Photographer Threatened With Legal Action After Asserting His Copyright

New submitter JamieKitson writes "Photographer Jay Lee got more than he bargained for after sending some DMCA takedown notifications out to hosts of sites using one of his pictures. One Candice Shwagger accused him of everything from conspiracy over local sheriff elections to child abuse. Since Candice is now threatening legal action, Jay has said he'll take down the post, so here's a snap shot. After reading the story, I checked for use of my own pictures and found one of them being used on a review site without even a credit."

Comments

How

[tsa]

How do I find out who uses my pictures on the internet?

Re:How

[Ken_g6]

Well, TinEye can find pictures on the internet that match ones you upload.

Re:How

[Bodhammer]

Try googling Google Image Search...

Re:How

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Google image search now has that same function if you know where to look

Re:How

[John Bokma]

Enter the URL of your picture in Google's image search and it will also find similar/same.

Re:How

[ubergeek65536]

You can drag and drop an image from your desktop onto the Google image search. I was amazed at how fast and accurate it is. It looks like it doesn't even need to be an exact match.

I searched for a photo of a piece of graffiti from a wall outside of San Francisco and Google found a few other people that had taken a photo of the same wall.

Re:How

[Dexter Herbivore]

Try googling Google Image Search...

Hey dude, I heard you like Google so I.... aaah, screw it. I can't stand that meme anyway.

Re:How

[cpu6502]

Here's the woman's website, with all the nasty hateful material she posted about the photographer (who retracted the DMCA).

Let's slashdot her:
http://chicksandpolitics.com/

Re:How

[Rasperin]

Muwahahahahaha I can control life with this magical photo of you, and this wedding photo of you kissing your spouse will destroy your life! Careful, I might even say your name three times because we all know there's magic in names!

Re:How

[Joe Decker]

Tineye's image similarity is a lot smarter than Google's. Sadly their database is much tinier.

Re:How

[__aaeihw9960]

I swear to God, if you say my name three times and make me appear in whatever hole you currently reside. It's over. I have work to do this afternoon, and I can't be schlepping off to some third world hell hole.

Re:How

[Tastecicles]

one word: Digimarc.

Or some other form of steg/watermarking.

Most people who steal images do not even bother to look for watermarks. Ask then answer: how many images are floating the internet? Billions. They start off complacent that their nefarious deeds go unnoticed.

Funny story (yeah, I bet you hear this all the time): I had a photo of me relaxing on my lowrider a few years ago, uploaded it to a social networking site that shall remain nameless, then a year later I found it on a custom bike blog. After contacting the webmaster, she actually wrote back apologising, I just replied "Hey, don't worry, I thought I'd lost the pic after F***B*** had shitcanned my account, I'm glad somebody found use for it."

It's still up. Yep, that's me, the ugly one.

Re:How

[Scarletdown]

Muwahahahahaha I can control life with this magical photo of you, and this wedding photo of you kissing your spouse will destroy your life! Careful, I might even say your name three times because we all know there's magic in names!

Dear Rasperin,

You are cordially invited to speak my name thrice any time you wish.

Yours truly,

Hastur.

Re:How

[Anonymous Coward]

Local Guthrie supporters know of her and the site, and are not happy about it. I just sent her this anonymously myself:

As a local Guthrie supporter, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from posting wild conspiracy theories on your blog, as your blog can be found when looking for information on Louis Guthrie. I understand you feel hurt, but you do not come off as the victim in your posts, you come off as an unreasonable copyright offender desperately trying to use your own bad situation to paint our opposition in a bad light. As much as I dislike Garcia, I do not believe in spreading lies across the internet about anyone. You are a fool for doing so. Beyond that, your story has been covered on a very popular news site (http://www.slashdot.org/) and has effectively provided more negative publicity (worldwide) than your little blog could possibly make up for. I'll stop short of attacking you for the initial infringement, although I do believe content thieves (such as yourself) are a drain on society and need to be dealt with. I'm sending this email anonymously so as to not be subjected to your attacks, I am no more of a baby-hating conspirator than Jay Lee.

And I do firmly believe that she's doing more damage than she understands by attacking a man who is not only innocent, but a victim of her actions.

Captcha: Leftist

Re:How

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true genie!

"... For first thousand years I was trapped in this cubicle by the seal of our CEO Suleiman ibn Daud, I thought I'd give my prized red stapler to whoever frees me. For second thousand of years I promised I'll deliver great teamwork skill and ROI to whoever frees me [skipped] And now, after five thousand years, when I'm finally getting promoted to supervisor, I swore by Allah's name I'll sue the accursed soul that frees me and call my 7000 efreet lawyer brothers to torture him till the end of the time"

Re:How

[Anonymous Coward]

Har. What a paranoid rant.

Also, not only did she use that picture of Houston without permission and fail to find one with a free license (is it THAT hard to find a nice picture of Houston?), but she's used this image from the BBC without credit too. I wonder how many of her other website images are used without attribution?

For a lawyer she seems to understand the concept of copyright rather poorly. Fair use might cover some things, but it isn't at all clear in this circumstance. Obviously it's all a conspiracy if somebody points out that she's probably violating copyright. You would think a lawyer would know better than to explode when they are caught in a violation by the copyright holder themselves. But no, it's everybody else's fault for bringing it up, not hers.

Re:How

[cdrudge]

(Un)Fortunately my company's content filter's have flagged that site under the category of "sex".

Re:How

[cpu6502]

Excellent.
Downbelow someone posted:
>>>Treasure hunt! Try to find another photo she has that is infringing and get the owner of the copyright to submit another DMCA takedown!

I like it. :-)
They already caught her using the Photographer's photo illegally on facebook. It appears, even after being notified the photo was copyrighted and not for free use, she kept using it anyway on her facebook page (right up to a few hours ago).

Re:How

[smellsofbikes]

You can drag and drop an image from your desktop onto the Google image search. I was amazed at how fast and accurate it is. It looks like it doesn't even need to be an exact match.

I searched for a photo of a piece of graffiti from a wall outside of San Francisco and Google found a few other people that had taken a photo of the same wall.

It doesn't even have to be particularly close. There's a picture of me riding my bike up a cliff, that has been on my webpage since like 1996. The other day, a friend at work uploaded an avatar image for our bike racing team that was my old picture, which I thought was amazing. I asked him how he'd found it and he had no idea it was me: he'd found it on some Cuban website of amazing bike pictures. It's cropped, resized, and left-to-right reversed, but Google Images recognizes them as the same picture. They're doing some pretty sophisticated image processing stuff. Some friends have been playing with this on G+, seeing how long porn pictures last before getting caught/filtered/blocked, and seeing how long it takes for processed pictures to get caught/blocked. It's sometimes possible to get a picture that's cropped back to just the face of the person blocked if it's a large part of the original picture.

