a police officer, etc.
Interesting points for sure. So, when did she confiscate your fake ID?
It is a little more complicated than that. From judiasm.about.com, a known chalachic authority:
"Organ donation is permitted in the case when an organ is needed for a specific, immediate transplant. In such a case, it is a great mitzvah for a Jew to donate organs to save another person's life. Organ donation is not necessarily limited to dead people: Someone who can afford to spare a kidney, for example, may donate one to someone in need.
Yet in consideration of the prohibition against desecrating the body, it is forbidden to simply donate to an "organ bank," where there is no specific, immediate recipient. Furthermore, for general medical research or for students to practice in medical school, a Jew is not permitted to donate organs.
Even when there is a specific, immediate transplant, you need to be careful, because oftentimes in order to obtain organs as fresh as possible, a doctor will remove the organ before the patient is actually "dead" according to Jewish law. The doctor is therefore effectively killing the patient, which is of course forbidden.
The bottom line is that each case comes with its own myriad of detailed halachic factors. So before gong ahead with any procedure, you need to consult with a rabbi well-versed in Talmud and Jewish law. It is clearly not as simple as blankly signing an organ donation card."
And to the parent of the post who accuses the bartender of "religiously profiling" a jewish kid who was using a fake id and giving him an earful...I would have too. Thats why Jewish people do, look after each other, and make sure that each member of the tribe know that stepping out of line is a shame to the whole community.
t's not her job to play Twenty Questions, or Detective, or engage in religious profiling. Apparently the girl is from a "mostly Jewish" neighborhood, and while Jewish law prohibits desecration of a dead body, that does not mean someone from a "mostly Jewish" town WOULDN'T be an organ donor. Maybe their parents were Jewish, and they're agnostic, for fuck's sake. Why should someone have to explain all that to get a beer?
You know, I don't have a real problem with this. She can get into trouble for selling to an underaged girl. She has every right to refuse for just about any reason and so the detective work actually gives the patron a chance to prove they are the right age.
Bragging about it on her blog is another matter.
Hi I'm Mark. I've been a slash dot reader since slash dot radio on the sync in the 90s. I am friends with the ID owner. I told her since she owned the copyright to the picture and signature on the card that she could invoke the DMCA. Rachel seems to be under the impression that the card holder is claiming ownership to the card which she is not,just the image and the signature. I think the DMCA is a awful law, but it is the law. I see this as activism to illustrate how bad the DMCA is. But I must say it feels good to use a law purchased by large corporate interests for personal use.
-1, Wrong.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Her job includes limiting the bar's liabilities by not allowing underage drinking. This occurs in the bar, not on the internet. She is persecuting these kids with her self-righteous ambitions. Ashley just wanted to drink in peace, then Rachel justifiably screws her by confiscating the ID. Rachel goes too far when she assembles Ashley's personal information, and attacks her politically and morally in public. Is she advancing some social function, or just being a hater type bitch? Rachel should apologize.
Looking for my cookie...
Wouldn't the Unclean Hands Doctrine apply to this case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands
But do all Jews follow this guidance? I mean I have a friend from Israel, who loves this country because bacon is so readily available, and she's blase about a few other Jewish laws as well.
From the blog (the cached copy on google of course):
You jumped to the rescue with, it's the new Maryland ID, and I said, no, it's the old one. I have the new one. You can't drink here, darling, and I'm keeping your ID.
The image was not just the picture of the fake ID holder, it was of the entire ID. The bartender clearly recognized the ID as a previous-issue Maryland state ID, and whether it was created from scratch or not, it was presented as an official ID issued by the state of Maryland. Since the user presented it as official, I would think that any lawyer could easily beat her on the mere grounds that the fake ID holder waived any right to copyright by claiming it was an officially issued ID.
I haven't read a comment yet that puts the finger on the exact problem here:
DCMA is flawed. The proof is that it has been abused by a non-governmental entity to force someone to do something with the full weight of the legal system behind it but without having to go before a judge.
Here is the smoking gun.
-Eldurbarn
Dear everybody who thinks the perpetrator should burn for her mistake.
Obviously, since this person has tried to use a fake ID to purchase alcohol they are underage. Assuming she is underage I would have to sit and think back to all of the stupid things I did when I was a kid. Not only the things I did, but the things my friends did and as I think about it every underage person does.
I'm going to draw an extreme parallel here and liken it to the sex offenders list. A 17 year old kid gets ruined for life because he had sex with his 16 year old girl friend. While this isn't a sex offenders list, it is a similar situation. This girl is facing some serious damage to her future. Sure, she should learn from her mistake. But should the rest of her life be completely ruined because of something she did before she was a full fledged adult?
Can everyone just chill out? She made a mistake, slap her on the wrist and lets get on with life. Kids will be kids, and everyone here wishing that the rest of her life is ruined for this should probably take a step back and look at what they've done throughout their childhood.
The only difference growing up now is that we live in an age where everything goes public on Google, unfortunate for the young people growing up who will be faced with everything they ever do being available on a search engine.
Bollocks. The passing of such documents as legit ID is probably outlawed, but (unless I've very much misread your first amendment) the production of them (obviously, for educational purposes only ;-)) is entirely legit and if you produce a new one you own the copyright. To claim that you can't own the copyright because it's based on a template is to deny copyright to an awful lot of people who use Microsoft Office templates....
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
The short answer is Yes.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
If the fake ID had a photograph in it (I couldn't ascertain whether it did or didn't from the article) then, regardless of the entire document being illegal, or the document being derivative of the us government's original document template, the photograph would be copyright (it may have originally been taken for a purpose other than for inclusion in an illegal document), so, IANAL, but it seems like a DMCA takedown would be legit if it was regarding the reproduction of that photo without permission (not that I consider the DMCA to be legit).
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
No, copyright doesn't care about such things. So long as a work is an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, it is copyrightable. There are some exceptions, but none hinge on whether the work is illegal to use or possess for some other reason.
The reason why this fake ID is likely uncopyrightable is because it lacks originality, being copied from a preexisting work (i.e. a legitimate ID). There might be slight differences, but they wouldn't be likely to support copyrightability.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I used to be manager in the World Famous Barnton Bar & Bistro - as featured on Irvine Welsh's cups - http://www.thebistro.co.uk/index.htm (Pure rubbish website now). From Thursday through to Saturday staff general carded people who they suspected were under 18 years old - that's the legal drinking age in Scotland and the UK. We didn't systematically card everyone because with over 400 people throught the doors in the space of a few hours it just isn't practical. It is illegal in Scotland for a member of staff to serve alcohol to anyone under-age and they can be fined.
It is easy to spot the under age drinkers, here are just six red flags:
1 They don't look around - regular punters always check out the pub because surprising as it is, most people come to the pub for the social aspect and like to see who is in. It is not unusual for a group of woman to come in look around and then immediately leave because there is a lack of male totty.
2. They try to find a seat immediately, preferably down the back or as far away from the bar as people. This is so the youngest of them can attempt to hide in the dark and they can have a committee meeting to decide who looks the oldest and is going for the round (for non-UK residents this is the special social custom of buying all the drinks in rotation). Most regular punters usually try to get served first (well, that's the third reason they came in!) and prefer to worry about a seat afterwards and anyway - you can always just stand near the bar, that's how you meet people!
