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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
...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
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
Can't they both lose?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?