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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.]
i didn't say it was well directed, effective, or good satire, but clearly it wasn't a violation of copyright, even as ridiculously overpowered as copyright is today.
but if i were to look for meaning in that image, perhaps it means to say, "you voted for me, the joke's on you." or, since the maker is a Palestinian Dennis Kucinich supporter, "you thought you were getting a progressive, well instead i'm as insane as the last guy."
on a side note, it's amusing how many on the left decided it *had* to have been racially motivated, to the extent of police forces arresting people in the hunt for someone who happened to be more aware of current popular culture and not at all aware of the parts of our history that made some think it had to be racial. quite sad, really.
and the reason i brought the first amendment into the discussion is that it was the reason for the exemptions in DMCA for political speech. Otherwise the DMCA would have been struck down long ago. Apparently that linkage was lost on you. Clearly the server owner has the right to take something off their site, but DMCA gives a third party the right to force them to do so whether they care to or not. The issue at hand is the misuse of the DMCA takedown process by parties unknown to stiffle political speech. So go stuff your attempts to misdirect the discussion.
As to the DMCA, follow the money. it leads to disney, hollywood, and new york.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't threaten with a DMCA takedown notice. A DMCA takedown notice is absolutely no problem for an ISP, all they have to do is check whether all the necessary elements are there (what material is allegedly copied, where can the copy be found, who is the copyright owner, who is its agent, how can the agent be contacted), take down the material, send a copy of the request to the person uploading the material, that's it. How would that be threatening?
neither party gives two turds about us or the constitution other than whatever power it has as a rhetorical bludgeon over the other side.
Obama=Bush++
Same policies.
Better PR.
Seen any antiwar rallies recently? a bit smaller than in years past, huh? heard about any on NPR recently? no, didn't think so. dead issue, dead promise.
pretty much the only leftish opinion source calling Obama on his BS is Greenwald http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ who is alternately ignored and excoriated for being "fringe" left. apparently holding someone to account for promises broken is "fringe" now.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay