Anti-Piracy Firm Sends Out Wave of Takedown Notices For Using the Word 'Pixels'

An anonymous reader writes: Columbia Pictures recently released a movie called Pixels to widespread ambivalence. As part of the movie industry's standard intellectual property defense strategy, it hired anti-piracy firm Entura International to try to police infringing downloads. The firm went at the task with vigor, hitting Vimeo with DMCA takedown notices for anything with the word "Pixels" in it. As you might expect, this disrupted a number of independent filmmakers and organizations who did nothing wrong, and in most cases picked a name for their video long before the new movie came out. Even worse, it's incumbent upon the owners of the targeted videos to prove that their content does not infringe upon Columbia's. Even if they get it restored, simply being targeted counts against them in Vimeo's eyes. And of course, Entura is unwilling to help.

Comments

Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest a DMCA takedown notice against Columbia pictures filed by anyone using the name previously. Or must one be rich to use government enforcement agencies as one's lapdog?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Opportunist]

You have to be a corporation or at least something else that we may reasonably expect a campaign contribution from. Where have you been that you don't know that?

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

DMCA takedown won't cut it. Instead, go on the offensive and accuse Columbia Pictures for standard copyright violation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual artâ"
(1) shall have the rightâ"
(A) to claim authorship of that work,

While these aren't necessarily exclusive rights, I'm pretty sure it's meant to prevent plagiarism by someone putting their name on someone else's work. I'd love to see this tested on someone who makes false takedown claims.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, jail time for Columbia pictures employees and their agents. You must sign under penalty of perjury that you know the infringement to be true. Time to get them in jail where they belong.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[grahammm]

Columbia claim that the works for which they send takedown notices violate the copyright in their new movie. As the works concerned were created and put online before the movie was created, then one of two things can be true. 1) The works do not violate the claimed copyright, or 2) If copyright has been violated, then it is the Columbia movie which violates the copyrights in the earlier work(s). In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anne Thwacks]

Please see a doctor. Even with ear plugs, you ought to hear that wooshing sound.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[cpt kangarooski]

Sorry, but that won't work.

You're citing 17 USC 106A. That only applies to the author of "a work of visual art." That term is specially defined in the Copyright Act, in the definitions section at 17 USC 101. The relevant parts of the definition are:

A "work of visual art" is--

(1) a painting, drawing, print, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.

It really isn't possible for anything online to qualify, due to the requirement of there being only a single copy (a copy is defined in the Copyright Act as being a tangible object containing the work; a computer file isn't a copy, but a hard drive can be, which means that if other people can download it, they're necessarily making a new copy), or no more than 200 copies if each copy is signed and numbered and which are a limited edition.

What this is actually meant for is fine art, like a painting, art prints, etc. Not art posted online. It was a nice try, but you've got to check the statute more thoroughly if you want to cite it correctly.

Re:Seems simple enough to reverse this strategy

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

We would like to make clear on behalf of our client, Anonymous Coward, that the mistranscription of "Colombia" as "Columbia" was purely an inadvertent administrative error, which was subsequently acted upon by computer without further human interaction. Therefore as Anonymous Coward is in fact the copyright holder of the work "first ten word draft of script for documentary 'Colombia'", the perjury penalties under the DMCA do not apply. Have a nice day.

With best regards,
The Lawyers

Standard shite

[wbr1]

When are we collectively going to stand up and say that the real pirates are the ones who steal our culture from us piece by piece? People who then have the audacity to push out drivel like 'pixels' and call it culture?

DMCA reform

[Lord Bitman]

I don't like most of the DMCA in principle, but I expect I wouldn't even care about it, if it just had some clear built-in penalty for making a false claim (eg: 200% of the maximum damages were the claim valid)

Re:DMCA reform

[SuricouRaven]

It does, but it only applies if the false claim is false in the sense that it wasn't filed by the copyright holder or someone they appointed to represent them. There is no penalty for a claim made in error, so long as it was authorized by the copyright holder of the allegedly infringed work.

Re:DMCA reform

[Khyber]

"It does, but it only applies if the false claim is false in the sense that it wasn't filed by the copyright holder or someone they appointed to represent them."

Incorrect. You must sign under penalty of perjury that ALL CLAIMS MADE are accurate and made in good faith.

I file DMCAs quite often, so I know the whole rote already.

The claim made by the corporate representative is neither made in good faith (likely done automated) nor accurate.

Re:DMCA reform

[SuricouRaven]

From section three:

---
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

'(vi) 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.
---

The perjury part applies only to (vi) - that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder and that the contents of the claim are accurate. The actual infringement needs only a good faith belief. It's arguable if an automated enforcement system can really be called that, as the use of fully automated takedown bots was not envisioned when the legislation was created, but I have never heard of any prosecution for that, and I can't find any with a bit of googling

The DMCA makes it clearly illegal to knowingly submit a false DMCA claim, but there is no offense committed for submitting false complaints due to incompetence, haste or cost-cutting. This is not just my own uneducated reading: It's the defense used by some major copyright holders who have committed exactly the same overzealous errors in the past: https://torrentfreak.com/warne...
The judge in that case never decided if that defense was valid, as the parties reached a settlement.

