Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Infringer Tries To Shut Down Reporting On Her Infringement
An anonymous reader writes "Further to the previous story on Slashdot where attorney Candice Schwager threw threats to sue a photographer who reported a DMCA violation against her for infringing use of his photography: Candice has now made a DMCA threat of her own against Petapixel, a photography site that reported on her infringement. The kicker? She's sent the DMCA notice an apparent six times not to Petapixel's registrar or their hosting service, but to Godaddy, her own registrar."
She is!
how the fuck did that happen?
oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.
Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?
petapixel's registrar appear to also be GoDaddy. Of course that may not be their host...in fact probably is not. Her takedown notice still makes her sound like a lunatic though.
http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/law-firms-are-embracing-social-medis-for-top-seo-rankings-in-texas/
Apparently she's an expert in social media.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
She needs to look up "fair use". In case she's reading, I refer her to 17 USC 107
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
They need a complaint first:
Contact a CDC Regional Office
If you have questions about the grievance process or the status of a grievance, or if you need to request a grievance form, please call the office located nearest you.
Austin, Texas
Phone: (512) 427-1350, or
(877) 953-5535
Fax: (512) 427-4169
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
1414 Colorado St.
Austin, Texas 78701
Dallas, Texas
Phone: (972) 383-2900
Fax: (972) 383-2935
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
14651 Dallas Parkway, Ste 925
Dallas, Texas 75254
Houston, Texas
Phone: (713) 758-8200
Fax: (713) 758-8292
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
600 Jefferson, Ste. 1000
Houston, Tx 77002
San Antonio, Texas
Phone: (210) 208-6600
Fax: (210) 208-6625
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Federal Reserve Building
126 E. Nueva, Suite 200
San Antonio, Texas 78204
How to file a complaint:
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451
Grievance Form:
http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/TheGrievanceProcess/HowtoFileaGrievance/GrievanceFormEnglish.pdf
Petapixel is reporting on her copyright infringement. As such they have a thumbnail screen shot of her site as proof. That thumbnail includes her logo, just barely readable. This woman needs to go back to law school and look up "fair use" and the difference between copyrights and trademarks. Next thing you know, she will be claiming copyright infringement for publishing her DMCA letter. If she really is practicing law then she ought to be disbarred for her behavior.
It says:
Sorry right clicking is disabled, please respect copyright.
WTF? really lady? You didn't with that photo and go on some crazy rant. I can't even read some of what she writes without just rolling my eyes.
Make no mistake -- Texas is indeed full of dumbasses. It's not a unique condition. I have lived here ALL my life and the one thing I have come to understand about dumbasses, is not all of them are malicious assholes. We didn't all vote for Bush (or Perry for that matter) but WAY too many of us did.
Then Karl Rove put his thumb on the scale and nothing else mattered.
She'll probably sue her now too for ruining her career...
Does anyone else find it ironic that the actual infringer's sites [ http://chicksandpolitics.com/ , http://atty4kids.org/ ] have an anti-right-click script that produces a smarmy message about respecting copyrights?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.
Wade.
Although her Linkedin profile states that she has worked as an attorney in the past, the Texas bar website does not show her as a current member. She claims to have made a voluntary career change and left the practice of law to become an attorney marketing guru. That's somewhat plausible, except that NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances. Even those who leave the practice of law almost always maintain their bar memberships. I would bet she was disbarred or suspended for an extended time.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
Why or how was that rant worth posting? Slashdot has been an effective avenue for wasting time for its whole existence (in addition to having some worthwhile articles). The trick is to read the headline, maybe part of the summary, and decide if you want to read further.
Oh wait. You said flaming, not flamingos. It doesn't make any more sense now though.
PetaPixel Michael Zhang Exploits Disabled Kids Non-Profit
Couldn't this qualify as libel? And isn't she perjuring herself by claiming that this individual is violating her copyrights even though it's a clear cut case of fair use? Not to mention the crazy claims she made about the other individual.
This series of events have been so awkward and strange that I'm seriously starting to wonder if everyone is in it together to troll the internet. How is this crazy lunatic woman a lawyer, really, without even seemingly a basic understanding of the law?
