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."

Comments

New Air Force Tactic?

[Philotic]

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.

Isn't this against the law?

[djcapelis]

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?

Re:Isn't this against the law?

[palegray.net]

There's a Wikipedia entry on government works and copyright that addresses the issue nicely.

Re:Isn't this against the law?

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Isn't this against the law?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Isn't this against the law?

[jlarocco]

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.

Copyright

[Detritus]

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.

I don't get it

[Laguerre]

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.

Another link or two.

[palegray.net]

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).

Contracted work?

[Jugalator]

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.

Fraud much?

[LiENUS]

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.