DMCA Takedown Notice Leveled Against Ohio Congressional Race Ad

Ponca City, We Love You writes "EFF reports that after Ohio Congressman John Kasich put out a commercial featuring a man dressed as a steelworker discussing Governor Ted Strickland's record, Strickland's campaign folks apparently realized that the 'steelworker' was really a paid actor, and put together their own video, mixing in clips of some of the actor's other work to make fun of Kasich. Now the DMCA has been used to send a takedown demand to YouTube that it remove Stricrkland's video for at least 10 days because it uses short clips from the actor's movies." The video has since been restored, some of the reasons for which are listed below. "First, the political video's use is transformative because it provides evidence that the supposed steelworker was actually a paid actor and as the Supreme Court explains, transformative works 'lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine's guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright.' Second, the political ad only uses a few seconds of the original film, so a fair use is particularly justifiable when it uses the minimum necessary to make its point. 'What's troubling, yet again, is that this form of political speech has been removed from YouTube in the heat of an election battle,' writes Mike Masnick on Techdirt. 'Even if the takedown was not political, it's clearly a case of copyright law being used to stifle political speech.'"

Comments

No consequences

[wonkavader]

"...Arginate should take a closer look at Section 512(f) of the DMCA — which provide penalties for misrepresenting that an online video is infringing — before sending any more notices."

Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this, even though it amounts to perjury?

Please, I want someone to tell me there have been consequences, and that people have been fined or jailed for it. But I suspect that the has never been a single such case where there any real consequences.

I know we care, but the legal system doesn't and only an idiot could fail to notice. PLEASE, PLEASE tell me I'm wrong.

Re:No consequences

[icebike]

Yeah, yeah, right. But has anyone ever heard of ANYONE actually paying any kind of penalty for misrepresenting a video (or anything else) to get a DMCA takedown? Has anyone ever suffered any real consequences for this...

You've hit the nail directly on the head.

There is no teeth in 512(f). It aught to be a mandatory quarter million dollar penalty for filing a take down notice that was proven false or unjustified, or over-ruled by a court.

Fair use of short clips is protected. But without any consequence of ignoring this fact, the practice of take-down first and apologize later, or never, will continue.

But I'm glad to see this happening to politicians. Now maybe they will listen when citizens complain about this practice.

Fair use?

[MrEricSir]

If I show a short clip from a film just to prove that someone is an actor, how could this possibly NOT be fair use?

R & D please?

[The Grim Reefer2]

Can we get an "R" and "D" next to each candidates name? That way I'll know if I should be up in arms at this vile abuse of the DMCA or giddy with excitement that it was wielded this way. ;-)

Re:R & D please?

[Asic Eng]

John Kasich is the Republican nominee, running against Democratic incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland.

Re:R & D please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't need the tags. Could already tell party affiliation because of the nature of the attack ad.

A fake person selling fake policy to the down home American everyman.

It's a microcosm for the entire republican ideology.

Censorship

[DrYak]

Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.

Re:Censorship

[uvajed_ekil]

Yet another attempt to use the DMCA as a way to censor, which will end up back firing due to the Streisand effect.

In this case, I wouldn't be so sure that it will backfire. Most of Kasich's supporters (supporters of a liar who supported NAFTA and got rich on Wall Street, then denied it) are going to go to the polls and vote for him because of the (R) next to his name, regardless of what dirty tricks and lies he uses to try to unseat the at-risk Democrat in charge in Columbus. People like Tom Ganley (R), also in Ohio (a pretty slimy prominent car salesman), and Alan Grayson (D) in Florida (the guy who calls his opponent "Taliban" Dan, edits video to blatantly twist words, and got very testy with Anderson Cooper when called on it) will still get plenty of votes because of the (R) and (D) on the ballots.

Most people haven't heard of the DMCA to begin with, or have no idea what it does or is supposed to protect. This is interesting to a few of us, but will certainly get lost in mainstream reporting and be a non-factor. Sad, because it is such an obvious misuse of a law, and a sign of how f'd up our political system has become. The only "undecided voter" in a mid-term election like this is is the one who hasn't yet decided whether to bother voting or not.

Re:reasons for which are listed below.....

[Mitchell314]

. . . and the great tragedy is the politicians that ignore it are still in the game.

Link to the video

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to have it in the summary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48YAEcKZeU

Re:It's about time this crap hit's a Congressman!

[StikyPad]

Abuse of apostrophe's make's Baby Jesu's Cry.

Re:Countersuit possible in theory.

[Entropius]

No, that should be pretty simple.

"Your Honor, Defendant's misrepresentation caused me to lose an election for the US Senate. This has cost me a Senate seat; as damages I would like Defendant to sign over to me one of its paid-for senators."

It's not a congressional race!

[thatskinnyguy]

As an Ohioan, I know Ted Strickland-D is the Governor of this state and John Kasich-R is running against him for Governor.

Re:time: not fair at all

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be one of the most bigoted things I've yet read on /., and it gets a +3 *Insightful*?!

While I'm not disputing that jail has differing effects (and frequently different meanings) for different classes, I think the line between the classes so far as perception is much more nebulous than stated here, and your portrayal of the "poor" viewpoint betrays what may be the most callous stereotyping I've ever seen.

Do you really think that people suddenly become shiftless drug addicts with no aspirations or family ties just because of their income? I suppose your hewing to the stereotypical politician portrayal of the 40-60% that comprise the American "middle class" is explained by your (apparent) belief that all that separates most people from a degenerate life of crime is an unexpected large expense or two?

Wow. Just wow. I know I've read insightful comments from you in the past, but damn, I wish I had a heap of mod points to spend.