Re:How

[cpu6502]

You can /. her facebook her too.

Pretty crummy thing to threaten/slander a guy just because he sends a DMCA that reads, "Hey you took my photo. Please remove it." She kept using it on facebook upto a few hours ago. She was TOLD she was infringing on copyright but kept doing it anyway! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing/345405795498111

Re:How

[couchslug]

Here's the Texas State Bar Association. IANAL, so I don't know the best way to make them aware of her unprofessional conduct:

http://www.texasbar.com/am/template.cfm?section=home

Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[cpu6502]

"Go ahead and sue me." The infringing person would likely never follow through, or if he did, lose the case and a lot of money. ----- Just like that Oregon Newspaper editor who tried to steal an article from an online reporter. He too threatened to sue but backed down (and paid $500 to the reporter), because he knew he was guilty-guilty-guilty. Downloading something for personal enjoyment is one thing; earning wealth off the back of a worker's labor w/o paying them is entirely different (and evil).

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Well, from what I gather of the ordeal, Jay Lee didn't want to cost Shwagger a lot of money, he just wanted to assert his copyright. He quickly realized that she does seem to do non-profit work for disabled children and he told GoDaddy to reinstate her sites while he worked it out with her.

In other words, he went through the established legal means, was informed of a situation where someone felt unduly harmed, and did his level best to resolve the situation quickly and fairly. All in all, I like this guy -- asserting his rights without being a douche about it.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Hatta]

He quickly realized that she does seem to do non-profit work for disabled children

That's no excuse. The correct response is "Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize this was an issue. I do non-profit work for disabled children, is there any way we can work out an accomodation?"

The fact that Shwagger went straight to threats of lawsuits indicates that despite the fact that she works with disabled children, she's still a terrible person.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I agree. I don't think /she/ was being reasonable; I was just saying that what Jay Lee did here was the "good-guy Greg" alternative to saying "Go ahead and sue me."

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[jeffmeden]

"Go ahead and sue me." The infringing person would likely never follow through, or if he did, lose the case and a lot of money. ----- Just like that Oregon Newspaper editor who tried to steal an article from an online reporter. He too threatened to sue but backed down (and paid $500 to the reporter), because he knew he was guilty-guilty-guilty. Downloading something for personal enjoyment is one thing; earning wealth off the back of a worker's labor w/o paying them is entirely different (and evil).

Jay Lee sure as shit should have done exactly that. Look at the offender, an "elite attorney marketing boutique;" in other words, a cadre of arrogant assholes out to pretty up another cadre of arrogant assholes. This is nothing more than a little fun by this woman and her attorney friends, who think that taking 5 minutes to string together some legal babble that it took them 3 years of intensive studying to memorize. If he stood up for himself he would have pummeled her in court, but all too often bluffs like this never get called out because people have some sort of ingrained intimidating reflex around attorneys.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[cpu6502]

People are human. If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs, I'd probably respond in a similar angry fashion. I remember how angry I became when Youtube yanked my video offline..... and besides she apologized to the photographer for her outburst. She also commented:

"The fair use doctrine permits nonprofits more leeway than for profit businesses." - That's not true but it's understandable if she believes it is and thought no harm was done.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[cpu6502]

And once again, I have to change my previous comment. Here's what this woman emailed privately and posted publicly about the photographer:

Private - "Now that the issue is resolved and you have your precious image back, do not ever bother me again. You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because as usual, an emergency call came in from a very disabled client needing help and it is substantial as to time/effort/predicted fees. Had you not done the right thing, you would have hurt a lot of people, but most pathethically, a MR girl with the mind of a 4 year old who needs my help. Do not harass or stalk me on Twitter or FB or otherwise. I am done and you better be. Donâ(TM)t make me vomit, your lawyer."

PUBLIC: "Jay Lee Blows It
I do not believe this many coincidences could come together and be legit. So many things dont add up or sound the alarms, I just canâ(TM)t bring myself to buy the innocent victim role Jay Lee vomits everywhere. Jay Leeâ(TM)s skittish inconsistency, sincere, desperate, apologetic (clearly understanding nothing was knowingly done to him, after he saw all of the wreckage his wrecklessness caused), terror (induced by reading my letter? Realizing he had made a big mistake), inexplicable stalking, bait & switch images on Flickr, removing âoehot potatoâ image and refusing to sell at opportune time, with my letter thrashing him, sent the fear of God through him.

"I do not believe in coincidence. Even if I did, the number of âoecoincidencesâ that occurred in this shameless, disgusting story, make me quite certain that Adrian Garcia and/or Alan Bernstein and his minions at the Chronicle conspired to have the Help Desk guy / techie, Jay Lee (creepy), falsely accuse me of copyright infringement and use his tech abilities to determine which website was hosting the remaining sites so that Garcia could take them all down."

B.I.T.C.H.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[ZeroSumHappiness]

The DMCA, when implemented properly by the hosting provider, is a minimally troubling procedure. It's basically a form letter version of exactly what you're suggesting. It also provides him and the hosting provider with legal protections as well as formalizing a response procedure by the uploader. GoDaddy's the one that kicked it into overdrive by taking down all sites associated with the user rather than just the one file that was being infringed.

I'm not saying it's perfect and I don't think it should be shotgunned against every file returned by a query of "guns roses" on Google. But it perfectly fits the case where someone doesn't want to go through the trouble of having personal correspondence with the possibly hundreds of people who have infringed upon his copyright.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Qzukk]

Technically invalid

Except that it was technically valid. It's not his fault that she hosted 13 other sites on the same account that she used the copyrighted artwork on without permission.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Kaenneth]

Many terrible people run their own small 'Charities' as part of their self-promotion efforts. The sort of people who can't really get along with others, so can't work with larger organizations.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[kjs3]

So if I walk up to you and take something that belongs to you, in your world view I should track you down and ask nicely for it back before I call the cops? It's not like she and the others didn't know they were taking someone else's work, without permission or credit, and using it to make money for themselves. And you genuinely want to make out that he's the bad guy here? You believe this? Really...thanks for making sure I'm not getting out of this week without one more reminder how hopelessly fucked up and bankrupt some peoples moral world view can be.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[SuiteSisterMary]

No, he's saying that while the takedown notice was legit, it was sent out with zero regard to the circumstances of the infringer; had he realized she was a disabled person, or whatever, he might have contacted her directly rather than hitting the big red button and forgetting about it.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[cpu6502]

>>>Uh, no, the straight to the DMCA is a douche bag move.

