Office Depot Sends World's Worst DMCA Notice To Reddit

from the the-non-swastika-is-the-least-of-your-problems dept

I'm always amazed when lawyers send clearly bogus DMCA notices. It shouldn't be hard to figure out that doing so ends badly. I'm doubly surprised, however, when it comes from big companies that should know better. And, I'm quadruple surprised when one of these companies that should know better sends a completely bogus DMCA notice to a company that absolutely understands why the notice is bogus, and is also in a position to make the world know all about a company's bogus DMCA notice. That's what we have here. You see, this morning, Office Depot decided to send a DMCA to Reddit.

Yes, to Reddit.

Now, yes, it's possible that someone posted copyrighted material to Reddit, for which a DMCA could possibly be appropriate. But this isn't one of those cases. The complaint is about this r/circlejerk post by heisenberg69 from seven months ago. I imagine that post isn't going anywhere, but just in case it is, I've also embedded the screenshot that Office Depot helpfully included with the DMCA notice to Reddit. As you can see, heisenberg69 posted a link to this imgur image of not-quite a swastika over the Office Depot logo. We'll repost it here for you to see:
Of course, as the first comment points out, this isn't even a swastika. It's a sauwastika, the Buddhist symbol for peace. Basically, it's a backwards swastika. Either way, let's count the many, many, many ways in which this DMCA notice is bogus.
  1. This is not copyright infringement. At all. Office Depot's Corporate Counsel Jared Namm appears to admit this at the very beginning of his DMCA notice. While he first says it "violates the copyrights and trademarks of Office Depot," at no point does he explain what copyright is violated, because he can't. He later points only to "the Office Depot trademark." But, you cannot use a DMCA for trademark. It is only for copyright. Pretending to use a DMCA claim for a trademark claim is an abuse of the DMCA.

  2. Even if you look at the trademark issue, this is not a trademark issue. Making use of a logo in this manner is in no way an infringement on Office Depot's trademark. There is no "use in commerce." There is no likelihood of confusion. And there are many, many, many cases where simply parodying or mocking a logo of a company has been found to be non-infringing. Nazi-izing someone's logo for the purpose of mocking the company is not infringement.

  3. This is not copyright infringement, part two. After trying out the bogus trademark claim, Office Depot's Namm claims that the posting is in violation of Reddit's terms of service. Even if this were true, that's not a reason to send a DMCA notice.

  4. This is not a violation of Reddit's terms of service. Again, even if you could send a DMCA based on a violation of the terms of service, this is not a violation of the terms of service. Office Depot argues that this is "defamatory, abusive, harassing, racist, hateful or violent." I guess you could try to make an argument for "hateful," but it's difficult to see how that reaches the level of a terms of service violation.

  5. Merely mocking a company such as Office Depot for having Nazi-like attributes is not hate speech. It may not make much sense, but that's not how it works. It's even more ridiculous when you realize this isn't even a swastika. Amazingly, even Office Depot admits this in the DMCA letter, which Namm adds as if it's a helpful tidbit:
    A little history on the symbol as well: this particular design is not Nazi related but the original Sauwastika (facing left) vs. the Nazi Germany alteration (facing right). The left facing has been a symbol in Hindu/Buddhist art/texts that predate the Nazi usage by centuries. While this does not dismiss the use of the symbol in conjunction with our logo, in reviewing the posts it appears there is confusion on the symbol, but heisenberg69's posting of the symbol over the Office Depot logo associates Office Depot with Nazi Germany.
    So, Office Depot admits this isn't a Nazi symbol, and sends a screenshot in which the top comment, with the most votes on the thread, is pointing out that this isn't a Nazi symbol... and then still says this posting associates Office Depot with Nazis.

  6. Jared Namm swore "under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." Yet, despite mentioning copyright, nowhere does he name an actual copyright that's been infringed, because there hasn't been one. While he may be able to skate out from under perjury by arguing that the second half of that penalty of perjury clause was "owner of an exclusive right," again no trademark law has been infringed and you can't use the DMCA for trademark anyway. It's not wise to swear under penalty of perjury to something that is almost certainly not true.

  7. The image is not hosted on Reddit. But on Imgur. Which is a different company.

  8. Oh yeah, and this was a Reddit r/circlejerk post from 7 months ago that didn't get that much attention then and has all but disappeared from view entirely. And now, due entirely to the absolutely stupid decision by either Office Depot Corporate Counsel Jared Namm, or someone above him in management who told him to do this and who failed to heed any suggestion that this was (a) not infringement and (b) a monumentally stupid move, he went ahead and sent this notice, practically guaranteeing that the post and the image would suddenly get renewed life and attention.

