Slashdot Mirror
US Air Force Issues DMCA Takedown Notice
palegray.net writes "Threat Level brings us the story of the US Air Force's use of the DMCA to forcibly remove a 'Cyber Command' recruitment video that they had previously thanked Threat Level for running. The article notes that US government works are not even subject to copyright, but this fact didn't stop YouTube from caving and taking down the video."
Copyright does not apply when the work is created by a government employee in the performance of his duties. When the work is contracted out, a copyright is created that may be assigned to the government by the contractor per the terms of the contract.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
For those who didn't RTFA, here's a link to the actual takedown notice, and here's Reed Smith's website (the law firm that sent the notice on behalf of the Air Force).
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
There's a Wikipedia entry on government works and copyright that addresses the issue nicely.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Is there someone who'd like to provide an insightful comment and then proclaim IANAL on this one? Dear Internet Service Provider:
This letter is written in response to your notification to me of a complaint received about my web page(s). The pages in question are:
(insert list of URLs here)
My response to this complaint is as follows:
Allegations of Copyright Violation / Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The claims of copyright violation should be rejected because the material in question is not copyrighted. It is in the public domain and may be reproduced by anyone.
This communication to you is a DMCA counter notification letter as defined in 17 USC 512(g)(3):
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law.
My name, address, and telephone number are as follows:
(address here)
I hereby consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which I reside (or, if my address is outside the United States, any judicial district in which you, the ISP, may be found).
I agree to accept service of process from the complainant.
My actual or electronic signature follows:
(electronic or actual signature here)
Having received this counter notification, you are now obligated under 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) to advise the complainant of this notice, and to restore the material in dispute (or not take the material down in the first place), unless the complainant files suit against me within 10 days.
IANAL, I got this form letter from this site.
You can't take the sky from me...
If it's work by a contractor of the US Gov't, with the ownership transferred to the gov't, it could still be copyrighted.
AFAIK, that's the only exception.
If it's work "prepared by an officer or employee of the US Gov't as part of that person's official duties", it's not copyrighted.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I, for one, think we should ask Ms. Pikser (the lawyer who filed the complaint) why she thinks the work is copyrightable, even though it was made by the government. The DMCA notice conveniently says her email address is mpikser@reedsmith.com. For good measure we should probably all ask her. You know, just so we can compare responses...
Okay, so there might have been an issue with the copyright, but it's still murky because of this statement on their website:
"Information presented on the Air Force Recruiting website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied."
In which case the copy was valid and licensed even it if was under copyright. Which means the notice seems to be false either way.
I touch computers in naughty places
I'm not sure it would "muddy the copyright waters." If the video had Air Force employees acting, their performances were public domain. And the contractor took those public domain performances, arranged them and added stuff to create a copyrighted video. That copyrighted video was subsequently sold to the Air Force and had its copyright transfered over to them.
Maybe not
Before this takedown notice no one really gave two shits about the video. Now, EVERYONE wants to see it to see what the deal is.
Nowadays, the popular term for this phenomenon is "Streisand Effect", after what happened when Barbara Streisand sued researchers who were photographing the entire California coastline to document coastal erosion. The ensuing fuss led to copies of the photo of her house appearing all over the Internet.
I wonder if anyone copied this video? Has it appeared on any servers outside the US yet? Not that I really want to view it myself, at least not without being fortified by several cups of coffee to stay awake. But it would be fun if this ham-handed attempt at censorship were to backfire.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Just to add a bit of detail to the above... the FAR and a US government FAQ indicate that while individual contracts can vary, the normal situation seems to be that the contractor retains copyright while the government gets a license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute, perform and display the copyrighted work". It is also true that the federal government can become a copyright owner if someone who owns a copyright assigns it to the government. So there are three possibilities: