Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Air Force Issues DMCA Takedown Notice

Posted by kdawson on from the above-all dept.

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."

5 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't this against the law? by djcapelis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wouldn't the air force have to claim that they were in fact the copyright owner of this video to file a DMCA notice? Doesn't that mean YouTube or the person who posted it could actually just go ahead and file suit against the government since this is a false claim?

    Is there someone who'd like to provide an insightful comment and then proclaim IANAL on this one?

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
    1. Re:Isn't this against the law? by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Read the Wikipedia entry the OP posted. It says: "The federal government can hold copyrights to works when they are transferred to it, as can happen with work produced by contractors."

      The Air Force almost certainly paid a contractor to make the video. Thus (assuming Wikipedia is correct) they could legally own the copyright.

      --
      Maybe not
  2. Fraud much? by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This sounds like an instance of blatant fraud. The lawyer willfully committed perjury and didn't even go through the proper channels on her end. It sounds like she wanted to try and further her career by taking initiative and bringing down the hammer for her client. Except she did not do it with her clients permission and even went against what the client had previously indicated. At best she should be liable at worse disbarred.

  3. Somewhat related by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Depictions of people are restricted by their rights of privacy and publicity. You may object to the unrestricted release of your picture or video into the public domain, even if you consented to be in a video released by the US government for a particular purpose.

    This is not precisely on point because the notice was from the government and not the actors, but it's an issue for people who would republish US government works so I thought I'd point this gotcha out to everyone here.

    The US government publishes an amazing quantity of content that enriches us all. I use some of it in web design. But not pictures of people without their permission.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  4. Is the lawyer an intern? by slashqwerty · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The DMCA takedown notice has amateur written all over it. From the notice:

    I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information in this notice is accurate...

    Nobody says that because the law doesn't require it. The law only requires the lawyer to state under penalty of perjury that they represent the person/organization they claim to represent. The rest of the notice only has to be made with a good-faith belief that it is accurate.

    She also states:

    I have a good faith belief that none of the materials or activities listed above has been authorized by the U.S. Air Force, its agents, or the law.

    The Air Force actually asked Wired to publish the video. Their own website even claims it may be copied and distributed. The takedown notice was supposed to go through the Air Force marketing cheif's office but never did. I suspect Ms Pikser isn't the most qualified of lawyers.