3. Before smoking was made illegal they always either smoked at the bar or lit a cigarette as they were about to be served. Regular punters simply never did this, even the lowest drunken old bum never did this, they waited until they had secured their drink and then they lit cigarette. Regular punters who actually had a cigarette in their hand when they went to buy their round (to fulfill the complex anthropological necessities of doing this sometimes you have to quickly buy an extra drink for a new arrival just as you are settling down.) would make a great effort to hide the cigarette - not blow it in your face.
4. Behave as if you had roundly insulted them when you ask for their id. Real people who are the legal age are always very amused and smug whenever they are asked for their id and give it willingly and with great enthusiasm. One particulary short and baby-faced student who was actually 25 was always amused when asked for his ID - and boy did he have ID!
5. Avoid eye contact or use inappropriate eye contact. Under agers are always tempted to address their inner child during this stressful trial and find it difficult not to look down or in attempt to overcome this desire, stare straight at you like a mad wookie.
6. Pick the wrong gender of staff for the wrong reasons on the wrong night. Friday night is the end of the week and the traditional night for most customers to be engaged in the search for a sexual partner (...eh your all still with me...? Okay.) This means that women want to be served by the most attractive man behind the bar and men want to be served by the most attractive woman, at the very least you understand, it's practice. Gay men and women do the same thing but obviously with the same sex and if you are wondering how to tell the difference, perhaps you need to get out more. Saturday is for getting drunk, since you may as well console yourself at not having sex the previous evening, so you are not interested in which member of staff serves you.
So Ashley Heyer failed on number 4. And now she's the talk of slashdot. Paris Hilton, eat your heart out... at least until 5th June!
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
It's not her job to play Twenty Questions, or Detective, or engage in religious profiling. Apparently the girl is from a "mostly Jewish" neighborhood, and while Jewish law prohibits desecration of a dead body, that does not mean someone from a "mostly Jewish" town WOULDN'T be an organ donor. Maybe their parents were Jewish, and they're agnostic, for fuck's sake. Why should someone have to explain all that to get a beer?
Actually, it is her job to do whatever it takes to identify a fake ID. Yes, it's not impossible for someone from a mostly Jewish neighborhood to be an organ donor, but it is definitely sufficient cause to scrutinize the ID further.
Confiscating a license, or any other ID, is a great way to end up in a heap of trouble unless it is specifically allowed in your jurisdiction (which it is, in many cases. But stupid if it's not.) The right way: take the ID, walk to the office, call the cops. Wrong way: taunt her, make fun of her, and NOT call the cops.
I haven't heard of a place where it's not. Any bar I've been to has notices up that they will confiscate fake ID's. In most cases it's not only allowed, but required that a bar confiscate fake ID's. And we have no data to suggest that the blogger didn't call the police, or at least notify them in the required fashion. It's perfectly possible (and indeed most likely) that once she has a photo of the fake ID, she turns the fakes in to the proper authorities or otherwise disposes of them in accordance with the local regulations.
Posting people's IDs, forged or not, is a great example of spitting into the wind. The state is probably not terribly pleased at seeing examples of counterfeit documents posted, and if it turns out it IS a legitimate ID, now you're doubly fucked, because you just confiscated a valid ID, provided proof, AND copied an official state document, AND posted private information. If the forged ID came from a ring, they're going to be pissed their ID made it onto the net. The girl, her parents, friends, etc are going to be pissed too.That's a great way to wake up one morning and find your tires slashed and a rock through your windshield. Lose, lose, lose situation. And for what? Some attention-whoring on the 'net....
And what arm of the state do you work for to know that the state doesn't want the examples published? Valid ID's are not confiscated, no-one is going to leave their valid ID behind at a bar. In the case of her taking a valid ID, the owner would challenge her, she'd call the police, the police would verify the ID, and she'd be embarassed. But she wouldn't end up posting the valid ID. As for copying a state document, that's not illegal. I have a copy of my auto title sitting at home and another in my safe deposit box; when you apply for a loan, the bank makes a copy of your driver's license; when you test drive a car, the dealership makes a copy of your driver's license. Making a copy of it is not illegal. The only private information would be if the person had a SSN on the license, and most states do not have that. Even then it's a grey area at best.
As for your comments about a "ring" getting pissed or about the criminal's (yes, a person using a fake ID is a criminal) family or the criminal themself getting pissed, that's a wonderful sentiment. Let's not take effective measures to shame people because we're afraid that they might be mean to us if we hurt their feelings. Sheesh. George Carlin was right about the pussification of America.
The driver's license calculators worked to verify that the numbers on two of the IDs posted on Rachel's blog don't match the information on those IDs. Some of the numbers are close, but still completely off. If there's a cached version of the ID that prompted the DMCA abuse, I'd run the information through the Maryland calculator and see how they match up.
It may not be like running the ID through LEIN, but if that calculator spits out a completely different driver's license number based on the information, my hat goes off to Rachel, even if it is kind of a bitch move to post these things on the Internet. If the generated number matches, either the girl was also using that calculator (unlikely -- the Michigan and Florida fake IDs on her blog don't match the generated numbers), or the bartender was overzealous and confiscated a genuine ID. The latter is probably just as unlikely; I'd gladly wait for the cops to arrive, run my license, tell the bartender I really am old enough and hopefully get at least one drink on the house for the embarassment.
Burp Castle.2 157594523182264/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/laughingsquid/sets/7
"The Bitches Flickr"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rachelhyman/
Looks like my kind of place. I will very likely avoid it now, because this woman goes out of her way to be an asshole.
I can say that because she not only participates in a system she thinks is wrong, she revels in it and thinks that's clever. Don't take my word for it, read her blog for yourself:
The message is contradictory as most flaky stories are. She claims she takes IDs out of fear of the law but then tells us that she would tell the same people to piss off anyway.
Neither of those reasons justify the extra defamatory steps she then takes. She looks up her victims and publishes enough details to leave no question as to who the victim was, then adds further "hilarious" insult. Why? All because the victim thought Rachel's bar would be a nice place to have a drink. I wonder if her boss knows what she's been up to.
Rachel, here's a big Fuck You with your name on it. New York is a depressing place because of people like you. The odd mix of hopelessness, servility, arrogance and cruelty is a terrible thing to behold and exasperating to deal with. The only thing more depressing is to see one of these fish out of water. In any other environment, away from the hype, pressure, money and bullshit, no one understands and the behavior is exposed for what it is. It's not clever, it's not funny, it's just craven, cruel, and stupid.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You've gotta be pretty stupid to try and get served at a bar with a fake ID, but when some kid does, this lady's response is to... steal it? And then post their picture and personal information online? And then ignore requests to take that information down? And then, wtf, research their family's political contributions? And then talk shit about their college, for some reason? Questionable use the DMCA sort of pales in comparison to what a crazy bitch stalker this woman is.
If the blogger took the photo of the fake ID, she owns the copyright to the photograph. The question then is what can she do with the photo since it may contain a copyrighted piece of work (the actual ID). If you consider publishing in the blog to be editorial use; then she can publish the photo (she owns the copyright) and editorial use does not require permission from the subject to publish.
That does not mean she can use the photo to damage the subject without risk of a lawsuit; but that is seperate from can she publish.
