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?"
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?
There are two errors here:
First, most real (government-issued) IDs are not works of the US government but of state goverments. This is a minor point, but perhaps very tangentially significant since US government works are not subject to copyright on creation but state government works are.
Second, an original work that is derivative of another work is still, insofar as it contains original work, subject to copyright. Now, it may itself be a violation of the copyright of the work on which it is based, but that's an issue between the creator of the original and the creator of the derivative, not something which grants a license to third parties.
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.
Yes, but when you put the picture on a fake ID, said ID (and any image of it) is not copyrighted; it's an (illegal) derivative of a state or national identification and can be posted anywhere for any reason. This just sounds like some rich asshat trying to find a sneaky way around having been caught with an illegal ID.
Actually... as she says, the law (apparently) in NY is that if she doesn't confiscate them, she's liable. I know here in Ohio, barstaff are required to confiscate them as well.
If you actually like the bar, why the hell do you want the staff to pay several thousand dollars so you can have a drink, and why do you want the bar to risk being shut down?
Nephilium
Having false identification in and of itself is a crime in all 50 states of the union. You don't have to even use it. The mere existence of the fake ID is enough. (In some states, you don't even have to have it to be charged with a crime. They just have to prove you wanted one and were capable of obtaining it.)
.sig: Now legally binding!
she did take the picture and the DMCA notice only claimed ownership of the picture in the ID and the signature. see my comment below. I helped her file the DMCA notice.
Well, you can copyright a derivative work, but that right only applies to the content that is, in fact new. Indeed, "Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service" held that information in a pure form (facts) cannot be copyrighted. Therefore, photo notwithstanding, a fake license cannot be copyrighted. As for the photo, it is a mug shot, which is inherently not artistic in nature, and as such, cannot be copyrighted.
Finally, Title 17, Chapter I, Section 113 pretty much takes the wind out of their sails:
(c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
Note: producing the fake ID was done lawfully; that is, the owner of the copyright of the photo gave permission in a legal way for it to be used in the production of the product (the fake ID) which was later offered for sale. What is unlawful is to pass the fake ID, and probably to sell it. There's nothing illegal about producing the article.
So no, that argument probably doesn't pass muster.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
forgery of an official document necessarily infringes on the issuing agency's copyright for the original's graphical design
One cool thing about copyright (in the US): it does not protect the government. Anything the gov't puts out is in the public domain.
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.