Slashdot Mirror
Toyota Demands Removal of Fan Wallpapers
An anonymous reader writes "TorrentFreak reports that Toyota's lawyers have recently contacted computer wallpaper site Desktop Nexus in a blatant example of DMCA abuse. Toyota issued a blanket request to demand the immediate removal of all member-uploaded wallpapers featuring a Toyota, Lexus, or Scion vehicle (citing copyright violation), regardless of whether Toyota legally holds the copyright to the photos or not. When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/
Does that mean all the speeding camera are illegal ?
Go look at the founder's name, then stop apologizing for the slip :D
" When site owner Harry Maugans requested clarification on exactly which wallpapers were copyrighted by Toyota, he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor.""
And then he invoices Toyota for complying with each and everyone of them to the tune of the same dollar amount their bill is. Two can play this game.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Indeed - Toyota is actually an intentional misspelling, because of the number of strokes for the Japanese characters being luckier or something. It'd be like Henry Ford calling his company the Fort Motor Company, because the word sounded better.
If they receive a proper DMCA notice and remove the offending files then they have no further liability under the law. Toyota is blowing smoke; this is just a typical lawyer scare tactic that has no basis in law.
Actually, Toyota could be the one billed should Desktop Nexus comply. By demanding that Desktop Nexus identify for Toyota the offending files, one might argue that Toyota was hiring them as a contractor to fulfill Toyota's obligation under the DMCA. To cover themselves, Desktop Nexus should send a proposal to Toyota offering to identify and remove the offending photos, to the best of their ability (thus not guaranteeing to find them all), for, say, $1000 each.
I thought that a DMCA notice *required* actual specifics of infringing content. Its part of what you have to do when you file a notice. Claiming that your are going to force someone to pay you so that you have to comply with the law seems patently (no pun intended) ridiculous. If your client wants this action done, they pay you (the lawyer) to do what is necessary.
I get the feeling that the mere fact that they refuse to follow the rules without trying to extort money from the 'defendant', will get them a well deserved legal slap in the face
What is what makes this sentence in the article so bizarre: "The site's owner, Harry Maugans contacted Toyota to clarify. He was told that all images featuring Toyota vehicles should be removed, even images with copyright belonging to others." If that sentence is true, Toyota is admitting it does not hold the copyright to others' images of Toyotas, yet still claiming the right to control copying!
... he was told that for them to cite specifics (in order to file proper DMCA Takedown Notices), they would invoice Desktop Nexus for their labor."
My first reaction was, "What idiot laywers, no court would award them that. Maybe they hope that the website won't spend the money to fight them." But I thought about it for a few seconds, and if the onus is on the infringer to make sure that they are not infringing, then it makes sense for them to be billed.
I'm not saying it is the responsibility of the infringer to be sure they're not infringing, but if that's the case, then it's a little easier to see where this seemingly crazy statement actually came from.
The sad thing is, this might even be a case of one division of the company not knowing what another division is doing. Lets assume the stupidest possible case. Toyota marketing possibly HAS uploaded to that site and now Toyota legal is harassing them for copyright infringement.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
This couldn't have come at a better time, from my point of view. I'm in the market for a new car. My current car is a Toyota (2000 Celica). My last car was a Toyota. So was the one before that (an '83 Tercel hatchback, as a matter of fact). While still under warranty, the top half of the Celica's engine had to be replaced. It hasn't given me any trouble since (beyond having an appetite for headlights I find a bit disturbing), but somehow it's never enjoyed the same place in my heart as the others.
For the first time in more than 20 years, I've thought about looking for a new car somewhere besides a Toyota lot. Competitors (even North American ones) have come a long way in the last few years. They now offer the kind of quality and reliability I expect in a car, so there's a lot less reason to pay premium bucks to Toyota. And Toyota parts, when you need them, cost a LOT.
This incident has made up my mind. Toyota is off my list, and won't receive further consideration. It's exactly the kind of crap I hate: a corporate bully with deep pockets slaps average people across the face, not because there's any compelling reason to do so, but just because it can.
For once, in a small way, I'm in a position to slap back. My next car won't be one of theirs, nor the one after that...and so on. I'll also have a word with family and friends who may be leaning toward their product: buy elsewhere, help starve a corporate thug.
By the way, if you reach a similar decision, please feel free to pass this little note on to your local Toyota dealer. I certainly intend to, probably the next time the dealership sends me one of those irritating, "we value your business" letters.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
My 30 year old pickup, 100% stock, passes California emission tests with flying colours.
Last time I discovered something important, tho -- the readings depend FAR MORE on how clean the test equipment is, than on your vehicle.
In 2006, at a popular test station with well-used equipment, my truck BARELY passed, and then only because the tester knew all the tricks (there are ways to goose marginal vehicles into compliance).
In 2007, at a rarely used and brand-spanking-clean test station, my truck passed with emission levels at only about 1/3rd what the other station's tests showed, without any jiggery-pokery either.
My truck had absolutely NO work, NO tuning, no NOTHING done to it between the two tests, other than an oil change.
You gotta wonder how many billions of consumer dollars have been wasted by dirty test equipment. :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The court will bill the infringer. It'll just be called an award for damages instead of an invoice. The site isn't the infringer, though; the person who posted the content is (in general, not arguing whether there's any infringement in this particular case).
If posting pictures of an automobile that I own is infringement does that mean Toyota can sue municipalities who use red light cameras for copyright infringement? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.