OTOH; anyone can attempt to use a law to achieve their goals.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
DMCA questions aside - what gives the bartender the right to confiscate an ID she thinks is fake, then post it on the Internet? Not forgetting that now she's in possession of illegal property, she doesn't have the right to "play cop" with every young-looking kid who comes up there looking for a drink. I'm not defending the person who made the fake ID, I just see this kind of "vigilante justice" as an invasion of privacy, without warrant, that ends up going nowhere. The bartender should be fired for this.
Photo is an artistic work, it is copyrightable.
I'm glad I don't have her lawyers.
The better layer is to use a photo owned by someone who is not the fake ID holder.
If I grant Bob a license to 1 copy of my photo he could use it in any way he wants. Taking his ID would not give you a license to use it.
If you want to bust them, take your own photo when they come in your bar.
I personally think this woman is quite the idiot for posting forged IDs on her site. I hope her blog gets axed by the Gov via the DCMA. Serves her right.
rachel hymen? what the hell sort of name is that??
Actually, it is her job to do whatever it takes to identify a fake ID.
No, it isn't. She's tasked with identifying whether it is a fake ID or not, which is done simply by examining the ID itself for relevant seals, holograms, and stamps. It's not rocket science. The exception are IDs issued fraudulently (ie by corrupt registry officials), in which case, she/the bar probably aren't liable, since they have little way of knowing it's fake. She has absolutely no excuse for engaging in (as it turns out, completely invalid) "logical" religious profiling to decide whether or not to serve customers.
And we have no data to suggest that the blogger didn't call the police, or at least notify them in the required fashion. It's perfectly possible (and indeed most likely) that once she has a photo of the fake ID, she turns the fakes in to the proper authorities or otherwise disposes of them in accordance with the local regulations.
So she takes the ID, runs back to her locker, scans the license, calls the police, and then hands over the fake ID to the cops? Riiiiiiiight.
If she had called the cops, she wouldn't have the ID, because they'd collect it as evidence. It's pretty safe to assume that she has never called the cops for any of the IDs she's posted online.
As for your comments about a "ring" getting pissed or about the criminal's (yes, a person using a fake ID is a criminal) family or the criminal themself getting pissed, that's a wonderful sentiment. Let's not take effective measures to shame people because we're afraid that they might be mean to us if we hurt their feelings.
How is it "effective measures" to not call the cops? Hell, if the DA gets wind of this and isn't in a very good mood, she could find herself (or the place she works at) under scrutiny for NOT calling the cops; they're probably required to do so by state law or liquor license stipulations.
It's laughable logic to say that posting scans of illegal IDs is more justifiable than simply reporting it to the police.
Please help metamoderate.
Unclean hands is an equitable doctrine which deals with specific kinds of remedies, it does not deal with the underlying legality. Specifically, it does not address whether the material is subject to copyright.
Further, a link to an unsourced (though, from a quick skim, mostly accurate) Wikipedia page is probably not the kind of citation that was being asked for.
So I think you are, for those reasons, entitled to no cookie. But nice try.
Now, I have a whitelist for cookies, and I haven't whitelisted you, yet. Can you send me the cookie via
I think you need to go read the articles again, I never got the impression that she actually said all that to the girl, but that she was posting about her own mental thought processes as to why the girl's answer as to where she was from just set off yet more alarm bells about the ID being fake. In that context it's perfectly reasonable, she already had reason to suspect the ID was fake, and the other information the girl provided was at best suspect. Seeing as her job is on the line if she accepts a fake ID she's going to err on the side of caution (for herself) and find that the possible, but not very likely, situation of her being a non-Jewish person from the area is most likely not the case here.
And now you've failed today's reading comprehension test completely. In the article from the first link she says "I've been informed that I'm required to do this." about confiscating the licenses. She doesn't say who has informed her but in context it's pretty clear her boss(es) were the ones who told her. Others in the comments have pointed out that it is indeed the law in New York that fake licenses are to be confiscated. And she didn't taunt her at the bar, she questioned her briefly, found her answers to be unlikely to be true and confiscated the ID and told her "You can't drink here, darling, and I'm keeping your ID." (That's from the cached copy in the second link.)
She apparently does this regularly and hasn't had a rock through her windshield or tires slashed yet. She's had a bunch of people commit mild identity theft over this one post, just ONE out of who knows how many mind you. And why is that occurring? Because the girl who used the fake ID is stirring up attention. Now, tell me, who exactly is "attention-whoring on the 'net" here? The bartender, or the girl who tried to use a fake ID and got busted? Looks to me like it's the latter, and she's even upping her crime level from presenting a fake ID to admitting she MADE the ID to filing a false DMCA report, etc.
If you'd bothered to research any at all and find out that it is indeed the law for fake IDs to be confiscated in New York you'd know that there isn't any question that the ID was fake at this point. If it had been all it would have taken is a quick visit to the police and they would have come to the club and got the girl's license back that night. Before the bartender went home with it. Before it got posted online. But that did
Fake ID Gestapo. What should be confiscated is her mom's shitty art.
... is where, after posting some personal information about someone on the Internet, Ms. Hyman complains that:
I had been subscribed to some wild internet sites, and a few magazines too. Identity theft is a big deal kids.
Which is of course only possible because she posted her own personal information (her e-mail address) on the Internet.
I wonder whether Ms. Hyman will ever realize that actions such as posting personal information about someone else on the Internet against their will can also "have consequences"? Based on the tone of her latest blog entry, I'm not sure that she quite gets that.
As a side note, I live in NYC. Anyone know which bar she works at, exactly? Or could posting that information on this blog potentially have unpleasant consequences?
From http://www.politicalforecast.net/2006/04/15/is-the -cietc-scandal-over-lundby-vaudt-say-no/
t icle?AID=/20060415/NEWS10/604150338/1001/RSS01
"...at least this year's pages are going to have an experience to remember, especially my friend Ashley Heyer. She's a page in the House and loves it, from what I hear. Check out this nice little story on this year's Legislative pages in the Register." http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar
Wow!
Looks like Ashley's got some Republican friends up there in the House that cooked up a nice ID!
by that standard, the fan videos taken down in the great gootube purge orchestrated by viacom fall under the same concept as a forged ID. Fair Use/ Derivative USe
Unless there is a specific law saying they can't, it's covered by copyright law.
Here's a silly example:
Say I make a fake ID for use in a movie. No question that the fake ID is copyrighted by me. Now suppose one of the 20 year old prop guys steals it and uses it to get into a bar and it's confiscated and put up on a website. I issue a DMCA takedown notice. I'm within my rights to do so.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
So wait you say that if someone can tell that the ID is false when presented and they serve the person presenting the ID alcohol and that person turns out to be underage then neither the server nor the establishment is liable? I think not. Since it is obvious that she could tell that the ID was invalid she would in fact be liable if she served the underage person. As for your assertion that people trying to get around the law should somehow be respected because "we all had to go through it why make it worse for those younger," how does that makes sense? The person was breaking the law, as the server the only thing they can do is not serve the person and try and make sure that that person doesn't try and screw over anyone else.
Posting the fake ID is fair use as it serves the public interest to alert others and uphold the law.
