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!!
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.
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.
Its just a bunch of right wing idiots...
I meant to hit the Cancel button.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
I thought that in order for a DMCA takedown to be valid (that is, for the ISP to gain immunity to legal action by the user) the complete notice had to be provided to the user against whom the takedown was performed? Am I mistaken?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Why so serious?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
This article latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/obama-joker-a... with the originator of the Joker image contains this paragraph:
"Flickr had removed the Joker image due to copyright-infringement concerns, Alkhateeb says the company told him in an e-mail. A Flickr spokeswoman declined to comment due to a company policy that bars discussing inquiries about individual users."
(note that comment references a story that nobody from slashdot read last week...)
So in short, before people start shouting "ZOMG! Teh POTUS iz teh fashcist!", it would be wise to read up on what is going on here.
As was pointed out here (and previously), the original artist was told that his images were removed due to copyright concerns. It is to be expected that the ownership of any piece of art - derivative or otherwise - could become a matter of suspect when it becomes as widespread as the "joker-ized" Obama piece.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
It's been a long time.
i seen that ObamaJoker pic all over the intertubes so taking it off Flicker is about like removing the poster from one telephone pole when it is all over town and not able to do anything about it = lame and futile effort
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
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!
Mabye it was Barack Obama?
You're probably joking (as we're running out of possibilities) but might I remind you of Hustler Magazine Vs Jerry Falwell? In which Falwell was considered a public figure and in a "unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them." I'm no lawyer but I heavily doubt that the DMCA would make this any different. If people could prosecute on that basis, the celebrities would hit tabloids with the DMCA left and right ... might even hit the mainstream news if they do a story that reflects them poorly. Perhaps the person who took the original photograph that was modified might have issued it but I'm not clear on whether that was Time's photographer or another by another licensing agreement. 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.
My work here is dung.
we ahve something worth discussing. Before this info was out it was kind of worthless to be spouting off on the evils of flickr.
Now you can go right ahead.
Flickr sucks
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The U.S. uses Cuba as an election ploy in Florida and presidential elections. Please help stop this inhumanity.
Castro IS correct: Racist right-wingers fight Obama.
Yours In Novy Urengoy,
Kilgore Trout
i seen that ObamaJoker pic all over the intertubes so taking it off Flicker is about like removing the poster from one telephone pole when it is all over town and not able to do anything about it = lame and futile effort
Which tells us that there is nearly no chance of it having been taken down for the political reasons that people are trying so hard to suggest. To suggest that the white house, or anyone remotely connected to the Obama administration, is in any way connected to this makes almost no sense. Certainly they are well aware that taking down the image from flickr - which mind you does not have the word socialism on it - would accomplish nothing as there are thousands of copies of that image on the internet in other places.
The reasonable explanation for this was offered up last week, though it was dramatically overshadowed by conservative hype. It still stands, however.
Hence it is not the "lame and futile effort" you describe it to be. Flickr is trying to protect themselves from copyright issues. It is no more complicated than that. There is no great executive branch conspiracy driving this.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I pointed out the actual reasons given last week. Go read that comment if you don't want to RTFA; consider it your Cliff's notes to what is actually happening.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...if they fraudulently claimed a DMCA takedown notice when there wasn't one.
Committing fraud via the DMCA, if that's what Flicker has done, is major bad mojo. Diebold Election Systems paid over $125,000 for a wrongful DMCA takedown notice:
http://www.eff.org/cases/online-policy-group-v-diebold
It was just some prick at Flickr with no sense of humor.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
It was the diversity czar. My recommendation is we either march on Washington and demand our rights back or we make an image of Obama in a black mask with pointy ears next to Joker-Obama.jpg in the hope to qualify as sufficiently diverse.
The Joker did it, obviously. It was all just a part of a magic trick.
Easy. If it wasn't Time it must have been Space.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
profits wi:7hout sales and so on,
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.]
The Riddler did it.
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.
so can the police investigate perjury cases like this? (like they do with other crimes where the perpetrator is unknown)
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.
As a member of the military, this much is obvious: This is par for the course in government mandated ignorance and anti-intellectualism. Anyone who spends a significant amount of time working in the military can tell you that this kind of crap is shoveled on to us by the truckload. What's even more amazing is that there's a significant body of people who will believe anything they're told simply because they're dependent on the system. Be afraid.
We saw in last week's story that Flickr removed it "due to copyright concerns". It was well explained last week for those who didn't care to RTFA.
