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."
why do these things always happen like come on its a car. do you see these guys confiscating all pictures of their cars that you take on the high way. i think not.
Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
damn just be happy that your customers are sooo happy with your products that they celebrate it with making a wallpaper to put on their computers. i bet that toyota's lawyers are summers eve fanboi's
SCREW FLANDERS
In a related move, Toyoda has also served a DMCA take down notice to slashdot, demanding that all car related analogies be removed from comments by slashdot members.
All you're doing is taking down free advertisements all around the world and giving yourself a bad name...
http://cars.desktopnexus.com/cat/toyota/
You are stealing LIGHT, which is owned by Toyota, you copyright thief you!
What I'd like someone to do is to produce a DMCA takedown order for Toyota on a piece of clothing that is worn by an actor in one of Toyota's ads.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Does that mean all the speeding camera are illegal ?
Is any more evidence required for average people to avoid these 'too large for their own common sense' companies?
What I'd like someone to do is to produce a DMCA takedown order for Toyota on a piece of clothing that is worn by an actor in one of Toyota's ads.
It would be better to serve them an order to remove all ads containing clothes for copyright violation and then invoice them when they ask you to indicate which ads are violating copyright.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Directly attacking the fans who are providing free advertising of your product is about as stupid as it gets.
Ignore the notice. It's clearly not properly formed, and should provide great evidence, should Toyota decide to start suing this guy.
~ C.
I remember reading about similar "cases" in the past, although they were not DMCA related. Anyway, the courts threw out the plaintiffs because the items being photographed were not considered "art". Despite what Toyota thinks, a mass-produced automobile is not art. It wasn't created as art. It is not unique. And it wasn't sold as art.
Toyota could only be right if the images they specify were TAKEN BY TOYOTA. And that could be difficult to prove. If they claim ALL the images on the site belong to them and the operators of the site KNOW that some/all/most of the pictures were not taken by Toyota, then I think the whole request is bogus.
Yet another example of abuse of the legal system. If it ever makes it to court, I would hope the site operators counter-sue and win BIG. But I think that is the whole point- such cases rarely make it to court, big businesses just use the DMCA as a weapon to scare smaller entities into complying.
" 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"
The article referenced in the main post is light on details, but this is probably not a copyright notice. It is more likely a trademark notice and/or a trade dress notice. The same issue has been discussed back in January in a post about article Ford calendars. Back then, the calendar was for fund raising for a not for profit entity,and there may have been an argument that there was a loophole in trademark law. In this case, the images are being distributed for profit (the site caries advertising). If it is not copyright, then a DMCA notice would not be appropriate and a more general lawsuit would be the only remedy.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
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.
Just because somebody sends you an invoice doesn't mean that you have to pay it.
This, in fact, is a common scam technique, where somebody will send to a small business some sort of random invoice (sometimes to larger businesses) demanding payment for some random "service" that has been provided.
They (Toyota) should know full well that if they actually take legal action to collect on these invoices, that they would be thrown out of court.
But of course that does mean you have to appear in court (often not in a convenient venue) and defend why you have refused to pay on the bill if you are refusing payment.... and you have to give formal notice to the person submitting the invoice that you dispute the terms of service.
Still, if I were running this website, I would refuse payment as the DCMA is quite clear about what the law is here in terms of legal requirements to take down photos or "copyrighted content".
At the same time, who "owns the copyright" on a picture of a Lexis or other vehicle is something that can be debated in court. Yes, the photographer who made the image in the first place has rights, as does the property owner (if it wasn't in a "public" place). The physical structure of the vehicle itself can also be considered "a work of art"... which is what I guess Toyota is trying to do here. So yeah, they do have a slight point even if Toyota didn't physically take the photo.
Still, this is a P.R. nightmare and something most companies don't want to either bother with or are usually tickled that somebody is promoting their product over and above their competitors. Frankly, rather than demanding a take-down of the pictures, they ought to be sending professionally looking pictures with full republication and distribution rights granted.
Don't remove the images!
Simply hide the cars under a big "CENSORED BY TOYOTA".
If they cannot point out the specific photos they own copyrights with, Nexus does not have to comply out of obscurity of the notice. Simple as that. Try to bring that to court Toyota!
While we're at this spread the word to all major news network and let them broadcast the clip for a few minutes in evening news (or better yet, put that in the Morning section of Headline News). Let's see who is the ultimate winner here.