No it isn't. DMCA *is* the polite method of contacting the other people. All they need to do is respond "no it doesn't infringe" and the material is restored again, per the law. (It is then the responsibility of the owner to file a lawsuit.)

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[superdave80]

If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs, I'd probably respond in a similar angry fashion.

Except this guy didn't ask for ANY sites to be taken down. That was GoDaddy that took them all down. She should be pissed at them for taking such a drastic action.

I'd never do business with a company that would wipe out all my websites over something as trivial as a DMCA notice over one single picture. They could have just blocked the offending photo and left the websites in place while they worked out a deal on the photo.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was a couple of websites that he found using his photo, I'd agree with you. But he found a lot, and rather than trying to track down every single individual, potentially have to fight with them, and ultimatley have to use DMCA notices for half of them anyway, he did what was reasonable - he used a single tool to notify everyone of the issue withing the law. The fact that GoDaddy took the sites down as a result is NOT on him - he didn't request that, that's what GoDaddy's TOS that SHE agreed to says that GoDaddy will do.

As much as I hate the DMCA, in this case I think the copyright holder took reasonable action, especially since he was the actual copyright owner, and not just some shill claiming that anything even closely related to something their employer owns belongs to them. Plus, given her reaction, do you really think she would have responded any more reasonably if he had just contacted her directly? My guess is that she would have disputed his copyright assertion at the very least, if not flat out telling him to shove off because she was "entitled" to use it (see her own words for her flawed logic about that). Something tells me this was the better move anyway (especially since most if not all of the other offenders had perfectly reasonable responses)...

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[uniquename72]

If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs...

If you can't be bothered to learn what you are and aren't allowed to do with other people's work, your websites deserve to be taken down no matter what they are. I don't get to include someone else's story in my book of short stories just because I'm sending a small percentage of the proceeds to Jerry's Kids.

Also, most of her sites have nothing to do with kids, special needs or otherwise.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Chase Husky]

I'm incredibly befuddled as to how you, let alone anyone, could associate filing a legitimate DMCA take-down request before contacting the infringing party with unsavory behavior. It stands to reason, from my own experience, that most businesses would outright dismiss such an informal plea. Further, some individuals may not provide any contact information and thus trying to reach them, short of going through their host or some other intermediary, would be an arduous, time-wasting endeavor.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[pixelpusher220]

So it's guilty until proven innocent? that just oozes 'good guy'

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[pixelpusher220]

because copyright infringement is so similar to drug use and abuse...

And using marijuana, a drug that is becoming legal in many places as your example isn't exactly a strong point.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

This guy going straight to a DMCA takedown letter is a dbag move in the same way that a homeowner is a dbag for having you towed when you park blocking their driveway. Yeah, the hassle they caused you was probably disproportionately larger than the hassle you caused them, but you were needlessly an asshole to them, so suck it up. Also, ambulance chasing is illegal in the US. your argument is invalid.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[mea_culpa]

He quickly realized that she does seem to do non-profit work for disabled children and he told GoDaddy to reinstate her sites while he worked it out with her.

The moment he did this he opened a huge can of worms. Had he not communicated anything beyond "Remove copyrighted works that are on your site without license." A good 99% of the crazy would have stayed contained in her world and not entered his. You give crazy an inch, they take 100 miles.
The only blame to pass around here is to the person that took a gamble and used a photo without permission.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[kjs3]

If I discovered all 14 of my sites were taken down, while I'm trying to raise money for Special needs, I'd probably respond in a similar angry fashion.

I'm completely justified in stealing other peoples work, because it's For The Children! Oh...and I used the same stolen image on my business web site. But it's still For The Children, so that's completely cool.

Really?

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[pixelpusher220]

The perspective is the DMCA is flatly unconstitutional by design.

I accuse you of a crime. You get punished for that crime until you can prove otherwise.

Oh and you just contacted me and now I'm contacting you...on the internet.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[Psion]

Why should that be his responsibility? She misused his photo. She agreed to terms with GoDaddy that she would not violate copyright laws, and she should have known in the first place that she'd lose all her sites if she broke that agreement.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[blind biker]

So if I walk up to you and take something that belongs to you, in your world view I should track you down and ask nicely for it back before I call the cops? It's not like she and the others didn't know they were taking someone else's work, without permission or credit, and using it to make money for themselves. And you genuinely want to make out that he's the bad guy here? You believe this? Really...thanks for making sure I'm not getting out of this week without one more reminder how hopelessly fucked up and bankrupt some peoples moral world view can be.

Wait a minute: did you just compare a felony (theft) with copying one file?

And you have the nerve to call the GP's morals as "hopelessly fucked up and bankrupt"? Why don't you go fuck yourself, mate.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[jo_ham]

She was also using the image on a for-profit site (the SEO marketing site thing) that was linked to her non-profit stuff since I assume her hosting package allows multiple domains all connected to one account.

Her use of the image was not for a non-profit, it was for commercial use. She's just using the non-profit excuse because she knows she's in the wrong and is trying to generate some sympathy for her side.

She's a twatwaffle of the highest order.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[gmford]

I believe you are referring to barratry.

Re:Photographer should say "Go ahead"

[xous]

I've worked for hosting providers and worked abuse tickets.

Sane providers will give their client 48 hours to submit a counter claim. Doesn't matter if you are clearly lying through your teeth. If I get a signed counter-claim that you own it that's it and the complainant take take you to court or screw off.

GoDaddy is known for suspending immediately without any notification.

There is nothing wrong with a submitting a DMCA notification when the hosting provider is sane. The woman *KNOWS* she doesn't own copyright to the photo because she didn't take it and it wasn't granted anywhere. What he should have done as soon as she started talking about damages and making threats is referred her to his lawyer. People that will sue know enough not to make threats they just do it.

Very, very interesting - but....

[registrations_suck]

I found TFA very interesting. Sounds like the lady is off her rocker. However - the bottom line is that if you don't want someone to "take" your stuff, don't post it on-line. Sort of like, "don't leave your wallet on your dashboard with the windows down". Should you be able to? Sure. Will you be able to, without someone taking it? No. Should you be surprised when you come back and your wallet is gone? No. Should you be surprised when you post stuff on-line and someone uses it for their own purposes? No. Should you be able to address the issue? Sure. Can you save yourself a lot of headache by not posting your stuff on-line in the first place? You betcha.

Practical advice for the guy in TFA? If you're going to post your photos on-line, put a great big watermark on it that says something to the effect of, "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! Email whatever@ whatever.com for details!"

Re:Very, very interesting - but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Practical advice for the guy in TFA? If you're going to post your photos on-line, put a great big watermark on it that says something to the effect of, "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! Email whatever@ whatever.com for details!"

