Slashdot Mirror
Photoshop Disaster Draws DMCA Notice For Boing Boing
Pickens writes: "Cory Doctorow writes that Ralph Lauren issued a DMCA takedown notice after Boing Boing republished the Photoshop disaster contained in a Ralph Lauren advertisement in which a model's proportions appear to have been altered to give her an impossibly skinny body with the model's head larger than her pelvis. Doctorow says that one of the things that makes their ISP Priority Colo so awesome is that they don't automatically act on DMCA takedowns and proceeded to dare Lauren to sue. 'This is classic fair use: a reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting," etc,' writes Doctorow. 'Copyright law doesn't give you the right to threaten your critics for pointing out the problems with your offerings.' Doctorow adds that every time Lauren threatens to sue he will 'reproduce the original criticism, making damned sure that all our readers get a good, long look at it,' 'publish your spurious legal threat along with copious mockery,' and 'offer nourishing soup and sandwiches to your models.'"
The DMCA needs to be updated to have two points in it:
1) Filing a claim that isn't supported by copyright law is fraudulent under the good faith premise of the filing process
2) No guilty intent on the part of the filer is necessary for it to be civilly or criminally actionable.
If you're some dumbass who files a report that is incompatible with the law, without knowing what the law says, no matter how right you thought you were, you should be guilty.
This is one of the few areas where my instinct says that a guilty mind should not be necessary at all to punish someone.
One of the BB posts, noted that falsely issuing DMCA notices might be construed as abuse of process. If any real lawyers are lurking out there, could this be used as a counter tactic? What is the likely hood that you could make such a charge stick to the plantif or their counsel?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The ISP is in Canada? Why should they comply with a US law?
No sig for you!!
Have you been discussing this on Yahoo or reddit?
I don't come to slashdot for the bleeding edge news, I come for the insightful (well, sometimes) discussion of the interesting news stories that might be a day old.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I propose that photoshop-skinnying models is probably analogous to heavily salting food: the more you do it, the more desensitized you become to it, until you reach a point where it still seems natural to you but ridiculously overdone to everyone else.
The U.S. Congress should ban the use of Photoshop and other digital manipulation for photos used in advertising.
I don't know how easy it would be to do. You shouldn't just have a blanket banning of Photoshop, because it can be used to reproduce a lot of valid darkroom techniques, such as color adjustments, contrast, levels, dodge and burn, etc... things that are legitimate and need to be done to most photos.
It is awful the digital manipulation like this is used, however... and it just looks flat out FAKE. You can tell when someone has been over-Photoshopped because they just look "off" somehow.
Yes, the DMCA is stupid.
Now, can I ask WHY people buy T-Shirts, undies, etc from big designers?
I just don't see why you would buy something for $100 from a designer label when you can buy something without a name on it for $4. I mean, the amount of marketing that has to go into this must be insane! It would be one thing if the big fancy labels used legitimate, well-paid, non-sweatshop labor to make these things, but I don't see that happening.
-- I really need to bleed off some of this
And if we were to ban photoshopping in advertisements what would be next, banning makeup? It's just not going to happen and if it did it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Just push for honesty in advertising in general and hope for the best.
The ISP in question is Canadian.
I attended a talk by Michael Geist, where he said that 30% of Canadian ISPs comply with DMCA takedowns. This figure was presented by some pro-copyright lobby as "shocking" evidence that Canada is a lawless place where copyright isn't respected.
Geist agreed that it was shocking - but for a different reason. He said it was shocking that 30% of our ISPs caved to a law from a foreign country, and complied with a request they had no legal requirement or authority to obey.
The U.S. Congress should ban the use of Slashdot to propose unconstitutional laws.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
Agreed, banning photoshop is nonsensical. It's not the tool, it's the use to which it is put.
This sounds like a job for the swarm. There's a lot more people out there with photoshop experience, able to spot these kinds of manipulations, than these companies could hope to pursue. Let's not leave it just to Photoshop Disaster. If a few thousand geeks pursue them relentlessly, we could see real results.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
[Photoshop] certainly is an extremely useful tool and can't be banned outright, however, they could impose very clear limits on retouching photos of people.
Who is "they" and how would they impose these arbitrary limits on photo retouching?
The problem isn't necessarily with the advertising agencies who are trying their best to fool us that their client/product is "better" than they actually are. That's what they've always done and that is what they will continue to do.
The problem is with the increasing number of people in our society who lack critical thinking skills and don't question what is presented to them.
What's nefarious about this particular DMCA take down notice is that its only purpose is to squelch critical opinion on advertising techniques. (It is also just another example of how the DMCA has little to do with copyright protection and is more about handing over control of our culture to the media companies).
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
Actually DMCA takedown notice is a benign part of that act, unlike anti-circumvention provisions.
So what? It is NOT the law in Canada. We have laws guaranteeing public access to healthcare which are benign - does that mean that the US should be required to follow Canadian law? The correct response from the Canadian ISP should be to mail back an elementary school book explaining about how countries are different with a suggestion that they read it and learn something.
I would also dispute how benign it actually is because it can be used to intimidate people into taking down material that they are legally entitled to show such as the case here.