What a hideous crimes people commit these days. Poor Toyota, they must have lost millions of dollars because of these wallpapers. I mean, publishing a song on the internet, ok, it's bad, but a whole car?! Don't these people have any sympathy for a poor carmaker?
-- Cheers!
However, in lieu of Toyota's errant behavior and its refusal to keep its lawyers in check for something that only promotes their product, I might consider making my next purchase with one of their competitors instead.
I would that that, especially in these tumultuous financial down-times, that Toyota and other companies like them would rather enhance their customer loyalty base rather than diminish it.
So, Toyota, kudos for a great product line, but a thumbs down on your PR with your loyal customers.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Invoiced to the tune of oNE BIIIILLION DOLLARs.
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
You get served a notice by the FCC for operating an unlicensed device capable of receiving elements of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Who cares if this is a part of the "unregulated" section of the E/M spectrum.
Since there is a device that alters the E/M frequencies coming from this machine (aka the "paint" on the vehicle), you are in violation of other sections of the DMCA due to having an unauthorized device (the "camera") that circumvents the "anti-piracy" protection from obtaining the image in the first place.
At least not according to the article:
Still, until Toyota says "We own the copyright on image 11684.jpg, 11689.jpg" and mentioning other image explicitly on the website, all the site owner has to say is:
"We were not served a proper DMCA take-down notice, and as such we were unable to fill the request."
The judge would look at the invoice and throw the thing out. The DMCA notice has to be done in writing, be specific, and allow for a response if the copyright is being questioned or challenged. None of this is happening, and it would be Toyota that would have egg on its face if they really tried to follow through with this tactic.
Still, as far as the free advertising is concerned, once copyright is clearly established and can be legitimately claimed by Toyota, proper notices have been filed and the law has been followed, the images have to go.
Unless.... you are claiming "fair-use" privileges for the use of the image of the vehicle.... so the whole thing starts all over again in another round of legal maneuvering. Fair-use here might actually be valid, depending on who took the image and in what context it is being used.
The difficulty here is that some of those wallpapers might have official Toyota photos that have been airbrushed or had something added. That would make them derivative works, and they would be under Toyota's copyright. But there is no way for the site owner to know that. And if Toyota won't tell him which ones, then he is kinda stuck.
Legal question here: Is the site owner safe under DMCA safe harbor? He hasn't received a DMCA request, and he isn't advertising or selling the images. He is just a content provider. What if the owner puts a check box during the upload process saying "[ ] I certify that this image is copyrighted by USERNAME and is not created from any copyrighted works" and someone lies?
I know Wikipedia handles this by having a big paragraph about copyright when images are uploaded, and when you click on the image you see that boilerplate.
It is the responsibility of the site owner to be able to verify the copyright ownership or licensing status of every image/piece of content on his site.
I had (have) a site which my webmaster created with what she thought was licensed content. A popular image licensing firm sent her a notice to take down certain images and pay blackmail money^W^W restitution or they would take her to court. She took the images down and they settled; she asked them if there were any other images so that she could make sure she didn't have future liability. Two years later, I got a similar notice, with demands. My legal council (which cost nearly 30% of the amount they wanted, which was in turn about 10x the value of the images used based on their own catalog) who does happen to be an expert in IP law, basically told me I was screwed, and to pony up a check or be looking at 5 to 6 figures of litigation.
My old webmaster was kind enough to call them up and negotiate about a 20% reduction in the settlement on my behalf.
The moral of the story is this: If he has infringing content on his site, it is irrelevant whether or not they identify every piece. He has to be able to provide proof of license for every file he has. If he cannot, then he needs to take the images down or face possible ruin in court. This is the hidden failure of the system - there are so many regulations that it is impossible for a small business person to create a startup and know the implications, and ignorance is no defense. I feel for him, but he is (presuming he has actual unlicensed material) effectively screwed.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yes, and there is something else many people seem to forget: An invoice does not necessarily indicate a debt owed.
In other words, "Invoice me all you want, you morons. I ain't gonna pay it!"
Sheesh...
You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
We see this nonsence all the time. Compagny lawyers who think they have a case completely ignoring if it will benefit or hurt their client to do so. More often than not, resorting to legal-bullying of ordinary people unwilfully brushing on your precious IP, is a terrible way to make a brand.