Here's some additional practical advice:
- Find out the website / phone number / office of the bar agency in your state; such as Wisconsin
- Research there to find out attorneys that specialize in intellectual property law, specifically copyright law
- Meet with these attorneys and find out what their rates are
- Pay your preferred attorney a retainer
- Find your copyrighted photographs being used for commercial gain with permission (note: this is potentially *criminal* copyright infringement)
- Have your attorney sue the copyright infringer (up to $150,000 per photograph infringed)
- Win in court; get paid (aka: PROFIT!!)

Your attorney can also give you helpful hints on what to include in the watermark (as suggested by parent).
The right stuff in the watermark can make the difference in court, especially if the infringer tries to remove/obfuscate the watermark instead of paying.

Re:Very, very interesting - but....

[superdave80]

Should you be surprised when you come back and your wallet is gone? No.

But when I find the guy that took it, I can't take back my wallet because I left it on my dashboard? Or call the cops on the guy that took my wallet? I'm constantly amazed at the shit posts that get modded insightful some days...

Re:Very, very interesting - but....

[idontgno]

Which, I think, is the point. The "you" in "If you want to use this photo, YOU NEED TO PAY ME! " includes... you. Personal use or not.

Sorry. You may not get caught if you use those copyrighted images for off-line personal uses, but the rights owner can certainly reduce the value and desirability of the images available without payment to discourage that kind of infringement.

Re:Very, very interesting - but....

[Tastecicles]

I've already said it: DIGIMARC Digital Watermark. Have the license terms set out in the alt text which will show in google image search (where most people lift stock images). The watermark is invisible yet with it you can assert ownership and take violators to the cleaners.

Since the site is down...

[zmughal]

Jay Lee also hosts a technology radio show out of Houston called Technology Bytes.

Re:As expected...

[cpu6502]

http://www.freezepage.com/1337899756JULEMRWMMO

Ludicrous

[dbarron]

Being a semi-pro photographer myself (and facing the same problem), I find the woman in the original article ludicrous.
There's a lot of problems with trying to share your photos with the world (under copyright) and people using them w/o permission. I know my own photos are being used (and quite often abused) all over the place.
The photos aren't very pleasing to look at if they have watermarks all over them obscuring detail:(
Not that I don't freely allow many non-profits (including zoos) to use my photos all over the world and that I have certainly been paid for legal use of some few.

Re:Ludicrous

[LateArthurDent]

Being a semi-pro photographer myself (and facing the same problem), I find the woman in the original article ludicrous.
There's a lot of problems with trying to share your photos with the world (under copyright) and people using them w/o permission. I know my own photos are being used (and quite often abused) all over the place.
The photos aren't very pleasing to look at if they have watermarks all over them obscuring detail:(
Not that I don't freely allow many non-profits (including zoos) to use my photos all over the world and that I have certainly been paid for legal use of some few.

The woman is paranoid, and the photographer was within his rights. Know that I'm not arguing that point. That said, this is a clear example of the problems with the DMCA. Had the photographer contacted the website admin and requested the picture be taken down or permissions be negotiated before submitting a formal takedown, this whole situation may have been avoided (depending on just how crazy the woman is).

I understand that Go Daddy is the one who goes overboard and just shuts down every single website (including the ones not hosting the picture) from the owner until the situation is resolved. But considering that they're required to take immediate action, that is probably the most cost-effective way of doing things.

Honestly, the entire concept of immediate take-down is flawed. What should happen once you submit a DMCA request is that the person violating gets notified, and has a chance to take down / negotiate for permission / respond with a counter-notice before the website is taken down. If a counter-notice is file, the content does not get taken down, and whether infringement exists is decided by the courts. If they do not respond in a reasonable period, then the provider can remove access to the content, but not before. After all, if the counter-notice is valid, any amount of time the site was down would be unjust.

I'm no lawyer, but I would assume the woman actually has a case against Go Daddy (not the photographer), for taking down the non-infringing sites. Especially if she really did suffer financial damages.

Re:Ludicrous

[kjs3]

That said, this is a clear example of the problems with the DMCA. Had the photographer contacted the website admin and requested the picture be taken down or permissions be negotiated before submitting a formal takedown, this whole situation may have been avoided (depending on just how crazy the woman is).

The DMCS is bad. Know that I'm not arguing that point. But not just "no" but "fuck no", it *not* the DMCA that's the problem. The whole situation could have been avoided if the website admin HADN'T STOLEN SOMEONE ELSE'S WORK. Seriously...how the fuck can people here not see that literally dozens of people stole this guys work, knowingly, and then want to put the burden on him to track each of them down, ask them nice to put up or take down, hope they do, "negotiate" something unspecified, lather, rinse, repeat, before he's allowed to use the law specifically intended to protect him in this situation.

Re:Ludicrous

[cpu6502]

What if you added whitespace to the top of each photo, emblazed with the logo "Copyright Tom Smith. Use of this image without payment is denied."

Then if you see your photo online, you know they DELIBERATELY removed the whitespace, thus making them provably guilty of copyright infringement. (They read the notice but deliberately ignored it.)

Re:Ludicrous

[kjs3]

You don't know that the person didn't get it from another website which claimed the image was under a different license. Or hell, the person could even have paid somebody else that had copied that picture and included it on a batch of stock images they had no rights to.

Irrelevant. All off those are possibilities, but they are NOT get-out-of-jail-free cards. "I didn't know it was a stolen image" doesn't follow with "so I can keep using it" any more than unknowingly buying a stolen laptop on Craigslist mean you get to keep it if the police find it.

Basically, you can't assume that the person knows they are infringing copyright.

Irrelevant. There's nothing in here about intent. People were using Jeff's images unjustly. He followed the law that covers how to deal with that. Period. They how have to stop using them. Period. One sociopath has a problem with that, and that's why we're hearing about it.

Once again, not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that for any civil disagreement, if you show up in front of a judge without first having tried to negotiate and resolve the conflict amicably, the judge is going to be very angry at you, and tell you go try to negotiate first.

Irrelevant. Jeff isn't suing anyone. Jeff isn't taking anyone to court. Jeff is following the law when he issues a legitimate DMCA request. If Jeff ends up in court through some travesty, that's what the judge will care about. The only person talking about going to court is the nutjob who stole his image. And if you want to see a judge get mad, let me assure you that "you used an infringing image, the plaintiff filed a legal and appropriate injunction, and you're suing him because you don't like it, and you're a lawyer" will result in a full-blown melt-down, if not a formal sanction and request for disbarment.

Well, of course...

[j-b0y]

Elrond: We cannot use the DCMA. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil.

Paranoid Schizophrenia

[frazamatazzle]

Wow. That is what is like when you cross paths with someone that is truly unhinged. If I were Jay, I'd be checking to see if there are any bunnies in boiling pots on my stove.

