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."

25 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. New Air Force Tactic? by Philotic · · Score: 5, Funny

    According to a leaked memo from the Department of Defense, the Air Force may begin dropping DMCA take down notices on Iranian nuclear facilities as early as next week.

  2. 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 palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:Isn't this against the law? by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Informative

      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? 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...

    3. Re:Isn't this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't the lawyer signing the DMCA takedown notice have to swear under the threat of perjury that their information is accurate to the best of their knowledge? I think it is time we start targeting the individuals who are signing these notices. The government can't shield these lawyers in a civil suit if they committed perjury in the course of their duties. If we sue and bankrupt enough of these lawyers then perhaps the government will find it harder to get replacements who will send DMCA notices over materials that belong to the public domain.

    4. 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
    5. Re:Isn't this against the law? by djcapelis · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    6. Re:Isn't this against the law? by gronofer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      Technically, yes, many people will avoid quibbling over legal details when dealing with a heavily armed organisation that thinks it's above the law.

      In the same way, it takes bravery to say no when mafia or radical religious groups issue a "take down notice".

    7. Re:Isn't this against the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Considering that hiring a contractor is an outside case, it seems fair that the government prove that the only people ever involved in making the video were all contractors. Every single person involved in the video (I'm betting there's a nice long list of credits at the end of it) should be questioned, in court, to find if at the time they were employed by the government. I'm willing to bet in the case of something such as a video, while contractors would be involved, there would also be some government employees involved, as actors or otherwise, muddying the copyright waters. Those sections of the video involving anyone working for the government should be permitted to be stripped from the video and made public.

      And, of course, this is why the DMCA is bad, since it's an act-first, ask-questions-later, law. Hopefully the affected individual will stand up for their right to a hearing by posting a counter notification, forcing the government's hand. It's not likely they will, though.

    8. Re:Isn't this against the law? by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 3, Informative

      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:

      1. The video was produced under contract, and the contractor retains copyright. If that were the case, the contractor could have written a takedown letter.
      2. The video was produced under contract, and the contractor assigned copyright to the government.
      3. The video was produced by government staff, and is not protected by copyright.
  3. Copyright by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Copyright by SMS_Design · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Just because you paid for it doesn't mean you should get to use it.

  4. I don't get it by Laguerre · · Score: 5, Informative
    From TFA:

    the Air Force website promoting the video contains this language in its privacy policy: "Information presented on the Air Force Recruiting website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied."
    Apart from that, I wonder why the Air Force is so keen on keeping people from watching their commercial.
    1. Re:I don't get it by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apart from that, I wonder why the Air Force is so keen on keeping people from watching their commercial. Because we can't have the terrorists copying them.
      - it's best to keep these recruitment videos classified.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
  5. Another link or two. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  6. Contracted work? by Jugalator · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:Contracted work? by Brother+Phil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This has also been covered by Boing Boing.

      According to TFA, the notice was issued by the Air Force's lawyers, without the consultation or authorisation of the guy who deals with all IP issues.

      According to Wikipedia, they are meant to be good enough lawyers to know better, but the talk page had been deleted, so maybe there's just been a big slanging match.

  7. Overblown issue by winmine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't about censorship, or even copyright really. Youtube will 'cave' to any polite request to have a movie taken down, provided you can give some creds to prove you made it. This is much more an issue of common courtesy, but then, that doesn't make for pop journalism.

    1. Re:Overblown issue by adona1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's becoming all too common that they remove videos without apparently needing verification though. I realise that under the DMCA a company has to act when notified that they're hosting infringing material, but ever since they were bought by Google they've become the most tread-lightly-offend-none company around. Surely with the huge resources available to Youtube they'd be able to actually double check these DMCA requests to make sure they actually have merit?

      IANAL, if you hadn't guessed... ;)

      --
      Between the falling angel and the rising ape
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. Indeed. by Dopamine,+Redacted · · Score: 3, Funny

    After all, the nuclear configuration is like a "lock" that protects the "vault" of energy within the atom. Hitting that nucleus with a fast neutron (or a slow neutron if fizzle enough) is like "breaking into that vault" to "steal" the energy - right out of the matter. That's why we need protection for energy stored under nuclear "locks" to be just as strong as the laws that protect DVD movies.

  12. Brilliant use of the streisand effect! by Daniel+Wood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. The best part, this was not intended. This is someone stepping out of their bounds and not going through the Public Affairs Office.

  13. Where I can see this Video? by rkwasny · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this video available somewhere? I wonder what was so special about it