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

Could it be...

[KingSkippus]

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?

Re:Could it be...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Barack Hussein Obama?

The obvious answer

[Gothic_Walrus]

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?

Re:The obvious answer

[Rob the Bold]

*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 . . .

Re:The obvious answer

[sacdelta]

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.

Wow, that's some URL.

[sootman]

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.

The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe?

[JohnnyComeLately]

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

Re:The guys with Tin Foil Hats maybe?

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

I admit

[aicrules]

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.

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.

Flicker could be on the hook for BIG bucks...

[JimMarch(equalccw)]

...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

Re:Actionable?

[Spazmania]

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.