Re:Paranoid Schizophrenia

[PRMan]

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Shouldn't that be Polaroid Schizophrenia?

Re:oh shut up

[ZeroSumHappiness]

I feel I have to address this one: Jay Lee /was/ being a good guy about it. He did the legally correct move (file a DMCA) and worked with those that responded to find mutually agreeable terms. In this specific case someone responded that she felt harmed and he quickly told GoDaddy to reinstate her sites while he worked it out with her.

So you're mad at him for doing things as the law suggests and then going beyond the law to provide that which he wasn't required to? I mean, he /could/ have started by individually contacting the admin of each site but why should he be required to spend even /more/ resources to help those who had /broken/ the law from suffering for it?

Candice Shwagger has more problems now

[Anonymous Coward]

Candice Shwagger now that her antics have made the front page of /.

Its well knows that the weenies on /. have issues with cyberbullies, and a very long memory.

Its a good thing that nobody here would print that page to PDF and keep it archived and continue to remind the world of her shennigannis for a very long time.

I think Houston's best marketing attorny is going to be having problems since future clients will call her site into question because she's pladgerizing other peoples work. The Texas Bar association should really know about this, perhaps they will take action and actually end her career.

The real problem

[Smivs]

..is a crazy system that allows a site to be taken down with no prior warning, negotiation or appeal beforehand, surely.

Re:The real problem

[Anubis IV]

That's GoDaddy. Most of the hosts the photographer contacted didn't take down everything without notice. GoDaddy suspended everything the lady was hosting with them, even sites that weren't infringing.

Re:The real problem

[longk]

It's a system that this woman knowingly and willingly signed up for. Being an attorney I'm sure she read the small print.

Re:The real problem

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, suggest corrections to your congressman. Ripping down the whole site is a button push for the host. Sorting throuh thousands of pages or photos puts a lot of woek on the host.

I don't have an elegant solution.

As-is, the system gets abused. There are people on YouTube ripping terrorists and terrorist groups are issuing completely bogus DCMA takedowns, which YouTube is required to take down.

Then, according to law, the victim is required to assert their right to get it back up, including giving their legal name and address.

Which, of course, is what the terrorists want to get ahold of.

For completeness' sake, and according to the taken-down rants, by "terrorists", I mean Muslim terrorists.

Google bomb the mewling quim

[0xdeadbeef]

Candice Schwager's blog post is still up at http://chicksandpolitics.com/ and it is hilarious.

Iâ(TM)m still shell shocked, because itâ(TM)s pretty clear that Jay Lee was hand picked for crafty weasliness with advanced studies in computer hacking.

Oh, god, she has YouTube channel, and has a ladyboner for Newt Gingrich: http://www.youtube.com/user/candilaw99

It is my professional opinion as a programmer that this woman is mentally ill and should be disbarred.

Re:Google bomb the mewling quim

[0xdeadbeef]

But oh noes! What if she sues you for defamation!?

Someone else discovered that she stole the logo for her charity.

Or, maybe they stole it from her. Yeah, that's probably it. A totally sane pillar of the community like her would never do something like that.

Ignore the crazy lady

[mpoulton]

Why in the world would he capitulate to her insane demands? She violated his copyright, and has not successfully intimidated him into leaving her alone AND taking down his blog post about the incident? Nail her to the courtroom wall.

Re:Ignore the crazy lady

[Tastecicles]

Oh your fucking God, she broke the LAW. Sucks as it sounds, she did. End of story. So what, she does NP for kids in chairs, but you know what? There are 36,000 charities in the States that do the same thing! THEY WILL NOT MISS ONE!!

I say, sue her arse.

Yours,

A photographer who notwithstanding the bleating on this thread, does appreciate people who reuse his photos for noncommercial purposes.

Re:OMFG - Gorgeous material!

[eimsand]

"... Doesn't look like she's missing too many meals" http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/candice-schwager?slide=37962031

She eats the babies she can't save.

Her logo looks identical to another site too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Her Blogspot site ...

http://attorney4specialneeds.blogspot.com/

Has the same logo as ...

http://activesportfitness.co.uk/

Someone seems to have copied it from the other.

Thanks to Google Goggles for that quick research!

Re:Her logo looks identical to another site too!

[Broofa]

If you look at the EXIF data in her logo ( http://goo.gl/cHTtq ), it says it was created with Microsoft Windows Live Photo Gallery. So it's probably generic clipart available in that tool.

Re:oh shut up

[ZeroSumHappiness]

The DMCA, when properly used, is a pretty good process:
1. File DMCA to hosting provider
2. Hosting provider removes access to offensive file and informs uploader
3. Uploader can respond
4. Purported owner and uploader resolve situation if necessary

The key here is that you have to be sure you have the right file before starting at step 1, which Jay Lee did. This all went tits-up when GoDaddy decided to shut down all of the related sites instead of just that one resource, but that's not the DMCA or Jay Lee's fault.

Now the big problem with the DMCA is that it's very easy to abuse. But that's not what Mr. Lee was doing with it since he only targeted exactly what belonged to him.

As for RICO, if an individual qualified as a "criminal organization" then hell yes I'd want RICO used against him.

Re:Candice side

[BronsCon]

He put a picture on the internet to share it with others who might want to *SEE* it. He did want to share his picture, he simply didn't want someone else claiming it as their own without compensation. Seems fair enough to me.

Re:they are giving you credit now

[Obfuscant]

Worse, if you try talking to one of the more nefarious companies - think broadcasters, news websites, etc. - don't be entirely surprised if they suggest that you should be thankful that your image was used, and that the added exposure to you is nothing but free advertising that you should attempt to monetize.

Many years ago I came across a broadcaster in a distant city that was hosting a web page that included an img tag (not just a link, it loaded the image) to one of my images. Not only did they not attribute it to me or the research group that produced it, they attributed it to someone else altogether. Email reporting the issue went unanswered.

It wasn't long before I learned how to use the Referer header data in Apache to selectively send that one referrer an image advertizing an ABC television show. Oh, did I mention, the broadcaster was affiliated with NBC.

As a long term solution, I started watermaking all the publicly available images with the organization logo in a prominent place. "Monetizing" the product wasn't a viable option, so their free "advertising", which actually advertised a different outfit, was useless.

Re:chicks and politics

[blakelarson]

Yeah, she's a winner:

"I concur in full based upon what I know about mental illness only and feel that she has just scratched the surface. I think that Obama is a devil worshipping psychopath who has lost his marbles and is very very dangerous. His psychological profile equals that of Kim Jong (14 personality disorders) and Hitler. I think he’s worse."