The ID (if it's any good!) is an infringing copy of an ID itself. Thus no copyright can be granted except for any original portion of the work; otherwise you could legally steal copyright by copying something. A simple "passport photo" (small portrait shot used on ID documents) is not likely to have enough about it to be deemed an artistic work. So the entire thing is void of copyright except for infringing the designer of the ID document format it was copied from.
>>>> It's laughable logic to say that posting scans of illegal IDs is more justifiable than simply reporting it to the police.
But but but.. if she did that.. she'd just be doing what she claims to be doing, trying to put an end to the EVVILLSSS of UNDDERRAGGEE DRINKING. And then nothing. You don't get on Oprah by doing the little things that matter, eh.
This way she gets trophies and praise from busybody windbags and her fellow little people.
YAY FOR HER! YOU GO GIRL! I certainly hope the cops catch whoever typed your email address into some forms. That is, *if* you decide to call them. Which I somehow doubt.
Does this make you feel powerful? Stupid bitch.
I think someone needs to call her daddy, Bradley Heyer or Iowa at (515) 964-8474 and let him know that his daughter Ashley Heyer has been a bad girl. The phone number was pulled from the public records located on google.
- fake-ids.html is all just for you and your friends out there. You should read it and gain some insight.
w ww.rachelhyman.blogspot.com/+ashley+heyer&hl=en&ct =clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a
I find the stupidest thing of all was admitting that it was her own ID. It is a federal offense to produce fake ID's. As far as I know that Patriot Act makes fake ID's akin to a terrorist plot.
Well Ashley, the article that was submitted at http://rachelhyman.blogspot.com/2007/05/regarding
Just for google's erm, giggles.. though, I would like to re-add the cached page http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:jirEhYabN6wJ:
When she let her swimming cap be auctioned off after the 2000 Olympics, friends of mine wondered how much a piece of latex with Hymen on it would sell for...
That seems like a sound policy to me. So now the only question is whether it's righteous for her to post the fake IDs on her website. I doubt there's a law against it, and since these people don't see anything wrong with putting her job in jeopardy, I think she's got the moral high ground.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
http://nyu.facebook.com/s.php?q=Ashley+Heyer
Not if we make it specific that it was Ashley Heyer, who went to high school in Iowa, whose father, Bradley, donated 125$ to a campaign for Iowa State House representative, republican, Carmine Boal. An Ashley Heyer who was a page at the Iowa State House for a bit and grew up on 3601 NW 92nd Place-- in Polk City IA 50226.
That should really narrow it down.
What would be "1984"ish* would be if you were not allowed to know what was illegal, if you were not allowed to dispose of an illegal substance as soon as you reasonably should have realized it was illegal, or if the government could declare something patently illegal without basing their law on one of the state's democratic realms of authority.
(Yes, Judges can and do throw out laws that are not in keeping with a legislature's constitutional authority. This is not judges making law; this is judges throwing out laws, which is fundamentally something different.)
(*: George Orwell wrote a good number of books OTHER than 1984, most of which got his point across in a far better manner. Hence the lowercasing of his name in the first instance, and the substitution of a more accurate term in the second.)
Posting the documents with personally identifiable nonpublic information on it enables and encourages identity theft of the depicted individuals. She is hanging herself and her bar out for a super major lawsuit.
If I owned that bar, I'd fire her on the spot, just for the amazingly stupid liability problem she created. What an idiot.
Note that work can't be copyrighted, only the expressive portion of a work. The famous example is a phone book: the font, page layout, and illustrations are protected under copyright, but the actual data is not.
I'd have to see the fake ID, but usually the goal with a fake ID is to have as little uniquely expressive quality as possible.
The ______ Agenda
what are they gonna do? sue? yeah right..
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
If you're in the military, you can buy and consume alcohol, but only at a military base. Try again.
How about 18 being considered a legal adult, the "right" to stand trial as an adult, the right to vote, to duty to enlist in the selective service if you're male, to enter into any legal arrangement and have it considered binding, to appear in or purchase pornography.. the list goes on.
True story -- I was in court on day answering a minor traffic violation, and as usual in this jurisdiction (Atlanta) you have to wait around in the courtroom for an hour watching others plead their case until yours comes up. So, I'm sitting there bored out of my skull and the judge calls up the next case, an 18 year old girl who was being charged with consumption by a minor. No DUI, no drugs, apparently just some girl that got busted at a party with a beer in hand.
As is often the case with high school kids she had her parents with her, who also went up to the bench and acted as moral support, I guess. The judge asked her something -- I couldn't hear what -- and the girl's father started to answer. The judge said -- and I'll never forget these words -- "Sir, I appreciate the concern of the family, but legally speaking she's an adult, so this has to come from her."
Legally speaking she is an adult, says this judge, probably not once stopping to consider the irony of enforcing a law which says she's too young and stupid to handle a couple of drinks. Absolutely idiotic.
It's just one of many moronic laws and statutes on the books, and if the authorities are ever wondering why hardly anyone respects the laws or the enforcers, they might want to start with BS like this.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Yes, but if you post the illegal document, anyone can send a DMCA complaint to your hosting and have it taken down to shut you up.
Say this was a politician who was living under a false ID. Maybe he was really a criminal before he moved into town. You find this out and post a picture of his new and old ids on your website to prove it. He sends a DMCA complaint to take it down. Let's say this is the only way you are able to tell anyone (we'll say you are home bound). Nobody will find out for probably at least several days because your host will take down the page and the only way to get it back would be to sign a document stating you really own the copyright. However you don't, so you go to jail for perjury. And so on...
This is a problem, don't you think?
So tell me... where does pure "art" come into play? Let alone photography or photographers? Don't give me the "they couldn't forsee photographers" bit, cause they surely could foresee painters, and they didn't mention them while explicitly mentioning the other professions.
The use of "authors" seems to imply creative writing, but I wonder if they didn't simply mean the writers of instructional books like "a guide to the production of lead bullets" or "how to pack a cartridge." My educated guess would be that the intent of "useful arts" would be things like metalsmithing, carpenty, etc. The kinds of things that had economic use, not just aesthetic.
Regardless, how would photographs fit into either a strict-text or intent-based reading of the Constitution? The best I can figure would be a really, really loose reasonable-construction test. But hell, I think the process for forging licenses would be more of a "useful art" than any individual mug shot, so how would the photo be more copyright-able than the license itself?
With all the discussion about whether or not you can copyright a forgery, I'm more concerned for the information contained on the legit ID/forged ID itself. We can see they contain a name, address, birth date, driver's license #, physical description, photo, and signature.
Leaving aside the possibility that it is a valid ID, let's look at a hypothetical-- say only the picture has been forged. Say a legit ID was stolen/copied and someone slapped their face (or the face of someone else) on it. Or maybe it's an innocent "borrowed" big brother's ID or a picture with a similar enough face for the scammer to get by. The rest of the info is valid, and now the innocent cardholder has not only had their ID taken, but now their personal info has been posted on the Internet too!
How many of you have been asked for your birthdate, street name, or driver's license in lieu of a password as a kind of phone verification? I've had credit card companies and others do this all the time.
Even assuming the IDs ARE faked, forget shaming- is it not vigilante justice to violate the suspected faker's information online and subject them (or their victims) to an increased likelihood of identity theft? Does this violate state or federal privacy laws?