But now someone is claiming DMCA - and only providing a link to a discussion forum to back it up? If there is no acknowledgment from Flickr of a DMCA notice having been issued, then why are we speculating on this? Last week they cited "copyright concerns" (read the LA Times article that actually interviewed the artist to see what they told him) and never mentioned DMCA - why is it there suddenly?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
srsly
Nobody has alleged that Flickr sent any fraudulent DMCA notices. The story is that Flickr received a fraudulent notice. Flickr is the victim (sort of) here.
Yes it is! Yes it is! And I'll keep repeating that over and over until it becomes true!
* Flickr took down the whole page. The DMCA complaint was about a single image on the page. This would seem to be far from the most focused means Flickr has at its disposal to respond to DMCA complaints. Is this its typical response?
* The person whose page was taken down *should* have gotten the DMCA notice from Flickr. It *should* have included the identity of the complainant. Either a) the DMCA notification was not properly made, or b) folks haven't gotten the answer from the poster. Either option is interesting.
* The fact that other Times covers and Joker images were not taken down was known last week when this story first aired, indicating that neither the Times, nor DC Comics were putting forth a take-down notice. So what, really, made this news?
but you missed the obvious. When a DCMA take down notice
This story provides no clear evidence of a DMCA take down notice having been issued. The closest it comes to that is referring to a discussion on Flickr.com. The last time we heard from the original artist to the best of my knowledge was in the interview that I provided a link to earlier.
Last week, Flickr only said they took down the image due to "copyright concerns". They did not say whose copyright they were concerned about; and considering the prevalence of the image over the past couple months this is a pretty reasonable concern for them to have. It would be rather bad business for Flickr to suddenly find out that they were hosting material that was in violation of copyright laws.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
What they parties denying any DMCA takedown notices aren't saying is that they didn't threaten any potential action under the DMCA. It is just as likely that Flickr was responding to a threat of a DMCA takedown notice. If this is the case, then no one is telling any lies except for Flickr... and even in that case it's not a complete lie. But they do need to tell precisely who demanded that the material be removed or else they will lose in the public opinion of them.
The more they do it, the more they prove you right. These idiots that think you can silence an opinion you don't agree with online. No, you really can't, and trying just proves what a hypocrite you are.
Always funny to me the people who say they are liberal and talk about "freedom of expression" but really mean "freedom to express anything I happen to agree with." If you don't like the other side to be able to voice their opinions, you aren't a liberal. Sorry.
If any of those were not true, then it wouldn't make sense for the administration to take up the actions that people are accusing them of taking up. In particular, the first and fourth combine to a statement along the lines of
Which is a particularly hard assumption to reasonably agree with being as the more prevalent copy - with the word socialism on the bottom - was not the one removed from Flickr.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Couldn't it have been Warner Bros or perhaps one of the other studios (Legendary Pictures, Syncopy) involved in The Dark Knight?
The original poster can file a counternotification to determine that information. If the person who filed the claim does not have the right to control copyright matters for the work in question, the poster would be entitled to damages suffered. However, they'd have a pretty tough time proving a financial loss.
It was just someone who didn't like the image. People fake DMCA takedowns all the time if they don't like the content of something, especially on youtube.
If a website with common carrier status under the DMCA receives a takedown notice, investigation is a matter for the legal system only. Assuming the DMCA is properly formatted and valid, it has to come down or you risk losing that status.. It is valid if it includes:
1) An electronic signature
2) Source of original copyrighted work
3) Location of infringing work
4) Contact information
5) A statement that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner
6) A statement that the information in the copyright infringement notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the owner
We cannot question if the owner is who they say they are. If the takedown exists, we have to take it down. Assuming they actually got the takedown, Flickr isn't the bad guy here.
Where's the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse when you need it? Google claims to submit all DMCA requests to the CEC, why doesn't Yahoo?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
then Joe the Plumber...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
I am not aware of any guaranteed right that we have that ensures that companies will host any and all files we create. The original artist could still take his image and have it hosted elsewhere (unless he for some reason deleted his original after uploading it to flickr), or even establish his own web page somewhere else and host it himself. I do not see how his rights were in any way violated.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Doesn't DMCA require Flickr to notify the uploader, identifying the copyright claimaint?
Let's all upload that Time cover image, wait for the notices, and compare them here on /.
Obviously, it was the REAL Joker. He didn't want his reputation damaged by association with BHO.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
and if stories about furries or tribble infestations sell more ads, then they'll saturate the available bandwidth to your tv/computer with that.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Those San Francisco lefties did it because they hate our country.