Re:DMCA reform

[TheReaperD]

Apparently, part of the problem is that Vimeo has a DMCA copyright 'strikes' system where a certain number of 'strikes' gets your account deleted and you're banned from the site. It seems that the main issue here, other than the hassle of filing a DMCA counter-claim, is that when you get the DMCA claim pulled, Vimeo will put your video back on their site but, they do not remove the 'strike' from your record. The short version is that if you get enough bogus DMCA claims against your account they will delete your account and ban you from their service even though you did nothing wrong beyond happening to name something you created too close to a name a major studio chooses to use in the future.

Re:DMCA reform

[ACDChook]

Then I think the correct procedure now would be for everyone to file DMCA claims against the Vimeo accounts of the movie studios. Get their accounts deleted and banned for a change.

Re:DMCA reform

[elvesrus]

One of the videos taken down was their own trailer for the film, so the process has already started.

Another example

[Roodvlees]

Of how broken this system is. Wish I had mod point to upp some of the responses here.

Solution

[Andy Smith]

Have a significant penalty for an invalid complaint.

Re:Solution

[Dog-Cow]

Better solution: hunt down the employees of Entura and torture them to death. Paying out money is a cost of doing business. Risking one's life is a whole 'nother game.

Re:Solution

[Lumpy]

I prefer corporate death penalty. The company is instantly dissolved Loses it's corporation status and opens up all Board and executive members to be 100% liable and suable.

Government agents then dismantle the company and sell it off for it's assets within 30 days of the ruling.

That right there will overnight make all corporations stop acting like assholes.

Re:Solution

[Overzeetop]

No, the sociopath would hunt down and torture the family members of the employees. What we found was the vigilante.

Re:Solution

[currently_awake]

When making suggestions on how to fix a problem, remember your enemies will want to use it against you. Holding the board/executives legally liable for all criminal corporate activity should suffice. A corporate death penalty would effectively prevent non-profits from fighting the good fight (ex. EFF).

5-year old video

[Sigma 7]

I recall seeing a Youtube video where someone did the exact same pixel-invasion scenario. It starts with someone dumping an old TV, which then releases it's angry pixel payload, followed by space invaders who hit various cars, pac man who eats the subway stations (converting the staircases into just a few pixels), tertis blocks that remove floors of buildings, arkanoid paddles that remove bricks from a bridge, and finally ends with a bomb that turns the planet into one black pixel.

Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I'm sure Columbia has their claim, but some indie beat them by five years As usual, it's a big publisher doing a keyword search without thinking about the consequences.

Re:5-year old video

[p.g.king]

The Columbia picture is acknowledge as being based on that film (and based on French director Patrick Jean's 2010 short film of the same name)

Is a false DMCA claim an act of Perjury?

[NimbleSquirrel]

I wonder if it is possible to bring a Class action lawsuit against Entura (and Columbia Pictures)? IANAL but there seems to be a class here. By filing DMCA claims, Entura have committed themselves to a legal document (even if that is an electronic document). Surely, if the claims in the document are clearly false, then Entura have committed multiple acts of perjury (as each claim is a legal statement invoking the DMCA). As Vimeo counts the DMCA claim against the user, even if that claim is proved invalid, then the users can show that they have suffered harm to their reputations.

Can't copyright titles

[Mybrid]

Can't copyright titles and 'pixel' as a word is too generic to trademark. Ignore the take down.

http://www.writersdigest.com/e...

Q: Iâ(TM)ve been working on a book and the title is very importantâ"I use it as the URL for my blog, for a weekly column I write, etc., and I want people to identify it with me. Can I copyright a title so others canâ(TM)t use it? â"Anonymous

A: Copyrights cover works fixed in a tangible format, but because titles are typically short, they donâ(TM)t fall under copyright protection. So no, you canâ(TM)t copyright a title to a book, song or movie. But you can trademark a title, which may give you the protection you seek.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office states that a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. Brand names like Pepsi, Xerox and Band-Aid are all protected. So is the Nike âoeswoosh.â But more relevant to us, book titles such as The Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter and the Sorcererâ(TM)s Stone are trademarked.

Unlike copyright protection, which is granted the minute your work is written down, trademarks arenâ(TM)t handed out so freely. In fact, if the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office doesnâ(TM)t consider your title (or brand) a distinctive mark that is indisputably distinguishable from others, you will not be granted trademark protection. This is why you see so many books with the sameâ"or very similarâ"titles. Many of the terms are considered too generic or arbitrary to warrant protection.

Trademarks are not only intended to protect the creator, but also the consumer. Trademarks keep others from confusing a well-known work on the bookstore shelves with others. For example, Harry Potter is such a popular, distinguishable character by J.K. Rowling that youâ(TM)d expect any title with his name in it to be written by her (or, at least, a book approved by her). Itâ(TM)s not only her work, but itâ(TM)s become her brand.

So if you use the title of your book as the title of your blog, column, etc., it could be considered your brand identifier. And if you find success, you could qualify for trademark protection.

Re:sign only that you represent author, not infrin

[TheReaperD]

IANAL but, it seems reasonable that the courts could impose some penalty for robo-signing the DMCA take-down notices as they are legal documents. Even the big banks had to pay huge penalties and redo mountains of legal paperwork for doing the same thing (robo-signing legal documents).

Sue them for Libel

[AnotherBlackHat]

Hasn't Entura committed libel, and can't they be held accountable for that?

Tell them what you think

[dristoph]

Here's their website, with a contact email address posted conveniently on the front page:
http://entura.co.uk/