Someone needs to put this hag in her place.
The judge didn't rule that any non-profit can take anything they want. You have to read the ruling to understand why he thought that particular non-profit using that particular article was fair use.
Teabaggers had nothing to do with the current economic crisis; they were a response to the crisis, not its cause. It was caused by decades of progressive erosion of banking regulations, and the culprits were a series of Republicans; mainly Senators and regulatory agency appointees put in by Republican presidents, from Reagan onwards. Of course, there were exacerbating additional insults, like the Dubya tax cuts, but the root cause was the evisceration of the regulations put into place to prevent just this sort of thing from happening.
And it's fair to say that Obama broke a lot of promises; he did. He has failed on so many levels; continuing and extending the unpopular TARP program, failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed (and instead trying to play fair with the GOP, a party which makes no bones about its policy of doing everything it can to harm the country when the other party holds the White House in order to make the President look bad), and by knuckling under to the Republicans at every turn, getting a watered-down health care bill passed that ends up accomplishing nothing. It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee -- but the brain trust at the national democratic party decided that anyone who could give one good speech was the democratic version of Reagan, so he was rushed in.
Yes you are right, the story doesn't make sense. And the summary doesn't help. The story:
Jay Lee, a photographer, took a picture. Discovered many people were using it. Issued DMCA notices
Candice, was using the picture to promote a business. Go Daddy received DMCA and took down all 14 of Candice's sites. She freaked.
That was basically the original story.
PetaPixel reported on the issue, included a screenshot of Candice's use of Jay's photo.
Remember I said Candice flipped? So apparently she issued SIX DMCAs to GoDaddy because she claims PetaPixel's screenshot of her site is copyright infringement (when in reality it is fair use)
According to Rmoney, 500000 a month would be successful.
Of course, Obama is a recipreversexclusion - had the economy created half a million jobs last month, they'd be saying it should create 2 million. No matter what he did or was (allegedly) responsible for, it's wrong.
Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.
And their base believed each of these things in turn, and never saw how ridiculous that is. This exact kind of pattern repeats again, and again, and again. It's been going on for decades. The lack of retrospection and introspection in the Republican party and right-wingers in general never ceases to amaze and/or horrify me. I just don't understand how anyone can listen to someone like Hannity or Glenn Beck and not eventually realize "This person's claims have no relation to what actually happens. This person is never right about anything. I should stop listening to them." Seriously! How the hell does that not happen?
Is there any way you can mod the submission itself as "Funny"?
Seriously - for an alleged lawyer, not knowing what the DMCA is, how to use it, and doing so in a manner that simply boils over the ol' cauldron full of dumbass?
Umm, yeah. At this point, forget counter-suing. If I were the guy who inadvertently opened this particular can of crazy, I'd start loudly and openly asking the Texas State Bar to consider distancing themselves from Ms Schwager as quickly as possible, and with unabashed prejudice.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I lay my cards out on the table, quite plainly.
whoever is the more religious: I vote the OTHER WAY.
the evil factor of how much damage they can do is mostly about the same, give or take. but are they religious-based and do they believe in sky daddies? do they pander to that base who does? if so, then my vote goes to the other guy.
the republicans have allied themselves with the religion believers and I don't quite understand why, but I do see it as an easy filter mechanism.
sky daddy believers just can't be taken seriously, and they have shown themselves to be bad for the people who are not of their own general belief system. they are strongly anti-progress.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
From a post on her batshit insane rambling website.
Jay is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids’ websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. He undoubtedly knows how to kill a server with a Trojan virus, though I’m not suggesting he did this to a mom of three little boys, one with special needs.
And SHE is suing HIM for libel. Holy shit.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Awww, you missed the funniest bit – She was using his photo on her site, on a page talking about copyright infringement, and how you mustn't do it.
It appears from other comments that she was already disbarred some time ago. So that may not be as great an idea as it sounds.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.
This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.
Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Which if the DMCA was applied the way it was written would put her in deep shit similar to perjury for making a false DMCA claim, but of course it's never actually been applied that way.
