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?"

Comments

Irony, and freedom of speech

[Unoti]

Large companies are the enemy of freedom of speech, it's a long-standing fact of life. It's ironic that the wild popularity of electronic media outlets such as Flickr and Youtube is because it took publication rights out of the control of big media outlets. But when these little independent things become big corporations, and lose site of what got them where they are, it's a good indication they deserve to be killed by their competition.

Well....

[Sj0]

Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?

We have courts and paperwork for a reason in similar cases outside of the internet, and that reason is it's impossible to trust some letter you received. Just like you don't send DR AMHED JAFAR OF NIGERIA with your personal information, a rational legal system wouldn't allow just anyone to send an e-mail based DMCA takedown notice.

But this is what happens when the you let the content industry write their own laws.

Re:Well....

[jmorris42]

> Since all you need is an e-mail, wasn't it just a matter of time before someone without
> the right to issue a DMCA notice issued one to take down a politically inconvenient image?

The scenario you describe will happen, probably HAS happened. But in that case they would provide the email they received to the user. No, they took it down on their own for one or all of the following:

1. Pure political activism on the part of someone at Flickr/Yahoo. Remember Citizen, Dissent is Patriotic... unless Democrats are in charge then you must Doublethink; To Question the State is Treason.

2. Simple risk aversion. Fear that as word of where the subversive, treasonous art originated that their reputation would be tainted.

3. Avoiding the traffic spike when half the blogs on the planet linked to them.

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe?

[commodore64_love]

Perhaps it was Obama's staff, but I doubt it.

The most likely answer is that Flickr, like television media, is left-leaning. The management probably felt offended by the image against their favorite man, yanked it off the site, and then made-up a story about a DMCA notice that doesn't exist. I wonder if we could file a Freedom of Information (sp?) request to discover who issued the notice.

If not I say we upload it. Again and again and again. Then sue Flickr is they ban your account, so they have to stand before a judge and explain themselves.