Slashdot Mirror
Time Denies Issuing DMCA Over Obama Joker Image
An anonymous reader writes "Last week Slashdot posted on the Flickr censorship case where Flickr removed the controversial Obama/Joker image from their site. A representative from Flickr claimed that they only removed the image because they received a DMCA takedown notice over the image and then accused the press and blogosphere of being 'makey uppey,' subsequently locking the thread where Flickr users were complaining about the takedown. But now it appears that Time, DC Comics, and the photographer of the original photograph used to make the parody image are all denying having issued Flickr a takedown notice. Flickr was asked who issued the notice by the Los Angeles Times and told the Times that they were not able to provide that information. The original artist says Flickr has not told him who filed it either, despite the fact that Yahoo has in the past provided the information to people when DMCA takedown requests are issued. So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?"
Mabye it was Barack Obama?
So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?
Batman?
Goo goo g'joob.
http://thomashawk.com/2009/08/so-if-time-magazine-dc-comics-and-platon-didnt-send-flickr-a-dmca-takedown-notice-over-the-obama-joker-image-who-did.html
I look forward to the day when an entire Slashdot submission is just a blog's URL.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The lack of evidence of a conspiracy PROVES it's gotta be one!!
It was me. But I did it by accident. I thought I was clicking the Digg It link and must have just missed and clicked the DMCA It link. I did think it was weird that they asked me to provide justification for why I thought it should be expunged. But I just kept typing "The quick brown fox jumped over the ...etc..." till it said I had typed enough and then it let me submit.
I meant to hit the Cancel button.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Why so serious?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
My bet is on DuPont. After all, pixels in the image use the exact same colours as paints produced by DuPont. Coincidence? I think not.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
My guess is that Time's legal team or publishing house or right hand knee jerk issued a DMCA while the people answering the phones and writing articles had no idea bout it.
If that's the case, then why didn't Yahoo tell them? (As the summary states they've done in the past.)
Personally, I'm wondering if someone at Yahoo decided to take it down because it personally offended them, and claimed DMCA to cover their asses?
Exactly, the fact that they will not tell anyone, including the actual rights-owner who issued the request is automatically fishy. I see two basic possibilities:
[You will note that I said there were two possibilities and listed three. Since there is some overlap between them, I took the average number of unique possibilities. It is not because I am too lazy to go back and edit the word "two" after coming up with a third bullet point. That would be ridiculous.]
Who, me?
Yes, you.
Couldn't be.
Then who?
The photographer <strike>stole the cookie from the cookie jar</strike> issued the takedown notice
Who, me?
Yes, you.
Couldn't be
Then who?
etc.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Well its not as one sided as you think. Take, for example the sites such as rapidshare and megaupload that routinely share terrabytes of copyrighted material.
If you find your copyrighted content on those sites, you can email them a DMCA takedown that MUST include your phone number, your physical address and other contact details.
Note that megaupload do not provide everyone with their direct contact number, and the people actually uploading the copyrighted content are 100% anonymous.
If you are luck,y after 48 hours the site might remove the content, taking no action whatsoever against the uploader.
Within a few hours, the copyrighted content is uploaded yet again, and the whole process starts again.
All the time, the copyright holder is the one who is giving out their personal information, and the hoster and the uploader remain safely immue to any possible comeback.
nice business model, and one that the DMCA does almost nothing to impact whatsoever.
People who criticise the DMCA for being too harsh have likely never used it, or been on the receiving end. Its a very weak piece of law in cases such as these. (The DRM-related aspects of the law are different, and total overkill however).
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
If nothing else this proves how easily it can be abused to stifle people's legitimate first amendment rights. With such a high profile case, I can see Joe Public starting to become concerned about this issue.
No the left has noticed that the dog whistle racist crap coming out of prominent parts of the Republican party is in fact racist. Glen Beck is a racist and an idiot. And he has alot of Racist idiot Republican followers.
We also know what people mean when they bring a gun to a political rally about health care. We know what they are saying even if is clouded behind fire-arms and coded messages. They want to kill the President. We have seen enough dead Presidents to know what these people are promoting.
Personally, I don't give a shit about flikr or the jackass that filed the DMCA notice. It's not censorship. The picture is widely available and nobody is trying ot stop that. Nobody that matters cares. This is just stupidity.