Every time I see the name (beginning with the letter D) of a very large maker of animated movies - the very first thing I think about, is how back in 2003 their legal vigilantes bullied a local musical into changing it's name from Rubber-Tarzan(translated) into Rubber-T. The name of the musical is the same as the title of the 1975 chilrens book that it's based on - while apparently the name Tarzan somehow became trademarked in 1999.
Legal experts say [insert name of litigous company here] would most likely loose the case - but the musical does't have the money to go to court, so they had to bend. It's impossible to imagine how [D.....] was damaged by a musical performance of a childrens book from 1975 not related to the animated movie - but their brand is irreparably damaged in the minds of countled danish parents (read prime costumers).
If you are a 500 pound gorilla, you have to be very nice to be viewed as likeable.
Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
Maybe they aren't so stupid after all.
This entire discussion consists of 2 parallel discussions -
1) These DMCA notices will draw all kinds of attention to the website in question.
2) The website in question is completely favorable to Toyota, why would they shut it down?
Answer is pretty obvious, my friends.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Toyota is probably trying to protect its trademarks.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Toyota's legal department might have actually gone to law school, and thus would understand the difference between copyright and trademark.
I really think the penalty for trademark abuse is loss of all IP rights.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
That just doesn't matter. Don't prosecute things that are benefitting you. To make an analogy: Suppose you were standing on your front lawn with your wife when she collapsed, unable to breathe. When you ran inside to call an ambulance, someone off the street ran up and successfully administered the Heimlich, saving her life. Do you prosecute him for trespassing? Do you quibble about whether the law is on your side?
Think about it. Yeah.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
"remove all ads containing clothes"
I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
In one of his books, Lawrence Lessig discusses how manufacturers of furniture and other goods have been claiming copyright protection for their goods if they appear in movies. Moviemakers have been needing to go through an elaborate process of copyright clearance for objects that appear in their movie scenes. This has applied even if the movie scene is intended to be of someone's room as it is in real life.
This claim by Toyota is the same kind of thing. It looks like they are claiming copyright protection for the appearance of their cars if used in something that is reproduced. Presumably a police car chase or a major accident, if the car involved is a Toyota product, would require copyright clearance by Toyota to be shown on TV.
This is carrying the law to its ridiculous extreme.
IANAL, but I agree with you that the notice is defective and that they shouldn't be under any obligation due to it (nor should they be obligated by any "invoice" Toyota sends).
Frankly, I would get a real lawyer to tell them off, but it couldn't hurt to refer them to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdam.
..and ultimately, would you not buy a toyota, because of this stunt?
Yes. A stunt like this knocks toyota one step lower in my "I'd like to buy..." column.
Of course, the rebranded Matrix I owned for six months does a lot to convince me of that as well.
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.
I always thought light was owned by Mazda :o)
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
How exactly do they own the copyright to images of their product? I thought that kind of logic applied only to pictures of persons.
For a simple analogy, let's say you build cars, and someone takes a picture of them. How exactly is his reproduction of those pictures a damage to your ability to market your product? Do you sell pictures? Can people drive his pictures instead of buying your cars? I know it's just an analogy but...
OH WAIT
he he he he he he.
Makes as much sense as Toyota's silly idea
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
What you describe is something that existed in copyright law even before the DMCA. If you are the one making the decision about what to put up, then you are responsible for making sure you don't put up anything that infringes on any copyright. While the DMCA can be applied even to such cases, it doesn't even have to. The copyright owner can use the traditional legal methods against you.
What this part of the DMCA is for is to deal with cases where the web site does NOT make the decisions. When user postings are involved, the DMCA included a provision to protect internet access providers (and this includes web sites hosting user submitted material, not just an ISP running a hosting service for user web sites) ... provided the ISP does certain things spelled out in the law to gain this safe harbor (register their agent, do the takedown, etc). As long as the ISP does these things, the DMCA protects them from liability.
So if you as a webmaster put up copyrighted content, the ISP hosting your website would be protected if they follow the DMCA, but you would not be protected. The copyright owner could still pursue you for the past damages even if the site stays down. Having it taken down may be enough to make many copyright owners happy enough not to pursue you, but that option is open to them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Scion had readily available contacts and generally respond very quickly.
That's where I would (and did) start.
I recommend calling to start with and following up in writing.
I suspect this can be resolved very quickly (by corporate reeling their over-eager lawyers in).
Tomas
ScionLife.com