Just a consideration that occurred to me..
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Raistlin77 writes: Since the user presented it as official, I would think that any lawyer could easily beat her on the mere grounds that the fake ID holder waived any right to copyright by claiming it was an officially issued ID.
Good thing you aren't a lawyer, because that's not the way copyright works. The photograph is subject to copyright. Doesn't matter that it is a "mug shot" as someone above noted, the creator still gets the bundle of rights we call "copyright." "Waiver" of that sort might make it harder for the rightsholder to recover damages in a copyright lawsuit, but it doesn't eliminate the copyright.
Besides, the woman who posted it on her website recognized the ID as fake, which means she knew that the photograph potentially was subject to copyright.
I'd go one better - What percentage of jobs fail to Google names when they hire? It might be difficult to get a job when you are famous for trying to drink underage. She'll have a hell of a time if she wants a job anywhere that wants responsible employees. She ruined her own life, and I'm only a little sorry.
I'm a concientious
Oh, and one other thing, it doesn't matter that the image was of the entire ID, not just the photograph of the person. The copyrighted material was incorporated.
Now sure, the woman with the website may have had a fair use defense to posting, but that doesn't change the fact that someone owns the copyright on the photograph of the person that was incorporated in that ID.
>Anything the gov't puts out is in the public domain.
In President Clinton's government, the public puts out for your domain.
Sweet Jesus, I love you...
Physical items that are illegal to possess are almost exclusively dangerous in and of themselves or have absolutely no legitimate use.
Physically dangerous.
Class A Drugs, for example, are illegal to have for any reason. Yes, even if they randomly grow as weeds in your very-large back yard.
Medals of Honor and, in some countries, Nazi memorabilia are simply illegal.
It is not illegal to possess a Medal of Honor, nor a replica of one. It is illegal to sell them. Many non-recipients own them through other avenues, such as being willed them. Nazi memorabilia is not illegal in this country, and that's what is relevant here, not the failings of other nations.
Firearms with their serial numbers filed off in the USA. Plutonium just about anywhere.
Patently dangerous and no legitimate use. Patently dangerous.
George Orwell wrote a good number of books OTHER than 1984, most of which got his point across in a far better manner. Hence the lowercasing of his name in the first instance, and the substitution of a more accurate term in the second.)
Doug, you know as well as I have that "Orwellian" has become synonymous with 1984-related concepts. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous. Orwell wrote many books, but we all read 1984 and Animal Farm in high school and none of his other works ever reached nearly their level of fame or social relevance. The reason I use the term here is because outlawing something only because of how it could be used is basically thoughtcrime, and we all know where that concept came from.
To get to the meat of the discussion, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that simply owning a "fake ID" is a crime anywhere, let alone "everywhere". So far one guy tried and I pointed out that he just misread the statutes, they referred to fraudulent use, not mere possession. I give you a simple litmus test. What would Hollywood do? I have seen in plenty of TV and movies, and also at memorabilia shows, identification documents created for characters that would fool most people. Yet Hollywood continues to churn these out and hasn't been shut down for these fake ID factories.
Here's an example right now. You can buy the badge Dan Ackroyd used in the movie Dragnet. This is an exact replica of the badge of the Los Angeles Police Department to this day (as you can see here.. Yet you can freely and legally buy this badge. What you can't do is wave it at someone and make as if you're a cop.
"Oh Kathleen O'Brien.. what terribly unjust irony"
That's not irony - if anybody cares anymore.
I appreciate that she is protecting her job, but I don't think the confiscated licenses should become property for her own amusement. Does this crime deserve to be preserved forever on a blog? It's not as if Rachel represents a government agency. It almost doesn't bother me that the DMCA was used against this person... almost.
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
In the Orthodox movement, the standard is that the donation must be to save a specific person's life. Conservative and Reform rabbis, however, do not universally accept this restriction. Many will interpret the requirement of Pikuach Nefesh to be so tantamount (after all, it supersedes all but three Jewish laws) that donation to an organ bank is indeed permissible, and in fact encouraged.
But I agree that he contention that anyone who is truly from Pikesville would not be an organ donor is ludicrous. I have a good friend who is from Pikesville, she is Jewish, and she is an organ donor.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
But posting this girls full name and home address seems a little excessive doesn't it? Seems to me like shes publicly shaming someone who hasn't actually been accused(by a rightful party and not a goofy bartender)of committing a crime. I imagine if this girl's daddy has enough money they can get her with legitimate charges for libel or something of that nature because even after her blog goes down theres going to be some record of this incident somewhere online forever. But then again I'm not a lawyer but I would be calling one
Since SHE legally confiscated the item, doesn't it now belong to her? Possession is how many tenths?
The protector could be explained away as just that, a protector. Claim that you've had to replace your license in the past due to scratching. I can't imagine there's any law against that, especially if there's no functional difference.
All "citizen arrest" laws I'm aware of only offer protection if the arrestor is *right*. If a security guard apprehends you for suspected shoplifting and can't prove it, you're well within your rights to press assault charges as well as civil action. I imagine the laws with regard to fake ID are the same. Surely bartenders cannot be allowed to forcibly hold someone without a valid reason.
This bitch deserves some comeuppance. I hope there are some New Yorkers out there with enough spine to give it to her.
I checked the NY laws, creation, possession and/or use of a fake ID that looks like a government-issued ID is punishable by up to 7 yrs prison time.
wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3(a)(2)
NY Penal Code Section 170.10 Forgery in the second degree
A person is guilty of forgery in the second degree when, with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is calculated to become or to represent if completed:
3. A written instrument officially issued or created by a public office, public servant or governmental instrumentality;
Forgery in the second degree is a class D felony.
NY Penal Code Section 170.25 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree
A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged instrument of a kind specified in section 170.10.
Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is a class D felony.
As noted by the parent post, a lot of comments below assume she is claiming authorship of the fake ID. She's not. She's only claiming authorship of the photo and signature. I suppose her defense will be that someone stole her photo and created a fake ID without her permission. I'm not sure that story will be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury if she gets charged with forgery.
I wish you the best of luck as you, Ashley Heyer, are "going places". Maybe not the places your daddy dearest told you that you were going, but places nonetheless. In fact, be sure to heft a cold one to yourself, Ashley Heyer, to celebrate not only your underage drinking, but your strongarm tactics in abusing the DMCA to try to get embarrassing information about your use of a fake ID at the wrong bar. I would hate for someone to link some stories to this so Google would put your idiocy at the top of the list. Especially since you seem to have such a promising spot as a page in Iowa's legislative House. Ashley Heyer, consider this a lesson in public relations! Something valuable, I hear, in politics.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I don't think identity thieves are all that concerned with
e .html
copyright law. They are probably mildly distracted by the
"cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching!" sound going through their
minds as they peruse her site though. mother's maiden name,
birthdate... [sound of homer simpson drooling (c)]
http://rachelhyman.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archiv
ROTFLMAO!!
I think you are reading this section wrong:
"protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully."
This relates to lawful right to use the source material in the derivative, *not* the use of the derivative in an unlawful manner (intent to defraud). This clause is there to close a rather obvious loophole that would otherwise allow anyone to copyright derivative works of originals with trivial changes.