That law should never have been passed but the US is busy trying to spread the cancer to other places.
Folks, you're too quick to conclude that Republican voters are stupid. I know quite a few old white guys who are actually smart people, and who vote Republican. What they think does make sense, if the premises they believe are true. They are stuck in the 1950's, stuck on the American ideal of the rugged individualist, and the march of progress. They still believe in getting ahead through hard work, in pushing their children to strike out on their own, and they've seen well-meaning social aid enable dependency. They know it's a hard world, and they believe tough love is the best way to help others. Most of all, they still have a charming sort of optimism that society is largely in control of honest people who will reward others for a job well done, and that the world is a stable place that is not going to get warmer, and there is no call for panic and massive spending over what seems to them fantastical and most unlikely. Much more pressing matters are foreign enemies, which in those days were of course the Commies. In all this, there is none of the lunatic social conservative. These guys remember the times when Democrats were a collection of hippies, artists, impractical dreamers, morons, and slackers sponging off the hard work of our engineers and scientists, and hiding behind the shield of our military. 1969 really reinforced that. Woodstock looks shabby, pointless, and downright irresponsible next to the moon landing. Yes, it was a Democratic president, Kennedy, who proposed it, but the Republicans were quick to see the military potential of space. They simply do not see that today, the Republican party has completely flip flopped on science. Note also that Vietnam was pushed by the Democrats as much as or more than the Republicans. Neither party seemed capable or willing to stop that war. Ford was the president who finally ended Vietnam, not a peace loving Democrat.
There are cracks. They haven't given up on the Republican party, but they are wavering. The anti-science, anti-fact craziness is harder than ever to overlook, and is bothering them. The fraud and corruption of recent years that lead to the Great Recession also bothers them, but on that front the Democrats are indistinguishable-- all politicians and liars and crooks. It doesn't help that Obama has basically done at best nothing to curb the excesses and crimes of the financial sector. Only Madoff has been imprisoned. We are in peril of another financial meltdown. The PIIGS, particularly Greece, will undoubtedly be blamed for much of it. But there's plenty we can do in the US whatever happens with Europe. The sad fact is like with the Vietnam War in the 60's, neither party seems willing to take steps to do so. We need to bolster honesty and transparency in the markets and politics. Got to police the markets, get tough on white collar crime. Who are you supposed to vote for if you feel Wall Street fraud and campaign finance is our biggest problem? Whoever is not currently in power?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Wrong.
Current Member Status: Eligible To Practice In Texas
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=198610
Jay Lee needs to pick this up again, just to get a conviction against her. That would make it easier to get het disbarred. Lawyers should learn when to sue and when not to and that sueing people can have consequences to themselves as well.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
"What's your IP address?"
"Uh, 192.168.1.2"
This may be the chance; she seems crazy enough to actually lose. PetaPixel should report the perjury and we should all pile in with donations to support them. Getting a precedent set in this direction would really really help.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
She claims to be an attorney, but others have posted that no research so far conducted can find evidence that she has ever been licensed as such or is currently entitled to act as such. If, as seems possible given the evidence so far, she is not an attorney at all but a fraud, then Texas' bar should be considering legal action on those grounds and the State should consider pulling her business license as it is presumably a violation of the terms and conditions of such a license.
If she actually IS an attorney, then she's either incompetent (which should be a debarring offense) OR she is knowingly using threats of a lawsuit for the purpose of intimidating an innocent party to perform specific actions for the benefit of the accuser (I believe this may fall under the terms of "Demands With Menaces", which is a criminal offense). Neither of these would look good on her resume and I hope both the bar and the State Justice Department examine the issue.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Soon to be changing her name to "Candice Streisand"...
No sig today...
Seriously - for an alleged lawyer, not knowing what the DMCA is, how to use it
What's weird about that? The people who drafted the law didn't know much about it and the people who voted to pass it knew even less.
No sig today...
Why would it be a perjury issue - fair use is a defence, not an exclusion so making the DMCA claim would not be false at all, and it would be up to the alleged infringer to make the case for fair use.
Since this, like a lot of stories here at /. has gone political, let me weigh in...
