Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time Denies Issuing DMCA Over Obama Joker Image

Posted by timothy on from the just-like-the-beginning-of-the-dark-knight dept.

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?"

23 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Could it be... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

    1. Re:Could it be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean Barack Hussein Obama?

    2. Re:Could it be... by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Y'all and Flickr are a bunch of fuckin' Philistines.

      You racist!!! Some of my best friends are Philistines!

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    3. Re:Could it be... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      You racist!!! Some of my best friends are Philistines!

      Oh please, you can't call a fan club a 'race'. Besides, he's been terrible ever since he left Genesis, so I see no reason to defend them anyway.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  2. The obvious answer by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
    1. Re:The obvious answer by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      *reads the first two posts*

      Oh my god! Barack Obama is Batman's secret identity!

      This explains why he got to keep his "Blackberry", because it's actually his Batberry! ... I'll let myself out.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:The obvious answer by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      *reads the first two posts*

      Oh my god! Barack Obama is Batman's secret identity!

      This explains why he got to keep his "Blackberry", because it's actually his Batberry! ... I'll let myself out.

      I've never seen Barack Obama and Batman in the same room . . .

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:The obvious answer by sacdelta · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've never seen myself and Batman in the same room.

      OMG!

      I'm Batman. Why didn't I see it before? It explains so much.

      --

      Brought to you by: "Al"toids - the curiously weird mint.

    4. Re:The obvious answer by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      *reads this and the previous parallel reply*

      Oh my God!

      Batman is Barack Obama, sacdelta on /., and HITLER!!!!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:The obvious answer by shentino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Out but not in.

  3. Wow, that's some URL. by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  4. The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 5, Funny

    The lack of evidence of a conspiracy PROVES it's gotta be one!!

    1. Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? by chrb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well I'm not sure if it's "most", but it's a hell of a lot. Murdoch is the man The Independent called "so powerful that no politician dare take him on." According to Business Week:

      his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered.

      Murdoch's global corporations pay an average of 6% corporation tax. Wikipedia's tax rates around the world should tell you that there's something odd about this. Murdoch even had a special tax credit for himself written into a US bill during the Clinton era. In the UK it was revealed that News International pays only 1.2% tax, and the governing Labour party refused to say anything on the issue. It is worrying that, in a democratic society, any single individual can influence public opinion so convincingly that even the governing left-leaning politicians, who would be his traditional enemies, must do underhand deals in order to gain his support and stay in power.

    3. Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uhm, you do realise that most of the mainstream media in the US is own by Rupert Murdoch, and other wealthy Republicans?

      Not even close to true. He doesn't own ABC, CBS, or NBC. He does own Fox, one of four major networks. On cable, you have Fox News owned by Murdoch (very Republican-oriented, granted), CNN owned by Ted Turner (debatable), but the rest of the news channels aren't close to right-leaning in general. For newspapers, he owns the WSJ, which is the only prominent right-leaning paper, with the Washington Post and New York Times being the two most prominent newspapers in the country. They also happen to be *extremely* left.

      So your big Republican conspiracy is 1 out of 4 major networks, one or two major cable news channels, and one major newspaper. That's a lot more than those that are clearly left-leaning. The network news tends to skew left, as do newspapers in major cities.

  5. Irony, and freedom of speech by Unoti · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. I admit by aicrules · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. Actionable? by Spazmania · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Actionable? by Spazmania · · Score: 5, Informative

      Er.. Technically it doesn't "encourage" hosts to assume infringement so much as it -requires- hosts to assume the legitimacy of the takedown notice. If they fail to, they lose immunity. That's why the notice gets promptly forwarded to the user against whom the takedown is perform and its also why the user gets to send a "put back" notice which -requires- the host to restore the removed material until such a time as ordered to remove it by a court.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  8. One question.... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why so serious?

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
  9. Well.... by Sj0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Well.... by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > 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.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  10. Flicker could be on the hook for BIG bucks... by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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