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?"

Comments

Wouldn't the picture at least be copyrighted?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the picture at least be copyrighted?

yes. next question?

[dAzED1]

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.

forgery, uttering, and big fish-little-pond-ness

[SuperBanana]

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.

• 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?
• 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.
• 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....

Re:Rachel is cool

[DragonWriter]

If she asked for an ID, and reasonable documentation was provided, she's fulfilled her obligation under the law, and the liability now rests with the minor.

Wrong. Under the text of the law you quoted, if she actually relied on the document (that means she subjectively believed it was accurate) and that belief was reasonable, then she would not be liable. If she, in fact, recognized the document as false or merely believed it to be false, she would have been liable—even though it may be difficult to prove if she lied about it—because then she would not have relied upon the document, reasonably or otherwise.