Even if the person in question did not have the rights to use the license design / background, then copyright does not extend to the derivative work as a whole (per this section). However, if they did have the rights to the photo used in the first place, the photo in particular still retains those rights.
It is an invalid claim, as no illegal document can be protected in such a manner
Why not? What about the nature of the document makes it impossible to own the copyright on it? Sure, there are aspects of it that have been copied from another source -- the basic form and layout of the ID that has been forged -- but the details are original: the name on it, the date of birth, the photograph, etc.
What an incredibly bad idea. You probably are lying about being a "slash dot reader" (who the fuck would call themselves reading "slash dot" instead of "/." or "slashdot" after reading it for years?), but that's OK, Mr. 7-digit UID. Unfortunately, your friend, Ashley Heyer, was stupid enough to put her real name, her real picture, and her real signature on a fake ID. I don't know about you, but if I was a public prosecutor involved in a "get tough" law-enforcement program to show my fellow voters how I'm serious about protecting kiddies from the evils of underage drinking, I'd start with an easy case where the offender (like Ashley Heyer) is admitting her guilt in using a fake ID to try to buy alcohol.
If she's claiming the fake ID is not hers, then how did her signature, and her photo (which I'm guessing is remarkably similar to the one on her real ID) get on there? Don't tell me, the Magic Fake ID Fairy? I guess it doesn't matter that Ashley Heyer was in possession of the fake ID that somehow wasn't hers, where and from whom did she get it from then? I like how you claimed in another post here, "rachel did serve the underaged girl beer. then the under aged girl served her a DMCA notice." What, so the fake ID miraculously appeared in Ashley Heyer's pocket? Or Ashley Heyer didn't willingly and conscientiously seek to be served an alcoholic beverage using that fake ID at a bar? Regardless of what Rachel did, that seems to be remarkably poor judgement for a page in Iowa's legislature who evidently is aspiring to "go places".
Of course, since Ashley Heyer is a public figure serving the Iowa legislature, it only seems fair that her likeness (if not her signature) is no longer wholly her own. After all, celebrities can't sue the paparazzi for publishing their likenesses, based on that. Why would Ashley Heyer get special treatment in a court of law?
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Here is a link to V.Cerf and B.Kahn's message.
As a personal note, I was on the Internet in 1985, long before most people had heard of it, because I was a cs student at the time, and I was wildly fascinated by its potential. And I remember discussions later with people who worked at developing proprietary data networks for consumer use just before the Internet took off, that they didn't stand a chance. One of my main argument was that U.S. vice president was advocating the Internet every day to US industry and congress.
Nonetheless, like everybody else I laughed at the "Al Gore invented the Internet" claim when I first heard it, considering that I was already on it before Al Gore got involved.
But the more I thought about it, the more his actual quote "[I] took the initiative in creating
the Internet" seems only stupid in one way; Namely that everything a politician says must survive being twisted and presented out of context to people ignorant on the subject. The Internet, as the popular phenomen we know today, was still being created, and and Al Gore definitely took the initiative in doing that. At the time, being locked into competing, closed proprietary networks run by phone companies was a quite likely outcome. Consumers would have the choice of services provided by their phone company, plus a few third party service providers approved by the phone company, and delivering part of their revenue to the phone company. It would have been a safer, duller and much less inventive world.
In fact, I suspect that even if he somehow succeeds in minimizing the rise of the greenhouse effect, his contribution to the creation of the Internet as we know it might dwarf any of his other accomplishments, as well as all the accomplishments of Bill Clinton, measured in the effects on human society. The Internet has transformed society, and is still transforming society. The possibility of instant communication and collaboration between people all over the world has that effect. Much more than a few degrees rise in temperature, and raising water levels.
There's nothing wrong with taunting and humiliating criminals especially criminals who choose to attempt to carry out their criminal activity in your bar putting your business and your livelyhood on the line.
If you're saying that Rachel should keep quiet for fear of reprisals from criminals such as Ashely Heyer then I say you're wrong, people shouldn't let criminals dictate their actions and shouldn't give in to any intimidation Ashley Heyer may decide to organise over this.
So let me just get that all straight in my head.
The Ashley Heyer we're talking about, the Ashely Heyer who's a criminal because she uses faked ID and attempts to buy alcohol even though she is underage is the same Ashley Heyer that lived at 3601 NW 92nd Place-- in Polk City IA 50226.
And this same criminal Ashley Heyer then attempted to conduct a mean spirited and stupid campaign of hatred against the bar tender who was upholding the law and preventing Ashley Heyer from illegally drinking whilst underage. That Ashley Heyer sounds like a total moron to me !
Perhaps that's how we got away with blatant underage drinking then, we didn't do any of the above :-) (Of course in those days, carrying photo id in Britain was rare, so just in case, we always had a borrowed photo-less drivers' license of a friend over 18, and happily handed it over as id. I don't think the bar staff were checking that hard anyway, and the most rigorous thing they ever did was ask what the date of birth or address was on the id, and when borrowed off a good friend you knew that like it was your own personal information anyway).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
A laminated card can't be run through a mag reader. I wasn't proposing people actually tamper with their licenses, just that they make it appear so on casual inspection. Have enough people do it, and soon enough she'll bite and hold the wrong person. Confiscating ID is a form of arrest, as the person really can't leave without it. I'd be shocked to learn that bartenders really have the right to confiscate legitimate ID.
Just as with the shoplifting example, the suspected thief can insist that the cops be called, and they'll be released if they haven't any evidence. And then the rent-a-cop would lose a big chunk of change, as the burden of proof is on them.
However, the DMCA takedown request was not claiming that the forged document was copyrighted. It was claiming that the photograph (and the signature) on that document are copyrighted, but not the document as a whole.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
If you're an underage drinker in the UK all you have to do is find the right pub. I think I would have raised numerous red flags in my youth but through choosing the right bar I always got a drink.
1) The 1st time I was in the bar I was confused by the huge array of beer and asked for a pint with a bit of everything in it - "Er, can I have some of that mild, and er some Bass and some of this one too please ? No, just in the one glass"
2) We would spend numerous nights in the pub once we'd collectively ran out money sharing half a lager between 8 of us and leaving an inexplicable pile of cans on the floor under the table.
3) Celebrating the 18th birthday of various members of our group in fine style in the same bar.
The funniest thing though was on a school camping holiday where we drank in the same bar most nights for 2 weeks, half way through the holiday someone was shouting the police were outside and about to raid the pub so my friend got very nervous ( and was drunk ) and said to the barmaid - "Oh my god, I'm only 16 where can I get out ? Help ! Help !". When he came in the next night and tried to buy a drink from the same bar maid he was very surprised when she refused to serve him. They still let the rest of us buy him drinks though.
Here's the rest of it:
Dear Ashley Heyer,
There was no way you could've known. You had this really astoundingly good Maryland fake ID, and you were on a date with a boy who was over 21 and would show you the world of beer. Except, one hitch, me.
Something seemed wrong. Maybe it was the way the hologram reminded me of iridescent paper I had used once at an art studio, maybe it was how my old Maryland license had a bump where the rather ghetto real hologram was- and yours didn't.
So I asked you for a back-up ID. It was a NYU undergrad ID. Never the fool I asked, where did you go to high school? You replied, actually I went to school in Iowa.