Re:Candice side

[RobertLTux]

okay the way the law works is if you want to use a photo/image NOT LABELED AS FREE USE /PUBLIC DOMAIN and you are profiting from it (commercial use) you ring up the photographer/creator and work out a deal

or

You get your own camera and take your own picture.

im sure that a lawyer worth her diploma could work out some sort of deal for a single picture (maybe a couple hundred bucks and or a nice credit line).

Re:Candice side

[Lumpy]

The Answer is a Lot of light watermarks across the image.

Sorry but it's a fact of the internet. If you dont want your image lifted, only power Low res (1024X768 or less) and watermarked.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[Lumpy]

It could be worse he could be a fat idiot on AM radio.

Streisand Effect

[Pat Attack]

I wonder if this bat shit crazy woman has ever heard of it. Shall we teach her all about it? I'm not a lawyer, but I play one when drunk. It seems to me that her mind numbing dribble ramblings about Jay are the epitome of libel.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[Anonymous Coward]

Beats being on AM.

Since he didn't stop her...

[couchslug]

...who is next in line for the same treatment?

What her conduct says about her in this instance sheds light on everything else she does. If I were her employer, she'd be terminated.

That's one crazy lady...

[RedBear]

Reading just bits and pieces of this lady's blog it is quite apparent that she is full-on batshit, tea-party, paranoid-about-liberal-media crazy. Ignoring the fact that most of her wrath should be directed toward the insane policies of GoDaddy who are the ones who decided to shut down ALL her sites over a single photograph, she needs to have someone with backbone sue her dumb ass for slander and defamation so she can see how the law actually works. She needs a massive mental slap upside the head to rattle her brain back into place. She's pulling conspiracies out of thin air left and right, making all kinds of accusations without a shred of evidence. Oh, her evidence is, "I don't believe in coincidences."

I love the cognitive dissonance of these people. She quotes a supposed conservative psychologist expounding on some sort of horribly obvious but also incredibly nebulous psychological "problem" with Obama: "His externalizing all blame to conservatives, George W. Bush, or the “racist” bogeyman hints at persecutory delusions." Funny, I thought that's what conservatives were doing all day long, in the other direction. Externalizing all blame for literally EVERYTHING to liberals and Obama. Pot, kettle, carbon motherfuckin' black.

Wow. Just wow. Reading that blog is scary. She should apply for a job at Fox News. I'm sure she'd fit in perfectly. Now excuse me while I go scrub the crazy out of my brain with some Dragonball.

Re:That's one crazy lady...

[RedBear]

She supports Newt. Clearly not Tea Party. But hey, it's fun to characterize an entire group of people based on the words and actions of a single tangentially related individual, isn't it? Makes you feel real superior. Awesome.

My bad. Allow me to sincerely apologize for mistaking one group of batshit crazy liberal-media-conspiracies-are-destroying-the-universe loons for a completely different batshit crazy liberal-media-conspiracies-are-destroying-the-universe loons. I can't imagine how I got so confused.

By the way, I was using "tea party" as a figure of speech, as in "crazy like the tea party", which is why it's hyphenated and uncapitalized. Not that it particularly matters. Nuts is nuts, no matter what side they're on or what they call themselves.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[iamhassi]

Its a story about some nobody who got upset because he published his photograph on the internet and someone else used it. boo fucking hoo.

This is right!

Clearly whoever posted this /. story did not read the article. I was thinking oh, he was probably selling some photos online and someone stole them, and he tried to email them and ask them to remove the photo but websites were being douches.

Nothing could be further from the truth:
"setup my camera gear and took this photo. And as I tend to do, I posted it to my blog to show it off. No big deal. I liked the photo I took of the city I love and I wanted to share it."

This is NOT a photo he was selling and making money off of or paid models/actors to be in, he just took photo of the city and put it on his blog. That's great... took a photo, put on blog... that's nice....

"I tried searching to see if this photo might be being used without my permission and was pretty stunned to learn the results.... this did not sit with me too well so I contemplated my options. I decided to file a formal Digital Millennium Copyright Act take-down notice with the providers of any site I found using my image without permission..... in less than a day, the site was down."

W......T..............F.............. "I found a mouse in my house so i contemplated my options. I decided to nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure."

How crazy do you have to be to file DMCA take-down notices with the website providers over your blog photo as your FIRST option? No attempt to email, no attempt to resolve situation or extort money, just pull down their website! This photographer is clearly a nut case!

I hope he doesn't issue a DMCA to /. because I quoted his blog.

Jay Lee handled this all wrong

[flimflammer]

He mentions how she's throwing "Think of the children" down his throat but he seems to have seriously caved to it. Why is he cowering in fear at this woman's insane lawsuit threats?

I've got the feeling Jay Lee said or did something that he isn't mentioning in the article. It just doesn't make sense since he's the actual victim here, having his copywritten material used without permission, but he was gonna take the blog entry down that talks about this? What leg does this woman even have to stand on to sue him?

Re:Jay Lee handled this all wrong

[idontgno]

Sometimes, the best thing to do is to kick a charging, barking dog in the teeth. But sometimes, it's not, like if the dog is rabid.

Schwagger's tone and rhetoric is so amazingly over the top that if she were more than just a metaphoric dog, I would be quite concerned about rabies.

You can't fault Jay Lee for reflexively flinching. I just hope he hasn't hurt his standing if he does have to pursue some kind of legal teeth-kicking.

Re:Jay Lee handled this all wrong

[NerdmastaX]

i contacted her bout this story and she threatened to sue ME for being a libel machine. I got the emails with all her crazy curse lawyer talk if anyone wants another bad /. story. i wont chickenshit out and take it down.

Re:unworkable business model

[ZeroSumHappiness]

You are depriving him of his commercial rights. Yes, these rights are imaginary, in that they're a social convention to enrich him despite the physical cost of copying is low, but they're there for a reason. They give him incentive to produce and compensate him for the time and effort he puts into crafting and utilizing his skill.

For example, if you have a blog that you don't pay for beyond your time and effort and write a scathing article critiquing Litware for their horrible human rights practices in Elbonia you have no problem with others reading your blog for personal use or personal edification. However, if the Times Picayune Daily copies your article without payment or attribution and puts it on their front page you, technically, have not been deprived of anything, right? But then that article causes hundreds of thousands of people to start purchasing the Times Picayune Daily daily. They continue to rip off your blog and make a hefty profit from your articles. Yet they've not deprived you of anything. Except that now when you want to sell, for example, a hardcover book version of your blog the Times Picayune Daily puts out their "Greatest Hits" book at the same time, undercutting your price. You still haven't lost a thing of value, right?

