Removal of Photo Credit Qualifies As DMCA Violation

mattgoldey writes with this excerpt: "A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has reinstated a photographer's copyright lawsuit against a New Jersey radio station owner, after finding that a lower court came to the wrong decision on every issue in the case. Most significantly, the appeals court said that a photo credit printed in the gutter of a magazine qualifies as copyright management information (CMI) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA prohibits the unauthorized removal of encryption technology or copyright management information from copyrighted works."

Comments

Karma's a bitch

[Caerdwyn]

We can all argue about what fair use of copyrighted materials should be, but I think we can also more-or-less agree that deliberately stripping off a creator's name is uncool. Of course, the conduct of the defendants in question (RTFA, they were shock-jock DJs who responded to the photographer's cease-and-desist with a smear campaign chock full o' slander and libel and just-plain-lies) probably made it a lot easier for the judge to apply the bitch-slap to 'em. They deserved it.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Caerdwyn]

You need to realize that the state of mind of the defendant is often the entire point of a case and is the difference between "guilty" and "innocent" (the fancy Latin term is mens rea ). So if you act like a dick in court or in the actions surrounding the allegation, you may, in FACT, be convicting yourself by demonstrating your state of mind. The shock jocks demonstrated by their actions just what their state of mind was: malicious, reckless, and unrepentant. From a very real, legally defensible, well-established principle, their may well have pushed the likelihood of their guilt from "not enough proof" to "sufficient proof".

In other words, yes, they got a fair trail, because their behavior demonstrated the facts of the case. If someone is unlikeable, acts like an asshole, etc., is it more or less likely that person acted with malicious intent in the matter at hand? And is it more or less likely that the judge, with his authority to decide upon admissibility of evidence, to approve or deny motions by the lawyers involved, and discretion to decide sentencing, is going to throw the book at an asshole or Mother Teresa?

Today's lesson: don't be a dick. As far as the trial and its outcome is concerned, you'd BETTER be a likeable defendant.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[hairyfeet]

It isn't about "likable" defendants it is about flagrant slander after ripping someone off! The courts tend to frown on those that brag about their acts when such acts are a violation of literally decades of established law and slandering the person that is taking you to court on a national medium like radio is NOT a smart move. Sorry but these ass clowns deserve to be sued along with the station for a VERY large amount of cash.

To me this is no different than those asses like Ebaum that snatch anything they can find and try to pass it off as their own,or the pricks that steal GPL code and try to lock it behind a paywall. in all of the above you are taking something you have NO rights to and passing it off as your own and this isn't "information wants to be free" this is theft, as you are depriving someone else with your actions which in this case the photographer who is just trying to make a living.

Re:Karma's a bitch

[Shikaku]

For a car analogy of parent:

If you run over somebody, don't back into their body and run it over again. And again. The courts find it really hard to believe that it was an accident otherwise.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI

[tepples]

The title of a bill has no legal force. The statute covering such attribution is Title 17, United States Code, section 1202, which does not require that "copyright management information" be in digital form as a condition of protection.

Re:I'm unsurprisingly okay with that

[pavon]

Yeah unlike the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA which bans tools just because they could be used for piracy, and thus effectively prevent any fair use of works, the copyright management information section seems fairly reasonably. It is entirely focused on removing or falsifying attribution of copyright. I don't know that the section needs to exist; removal of attribution could just be treated as strong evidence of willful infringement, which already carries higher punishment. But it doesn't seem actively harmful.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI

[Plekto]

If you use it for your own personal use (say as a background image on your computer screen), no. Though, few people are that anal to go to such lengths for such a minor thing. If you use it in any commercial way or in any manner that is shown to the public, yes. This is basic copyright 101, folks. You can't show it or make money off of it, directly or indirectly, unless you pay royalties.

This is exactly like removing the signature from a painting and passing it off as your own work. Of course they got reamed in court over it.

Lazy employee costs company millions in legal fees. News at 10...

Re:Copyright notice != CMI

[rahvin112]

I'd rather have the courts stick to the letter of the law and implement congress's bad law then have them try to dance around bad language and end up with a situation that's just as bad and has no clarity. This type of thing SHOULD fall under the DMCA and some high profile people should get stung by it.