Iowa.
No one from Pikesville goes to school in Iowa. I know, because I went to school with half of Pikesville. It's a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, which would also bring into question that altruistic organ donor choice. And the road, oh Ash, you couldn't have known that only rural or inner city (DC) roads are labeled like that. You definitely couldn't have guessed that I knew the road naming patterns from Pikesville, because I drove home so many kids from my high school, and developers are never creative.
You jumped to the rescue with, it's the new Maryland ID, and I said, no, it's the old one. I have the new one. You can't drink here, darling, and I'm keeping your ID.
But you went to high school in Iowa. Your father, Bradley, donated 125$ to a campaign for Iowa State House representative, republican, Carmine Boal. You were a a page at the Iowa State House for a bit too. You did grow up on 3601 NW 92nd Place-- in Polk City IA 50226.
It does have a very nice photo on it, better than the real Maryland machines take. And you were sweet and sad and smiley, in that friendly Iowa way - even though you're a republican. I'm sure you cursed me when I was out of sight.
Maybe, some day, you'll come back to the castle, when you're 21, with your totally real Iowa ID, and order that glass of Lucifer you so desire. Perhaps we can talk politics for a while. Maybe you'll know how to defend yourself.
Why can a fake ID not be protected? If it's an original work of authorship, fixed in a tangible medium of expression, it's protected by copyright. I don't remember where the DMCA exempts fake IDs or other "illegal documents" as you call them.
Let the games begin, leaning towards a one sided discussion. Even if the identities are fake, there'll be something hopefully that takes all those down.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
However, the girl who tried to use the fake id is no longer in possession of it. It's new owner seems to find it fit for publication.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Isn't this newsworthy, in the Paris Hilton sense, in part because it's about a young, rich little A-hole? Who will be the first to take this story national by exposing the girl in a story in the larger news world?
Leaving her contact info on her site isnt exactly the best thing to do... address | 95 Dobbin St. #218, Brooklyn, NY 11222
i find it most amusing that we are all using google cache to look at the post when it was taken down by blogger a subsidiary of google for 'violating' the dmca lol
People who post, and mock, other's photos on the Net without permission are not the coolest bartenders or the coolest anything on the Net - they're the slime of the Net. I'm not saying the fake-ID kids are much better, but I have no sympathy with this bartender.
Well, if she's the one from Harvard, that can explain a bit about her attitude. If any bit of that information was not part of any public(including misused L/N searches) record that she obtained, even more so.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Of the both of them, artist, Ivy League, and the arrogance that goes into an Ivy, I'd think you might be referring to Rachel.
(odd that the captcha for this was "contempt")
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
A person takes such a document, and alters it. At this point, there is a reasonable claim of the document being a "derivative work".
The person then presents the altered document with the expectation that it will be accepted as the work of said government agency.
Since a real document of this type would be public domain, in presenting the document as if it were real you are effectively declaring it to be public domain.
There might be some basis for argument, if the creator of the modified document is not the person doing the presenting, but only if the creator can argue that he/she had no expectation that the document would be presented as the work of a government agency (Yeah - let's see you get a judge to believe that one...).
IANAL, but this looks reasonably tight to me...
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
By posting these fake IDs, she is educating others who serve alcohol, cigarettes, or work at gaming establishments, as to what the fake IDs look like, and the pictures of people who have tried to use them in the past. She even provided a link to a place that makes fake IDs, which every person in those jobs should look at, download the pictures, and maybe even print them out for reference. I checked out their version for my state, and it looks somewhat like the style we used a few years ago, (on the license I just replaced because it's expiring later this month) but is missing enough details that no bartender or casino employee in this part of the country would be fooled by it.
...or real?
If we were talking about a stolen real ID, then you'd have a point. That isn't what happened here. She knows the difference between a real ID and a fake one. She sees hundreds of IDs a day. You should look at some of the pictures; there are some obvious fakes there, even in a 2-D picture. Given the opportunity to hold the card in my hand and change the angles of viewing and light incidence, I'm pretty sure I'd be able to tell that most of them are fakes even without the experience carding people that she has.But even if it were a stolen real ID, the person identified by the card (not the 'owner', who technically would be the state government) probably wouldn't look like the kid trying to use it. If someone did see their ID on her website, they could contact her and tell her that it was stolen. It would be fairly simple to prove that's what happened, and I'm sure she'd amend her story on that ID to say that it was stolen by a kid who happened to look like the victim.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I do have in-court litigation experience, and I wouldn't want to have to rely on that defence. It doesn't matter how you expect someone to accept the work, copyright is copyright. Duplications can only be made under license (which is pretty clearly not the case here) or fair use (which is probably a better defense, IMO).
http://rachelhyman.blogspot.com/
In all states that I am familiar with, the alcohol vendor is actually required by law to confiscate fake IDs. Since the store owner believed (incorrectly, of course) that your ID was fake, she was required to confiscate it. Had she not confiscated it, she could be fined.
Your recourse, of course, is to call the cops and let them sort the mess out, which you did. Locking yourself in the store was a cute, yet freakish gesture.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Any decent human being has an obligation to protest unjust laws, and the crazy American laws preventing adults from purchasing alcohol certainly qualify.
Does Ashley Heyer own the copyright on her photo? Possibly not. Did she take it herself? If so, then she does. If not, she'd best get that copyright transferred to her from the photographer.
Be that as it may, the blogger's use of Ashley's picture would definitely fall under fair use. It could fall under the category of "News" (Ashley Heyer used this fake ID at such and such an establishment on such and such a date) in which case it would be a permissible use. It could also fall under parody, because if you read what the blogger wrote, you'd see she is definitely parodying your friend Ashley.
Either way, hopefully the blogger will file a counterclaim ASAP. We'll see.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
If it's a legitimate ID, they'd be calling the cops then and there, and she can deal with them (because taking a real driver's license and not giving it back is called theft).
Re: confiscating the license: from other comments, it seems it's her responsibility to take the license.
Posting them on the internet: not so sure it's a good idea, but maybe the idiots who thought putting her job in danger will realise how stupid they were running around with fake ids.
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), hand it to you, and say "This is in the public domain", I have discarded any copyright claim that I may have had to that work.
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), and give it to you with the expectation that you will believe it is public domain, can I still claim that the work is copyrighted?
The creator of a work (or his/her authorized agent) *can* take a copyrighted work, and by certain actions, cause that work to be placed in the public domain. My argument is that by representing the fake ID as a real ID, the person has implicitly done just this.
Note that if I were in this blogger's situation, I *would* consult with an attorney before filing a DMCA counter-notice.
Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
I am a Marine and my wife used to be a bank teller. She knew that if she encountered an ID that was expired or fake, she was to confiscate it. If the person had a problem, she called me and I would drive to her work.
Oddly, people did not wait around to argue when my wife told them that her Marine husband was on the way. Despite the fact that, at the time, it was a five minute drive for me to get there.
Back to the article: Making a statement that a forged ID was your copyrighted work sounds like a great way to save the prosecutor time and the taxpayers money. I am all for people who create forged IDs to make such statements.