Or, put another way, turning a lump of steel into a car only costs time and effort, so why should the auto worker be compensated beyond the cost of the steel that went into it, right? Producing that picture took time, effort and skill, so why shouldn't Jay Lee be compensated beyond the material cost of transferring the bits from one place to another?

(I'm trying to keep this as grounded a theory as possible while minimally invoking imaginary property rights. If you wish to continue this line I would suggest we first work out how his time, effort and skill should be compensated since I doubt you will argue that he spent none of that on his photograph and, if you're copying it instead of doing it yourself, you find value in the fact that he did it first.)

Re:is it irony...?

[mcgrew]

I had the same thing happen to me. Well, not the whole site, but the most people landed on when they were doing a search.

What's funny was, mine wasn't a commercial site (I didn't even run ad banners) and all I wanted was credit and a link!

You mention changing the backgroud image, many of the bozos plagairizing me didn't change anything but the name on the copyright notice to their own.

Re:Candice side

[Spectre]

Wow so now we all are lawyers? I mean give me break, what has this world come to when copying a photo causes a deluge of DMCA takedowns. If you want to share, post it on the internet. Otherwise stay off of it and go to law school.

Given that the photo was posted on Flickr and clear marked as a copyrighted photo with "all rights reserved", any adult should know better than to think s/he can appropriate for their own commercial enterprise ... and in this specific case, it wasn't just any random person, but in fact a LAWYER that appropriated the work of another.

Before even considering the unprofessional behavior, this was worth a slap from the state bar association, now it's worthy of several slaps and a couple of kicks as well.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[operagost]

Like Ed Schultz?

Re:Candice side

[muon-catalyzed]

I think this is a text book example of copyright at work. DMCA and copyright works here as intended and DMCA is helping the little guy in his battle with the pirates, copycats, thieves, aggregators and other parasites.

Re:they are giving you credit now

[blueskies]

Someone hot linked some photos in a forum board post, so I moved my photo and downloaded a picture of "tubgirl instead". Every single person that when to that forum topic got a big ol' picture of tub girl.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[iamhassi]

People were using his photo on commercial websites. What is the problem?

so email them. Ask them to pay or remove or else. The guy jumped (to conclusions) all the way to or else. Maybe some designer used the photo. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe they got it from another site and didn't know who owned it. Image doesn't say copyright on it. Maybe they're evil and stole the photo. Still email them first, maybe they're nice.

And when did /. start supporting abuse of DMCA take-down notices? Thought we hate DMCA notices, and really hated people that abused the system.

Re:Candice side

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Before she started going nuts on the guy, I'm guessing describing that her sites were intended to promote a charity and attributing the photo might have worked.

Now? If I were the photographer, her next communication to me in ANY form would be answered very simply: "Address any further communications to my lawyer, here's his or her address."

Re:Candice side

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Wow so now we all are lawyers? I mean give me break, what has this world come to when copying a photo causes a deluge of DMCA takedowns. If you want to share, post it on the internet. Otherwise stay off of it and go to law school.

Does that include free software like Linux, Firefox, etc? So Microsoft should be able to download that software and do whatever they want with it? If you disagree with that statement, what's the difference between Linux, Firefox, and this guy's photograph? What makes the first two copyrightable and the last one not?

Re:Candice side

[mwvdlee]

Yeah, just like at the movies. If they didn't want people to record it onto their camcorders, they shouldn't put the movie on the big screen.
If record companies don't want people to copy CD's, they shouldn't print CD's.
Supermarkets put food in their stores, then they let people in for free and those people take the food. Big deal. Get over yourself.
If you want to say dumb shit without being held responsible, you should post as AC. ...oh wait, you did.
By your logic you can either make something public domain or keep it hidden from the outside world.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[toadlife]

Then some psycho, leftist, wingnut, lawyer with a brain as disabled as her child flipped the fuck out all over the internets.

Leftists are supporting Newt Gingrich nowadays?

Re:Candice side

[bengoerz]

Watermarking is only good when you control the source. However, when a customer buys the non-watermarked image and uses it, it can then be lifted by anyone else.

USE != ABUSE

[Joe U]

Thought we hate DMCA notices, and really hated people that abused the system.

We do, as soon as he abuses the system you be sure to let us know.

Use is not abuse. It was a little strong, but it's not out of line. If he started mass sending DMCA notices without checking to see if it was his image, that is abuse. If he used DMCA notices to shut down a site for the sole purpose of shutting down a site, that is abuse. He filed a notice using the tools given to him, GoDaddy are the ones that overreact to DMCA notices.

Would you rather he went straight to a copyright infringement lawsuit? He could have done that. Then the first notice she would have gotten was, 'hi, I'm suing you for using my pictures commercially, see you in court'.

Re:Candice side

[jythie]

One can rail against the RIAA/MPAA and still feel for this photographer. He did not threaten to sue, he did not start a court case to uncover her IP address, he did not try to extort a multi-thousand dollar settlement out of her to avoid a court case that could bankrupt her, he did not bribe political figures to pass scary new laws giving him government like power to shut her down. He filed a takedown notice asking her not to use his copyrighted work.

One can both respect copyright while still deploring powerful groups that abuse those same rules to crush people who can't defend themselves.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[jythie]

No, fair game is if he marks it as creative commons or public domain. He retained copyright. Just because isn't making money off of it doesn't mean other people have permission to use it for their own profit.

Re:oh shut up

[Joe Decker]

Not really.

In short, you have (1) a woman who didn't play by the book and is an asshat, (2) a company that overreacted, and (3) a guy who did play by the book and who clearly had a legitimate beef.

You seem to be directing your outrage at #3.

Way to set priorities, dude. I'm outta here, have a nice day.

Re:Candice side

[budgenator]

And she'a an attorney, how could she not know copyright infringement is illegal? What she did was as bad as when Micheal Moore put one of Micheal Yon's photos on his website without permission; At least Moore took the picture down without being a whiny suck about it.

GoDaddy is the guilty party here

[MobyDisk]

The focus has been on the crazy woman, but GoDaddy has a big part of the blame here:

And, as it turned out, all of these sites are linked together as far as GoDaddy is concerned which resulted in all 14 of them going down after I filed my complaint.

A photographer filed a DMCA request asserting that a single image was infringing. GoDaddy took down 14 web sites in response. GoDaddy should be liable for damages for taking down 13 of those sites, and potentially for all 14. Now in this case, little harm was done. But imagine the real-world equivalent: A poster is on a wall and so the entire building is leveled. Does that make sense? If a single phone bill is late, does the entire neighborhood lose their phone service? If an electric bill is late does the entire city block lose power? GoDaddy's response makes no sense, and the DMCA should not protect them from such stupidity.

Re:Candice side

[budgenator]

A surprising amount of time just asking before publishing and posting a photo credit is all it takes to get permission, especially if your an individual or a non-profit.