President Obama's biggest mistake was trying to rescue the Republicans when they were at an all time low thinking he needed "bipartisanship" to get things passed. He had 3/4ths of the power (lacking only the Supreme Court) and he treated the opposition like they were equal partners. Like my dad always said, leave it to the Democrats to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Instead of using the Tea Party lunacy like a knife twisting it in the belly of the beast, they allowed the Republicans to set not only the tone of the argument but the agenda as if they were still in power.
Anyway, to try and bring this back around, this attorney is just about as batty as any Tea Party Patriot. I guess it is a sign of the times.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
This presumes that Obama wanted single payer or financial reform or peace. That's a big presumption.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Once again, Lawyers are not the smartest cookies in the jar. "He who serves as their own lawyer has a fool for a client." Sounds like a counter claim for harassment, filing a frivolous lawsuit and abusive litigation. See CASE COMMENT: Yost v. Torok and Abusive Litigation: A New Tort to Solve an Old Problem https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=21+Ga.+L.+Rev.+429&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=d376f4fa7d7435dfcf58647c4b43a54c
She's making a good case for sterilization as a legal penalty.
failing to take advantage of the brief period of Democratic control of Congress by getting his health care plan passed
It's not his fault; he's naive and inexperienced, and never should have been put up as a nominee
I have a somewhat different view of this. It seems that Obama actually got the health care that he wanted. Sure he paid lip-service to a public option for political reasons, but maybe you don't remember or didn't know that he negotiated away the public option in private meetings with the insurance companies early on [1] [2]. There's also the fact that Obama decided to personally scold Kucinich for trying to stick up for the public option. So I don't really buy the argument that Obama has good intentions but is just too powerless, inexperienced, good-natured, etc. to stand up to the Republicans.
You forgot to mention that she's a lawyer.
You forgot to mention that she's a sandwich maker. FTFY
In the DMCA notice the complaining has to state that they in good faith believe that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
The notice also has to include a statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Since a copyrights lawyer could reasonably be expected to know that the usage would fall under a fair use defense and therefore the use is authorized by the law they could therefore not under the penalty of perjury truthfully swear that the information in the notification is accurate.
That explains why prior to his election and campaign promises, he either voted every for full funding of the Iraq war or did not vote (not the same as coming out against, especially when the votes came closer to the presidential election) and of course voted to extend the PATRIOT act.
I voted third party for the first time last election because I believed his campaign was a lie based on his record. Turns out I was right and made the correct presumption.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
all the sites are probably on one godaddy account, and they (godaddy) simply disabled the account instead of deleting the infringing file or redirecting the dns for the one infringing domain. easier and faster to do that way for them, and more likely to get the infringer to contact godaddy for the whats-what. but some might think that godaddy used a sledgehammer when a baseball bat to the head would've sufficed.. that is, unless they already had previous experience dealing with her and knew she was bat-shit-crazy.. many companies make notes about "special" customers -- we simply use @@@ signs in a 'notes' field (@ for asshole.. the more they have, the worse they are) -- for this lady, i might have to send a request over to the DBA to increase that field length, just for her.
Much like Libya, when before Obama and NATO intervened the Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop. And afterwards, when we were done (in a month, for under a billion dollars, and with none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple) they continued whinging that we never should've intervened in the first place.
Now that's just ridiculous. That would be like them spending all of their time legislating contraception, abortion, and marriage, and then complaining that the president hasn't done enough to help the economy.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Please upgrade.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
i read the original story the other day, as it was listed in someone's sig here at slashdot - i followed the trail, and after she had taken down Jay's picture, she replaced it with an Anne Geddes picture. that made me chuckle.
Republicans were screaming that something had to be done. And while the intervention was occurring, they suddenly cared deeply about undeclared wars and demanded he stop.
Doing something about an oppressive regime is not equivalent to an undeclared war flying in the face of a Congress that is demanding the President at least address the War Powers Act before continuing.
under a billion dollars... none of the men sent to do it suffering so much as a purple nurple
Preventing injury to our troops and keeping war cheap is not the purpose of the War Powers Act despite what Obama seemed to think.