Andrew Borntreger
Champion of cinematic disasters
Riiight. You know what, we have good reasons to believe that a legal drinking age of 60 is effective at reducing drinking in adults. Wouldn't that be a boon? (actually, yes, but nobodys givin up the sauce) People that favor regulation just never seem to get enough of it. I think I had about the same mindset at 18 as at 21. Granted, that was "drink and fornicate as much as humanly possible" but nothing the government regulated was going to change that. At 22 I was not fully thinking through the consequences of my actions. Hell I rarely do that now, especially on a drinking night, and im 32!
Sure, I can see the difference developmentally between a 16 year old and a 18 and 21 year old, but also a 25 year old, and a 30 year old, etc. At some point you have to make the fairly arbitrary decision that X age is old enough to have a beer. X age varies from country to country, but in our land of litigation it has ended up at the age of 21, which I think we all know deep down is fairly ridiculous, but then again so many of our laws are. But I digress.
The drinking age as 18 back when I was old enough to drink. I am from new orleans, so I started drinking at about, well, 15 in bars with various fake Ids, mostly ones I made. They got confiscated a couple times by cops over the years, but NEVER, EVER by a bartender. Why? Because bartenders in NOLA typically arent facist cunts like this lady.
Cmon we all drank at that age, or at least try to, its a rite of passage. Remember? Rachel is clearly an oppressive woman that delights in the teeny amount of power given to her as bartender. We run into these people all the time, at the DMV, at the airport, etc. Someone who takes special time out of their life just to make someone else's miserable. She probably also cuts people off when she has decided they have had one too many. She probably loves to throw patrons out of the bar. I for one would never drink at a bar with this wanna-be cop hag serving me $10 and scrutinizing my ID.
Fine, you don't want kids drinking in your bar, very sensible. Throw them the F out. Done. End of story. Dont take thier cards (which were likely hard to get/make), humiliate them, and POST THEIR SHIT ON THE INTERNET!!! Jesus man, talk about a cop. Cops don't even do that. Maybe she could start following them home and telling their parents too! This girl takes it on herself just to go that extra mile to make these kids life miserable. I am glad this girl stuck up for herself and had Rachel remove the ID.
I feel sorry for you, because you so willingly accept the rhetoric of legislation that has been drummed into your head by the likes of MADD. GO FORTH CITIZEN!
you can't ack before you balls.. you just
If I create a work (derivative or otherwise), and give it to you with the expectation that you will believe it is public domain, can I still claim that the work is copyrighted?
Yes, I believe so. You can't make something public domain without explicitly doing so, as I understand it. Of course, you would almost certainly be precluded from being able to claim any damages relating to unauthorised use prior to a cease & desist notice being served, but once that has been done and a reasonable time to react to it has elapsed, I see no reason you wouldn't be able to make such a claim.
I agree. From my perspective, its obvious he was trying to point to his legislative support of the expansion of the internet, but he chose a very bad way to present it. It happens. No, I don't think he deserves to be crucified, and in most contexts people refer to the statement as a joke. The fact that there is so much effort put in to validate what he said and the *wording of what he said* is sort-of baffling to me. Kinda like how Scopes said he didn't claim to invent the internet because he said that he "took the initiative in creating the internet." WTF?
Can we just agree that he chose a really bad way to present his legislative involvement in internet development, laugh about it, and move on?
For a random occasion, I went to buy a cigar from a mini-mart. I'm 22. I don't buy tobacco products generally, so perhaps I looked uncomfortable -- didn't know what I wanted, etc.
The clerk carded me, asked me a bunch of questions (including my age), and then finally called me a liar, said I wasn't old enough.
I get pissed whenever someone calls me a liar. People have a right to ask for ID, and that's not an insult. Taking my valid ID and subsequently calling me a liar is insulting.
I had my US passport in the car, luckily, which I stormed out and retrieve to hand to the formerly-smug clerk.
I asked her, "Do you think I would really forge a passport just to buy a cigar?"
She looked at me in kind of a dumb stupor and accepted my credit card.
Sometimes it just is an insulting process.
It is obvious that the young girl from NYU broke the law but is it necessary to post her father's political affiliations, her full name, and her address on the web. If some crazy psycho or stalker on the internet showed up to that address then who would be held responsible? I know many girls with Facebook or Myspace accounts who had to limit or outright cancel their accounts because of creeps on the net. However, I don't know if that address you posted is her current address or one she just used to live at in Iowa but nonetheless in this digital age of cyber-stalkers and identity thieves that could be useful information for someone intending to break the law. I haven't seen anyone else bring this up; is this a non-issue? I am under 21 and I respect the authority of bars and clubs to refuse admission and confiscate fake ID's but these ID's should be handed over to the proper authorities. I don't think the law says to confiscate IDs so the bar tender can entertain and attract more visitors to his/her blog site by posting it; but if it does then I stand corrected.
Oddly enough, having worked in a similar environment, I can tell you that people with fake ID's don't tend to stick around for the cops to arrive. Also, many times the ID doesn't have the picture of the person presenting the ID.
In the liquor store that I worked in, we kept fake ID and their cash. Don't like it? Call the cops. What are you going to tell them? That I took your fake ID when you were illegally trying to buy alcohol?
BTW, remember that if you are caught selling to an underage person, you get ticketed and a fine and so does the establishment that you work for. And the bonus, the establishment that you work for may get shut down temporarily or permanently.
Not to be a dick, but:
Your desired interpretation is conflicting with the statute.
Careful, you may get a notice for manufacturing a circumvention device with that post!
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
IF she did use a fake ID,
and she made it too (or someone who makes A LOT of fake IDs made it for her),
bust her.
Is Creating false documents to obtain illegal services is a type of fraud?
State and Federal ?
I was in a bar in Olean, New York, and I presented my Delaware driver's license when asked. The bartender said "there's no such state as Delaware!" and chucked my (valid, legal) driver's license into a bin under the bar!
I went over the bar after it, and then I made the bartender call the cops.
The cops weren't amused about any of this, but then, neither was I.
she didn't go to an ivy. did you see her blog where she mentioned going to Boston University?
atleast read something before you make assumptions. maybe one of her friends is hosting that other site.
duh,.
It merely has to be an original work of expression to qualify for copyright protection. So, yeah, a DMCA takedown notice for a fake ID as legally binding as one for Gucci copies.
You mean none of you have heard of Boggs?
No new rights are generated during the course of a crime. Not withstanding that the ID would not stand up to any court's standard of artistic merit, the ID itself (and the picture of Ashley Heyer on it) were created during the course of a violation of federal law. She has neither property right nor copyright.
If I'm not mistaken, a forgery of a federal document is a serious, federal, offense. Carrying a forged federal document is another federal offense. Attempting to use a false ID is another offense. Attempting to use that bogus document to violate a state law is another offense. And i don't even want to think what the patriot act's effect is on this. This dumb, underage cow may end up categorized as a terrorist. All because she wanted to play grownup & sneak into places where adults go. Now, if it was just a blog post, she could have quietly asked the bartender to take it down (in fact the bartender did very reasonably remove her last name). By making a case out of this, she's affirming that she has, indeed, comitted all of the above. How stupid is this girl? She should have crawled away with her tail between her legs--she got caught, she fucked up. If she tried ripping off a convenience store, the owners are within their rights to post a picture of her by the registers. She fucked up! All this talk about her copyright of her picture is bizairre. Where are your heads at?