Re:Candice side

[BronsCon]

It also seems that he would have been perfectly happy to receive an email asking for permission to use the image on a nonprofit site. He likely would have just asked for a proper citation in the footer or some other credit for the photo. It's simple things like this that, done prior to simply taking someone's work, garner a lot of good will, but, done after you've been caught, buy you nothing.

The copyright holder sucks

[Nyder]

He sends DMCA notices, then he gets threated to be sued over crap and he gets scared?

Why the fuck did he sent the DMCA notices to begin with, if he wasn't prepared to stand his ground? All he's doing is giving this other person ammo and basicly permission to be a cunt with other peoples properties.

Candice Shwagger is a bully, you stand up to bullies.

Ya, bitch, sue me, stupid cunt.

Re:don't get fickle now

[ScentCone]

assuming she had even considered its copyright, Schwager had no idea who it belonged to or the license behind it

And as an attorney and someone who publishes stuff herself, she should know that every work is subject to copyright, and that if she can't see where someone has granted her license to use it without asking, she can safely assume that running off with it and using it as part of her own material is infringement, plain and simple.

Re:Candice side

[jo_ham]

Because she's batshit insane and has the biggest entitlement complex I've ever seen. She's classic Tea Party (her facebook page has "impeach Barry Saotoro aka Barack Obama" liked, which is the least surprising thing about her).

Her first reaction to not getting her way was to wail like a spoiled child, and then you could sense the cogs turning in her mind as she got her way (the guy retracted the DMCA request and got her sites restored when he didn't have to) and then she went into an entitlement rage.

I don't think her daddy has ever said no to her. It tends to create entitled cunts who act like they've been *viciously* wronged when someone points out they have done something they're not supposed to have done, and then tries to justify it as right purely because she did it.

The fact that she's worked closely with actual attorneys is even more hilarious given that she wants to sue this guy for a long list of random complaints - presumably whatever she could think up on the spot. She'll be laughed out of court so hard that the judge will probably have a hernia, but it's just a shame that Jay Lee will have to waste time getting it all sorted out.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[jo_ham]

He used the DMCA as it was designed to be used - specific targeting of websites who are infringing on your copyright. He even did it himself (rather than farming the job out to a lawfirm).

He did exactly what you're meant to do - and as he said, the vast majority of those he contacted either took the image down or asked him about licensing it. It only went wrong when Tea Party Crazy Fucker decided to go on an assblasting entitlement rant and threatened to sue him because she was doing something illegal.

How else would you have suggested he go about it? He contacted the owners of the site via DNS lookup or via a provided DMCA form for those hosts who have one.

I have a very hard time how he's "abusing" the system when he is:

a) actually has a valid claim for every single DMCA notice he sent out
b) only sent them to sites that were actually infringing
c) made an effort to reconcile with the party in question rather than suing them (ie, stop using the picture or pay a small amount to license it)

If that's "abuse" then I really don't know what the MPAA/RIAA's blanket "oh just send them to everyone, via our lawyers, I don't care if there's actual infringement - just assume they are and send a notice" could be described as.

Re:Candice side

[anomaly256]

As a lawyer, she should have known that to get her sites reinstated all she had to do was contact GoDaddy herself and file a claim of non-violation of the DMCA, at which point GoDaddy are required to reinstate the site while the 2 parties let the courts nut it out. As PEr the terms of the DMCA, upon initial filing of the takedown GoDaddy have to disable access to the content. But the onus is then on the would-be defendant to dispute the charge to reinstate access and which point it's out of GoDaddy's hands and up to the courts unless both parties decide to settle the matter themselves.

Re:Is Jay Lee free of any blame?

[Hillgiant]

Jay Lee is a tech blogger for the Houston Chronicle. He also has a little radio show on a public radio station.

He admits in his article that he was cranking out enough takedown notices to semi-automate the process. He perhaps should have known GoDaddy's policy regarding multiple sites registered to the same person. Though, I think it unreasonable for him to research which third party sites would be affected in the defense of his work. On the gripping hand, all the non-infringing sites were restored at his request once the problem was brought to light.

My own personal suspicion is that Ms. Shwagger was not the author of the websites and may have had little or no idea of the providence of the image in question. This does not excuse her alleged, abusive reactions to Mr. Lee. It may shed some light on why she thinks that she is the agrieved party in this matter.

I have not heard Mr. Lee espouse any political position on his radio show. Extrapolating from his positions on various tech news items addressed on his show, I suspect that he may actually agree with Ms. Shwagger's political views. Which makes her unfounded, partisan attacks all the more ironic.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[ichthyoboy]

According to the Berne Convention (which the US is a signatory to), all images created by citizens of member states have implicit copyright unless otherwise noted as in the public domain.

Let's look at this in more detail.

[Joe U]

tools given to me is a shotgun, should i shoot my neighbors for the loud music? No? Call the police you say? Ask them to turn it down? Naw, nuke from orbit, i wont say anything just rip them apart.
 

False equivalence, murder and mass murder are not equal to a website service disruption. Next argument.

Suing is waaaay better. Site stays up, court decides, pay a judgement and you're done. As a website owner I would MUCH rather fight in court than watch the site go down for even a day.
 

Lawsuit, Step 1, injunction to stop ongoing infringement. Site is now down by court order, restore process now involves court schedule. Next argument.

ripping a business website off the internet is probably the worse thing you can do to a online business, hence nuke from orbit.
 

A very good point. I suggest we ask GoDaddy why they did that. Next argument.

I'm incredibly shocked the entire internet hasn't turned on this asshole and post every photo he's ever taken all over every website on earth.

Because he was right and his actions were, while a little harsh, justified and correct. GoDaddy was the group that overreacted. Next argument.

Screw this prick.

Your sexual preferences are not relevant to this discussion.

Re:Confused someones dmced the plot

[terjeber]

Both cases you cited, the owner is deprived of real property

Not really. In case number two, the owner was deprived of some cheap paint and a canvas, not much else. If it was a Picasso, that paint and that canvas was valued at zero compared to the value of the work that went in to the painting. Picasso reportedly once made a quick sketch at someone's request and then asked an exorbitant amount of money for it. The requester protested stating that Picasso only spent about 3 minutes on the sketch and that it could not possibly be worth that amount of money. Picasso answered that this was not the case. He had spent thirty years on that sketch. He was right.

It's like stealing software and claiming that nobody lost any money. It is bullshit. The photographer lost money he was owed due to her actions, or at least recognition. Both are valuable commodities if you try to make a living as an artist, which even with photographers is damned hard. Creating the picture took him years and years of work. She stole it. She needs to suffer for that.