  9. And, finally, sending a totally bogus DMCA notice to Reddit? Reddit, who as a community was perhaps the most instrumental community in bringing down SOPA, has no love for bogus copyright claims. Remember, Reddit is the community who organized the massive GoDaddy boycott that got GoDaddy to back down from its support of SOPA (and to eventually turn over almost its entire management team). Poking Reddit with a bogus DMCA stick for what appears to be no reason at all just doesn't seem smart at all.
Incredibly, Jared Namm's LinkedIn profile claims that he advises Office Depot on a variety of intellectual property and social media initiatives. I would imagine that picking a bogus fight with Reddit is not exactly the wisest of "social media" strategies.




Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Deranged Poster (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 12:35pm

    So Office Depot are you actually claiming that this IS your property and that you created this work?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    David, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

    Re: point 8, above: Streisand effect!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:00pm

    Can you say "pissing on an electric fence?" (I knew you could.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

    This IS a "social media initiative": advertising ploy.

    Based on the notion that all exposure is good. The only real additional piece of evidence is that this a seven month old piece that makes no difference. -- Isn't it always the case with these that they're against sites with big readership and a forgotten piece? Why don't you start tabulating data on these, Mike, to spot patterns, rather than just go rabbiting off on each new anomaly like clueless noob?

    Otherwise, you're stuck with the "crazy lawyer" explanation that Mike goes with, but seems to me doubtful that this lawyer is any less savvy than Mike.

    Mike claims to have a college degree in economics, can't ya tell?

    09:02:43[k-5-7]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:06pm

    Re: This IS a "social media initiative": advertising ploy.

    You are wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:10pm

    Re:

    Of course, they didn't even create the one they hold.

    http://cargocollective.com/stevenblock/OFFICE-DEPOT

    Like every big company they hired an ad agency to have it created for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:13pm

    Re: This IS a "social media initiative": advertising ploy.

    Yeah and all those accounts that got closed en masse at Go Daddy were because of all of the "good exposure" they were receiving too, huh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    vastrightwing, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:15pm

    Barbara Streisand

    Is that you again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Nick (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:20pm

    I can see the political cartoons now:

    A stupid looking fat man labeled OFFICE DEPOT wielding a broken club batter-style labeled DMCA, about to whack a hornets nest labeled REDDIT.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Alex Hagen, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:27pm

    Point 10

    10. This is Reddit group "circlejerk", which is an entire forum devoted to being sarcastic, silly, and dumb. It is just about the most un-serious place on Reddit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:34pm

    Re: This IS a "social media initiative": advertising ploy.

    "all exposure is good" is a horribly inaccurate and completely outdated bit of advice when any idiot with a Twitter account and a chip on their shoulder can turn millions of people against you with a few keystrokes.

    You're a waste of oxygen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Spaceman Spiff (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:35pm

    No surprise here!

    We don't call it "Office Despot" for nothing!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    vilain (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    Why not file a complaint with State Bar?

    It's clear that either Jarrod either doesn't know the difference between copyright and trademark law OR he knows the difference and is filing a frivolous complaint. Either one show he's incompetent or knowing attempting to deceive the court.

    Maybe he should be practicing law. One less scumbag lawyer out of this might send a message.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    slw, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:38pm

    The nazi swastika direction thing is a complete and utter myth. http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The_Backwards_Swastika.htm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:47pm

    No Teeth

    And yet, we will see that NOT ONE SINGLE THING will happen to Office Depot for sending an absolutely, irrefutably 100% FALSE DMCA takedown notice.

    Because the law, and ESPECIALLY this law, is ONLY for the little people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 1:59pm

    Re: No Teeth

    And yet, we will see that NOT ONE SINGLE THING will happen to Office Depot for sending an absolutely, irrefutably 100% FALSE DMCA takedown notice.

    Oh, not quite. We've been doing business with them for a long time, and we buy all kinds of stuff. But they do have competition. I have forwarded this information, along with a recommendation that we exercise our options, to purchasing. Given that I've spent considerable time and energy educating them about who NOT to do business with, and why, I think they'll be responsive.

    I wonder how our OfficeDepot sales rep will take the news.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Mr. Applegate, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:17pm

    I wonder how our OfficeDepot sales rep will take the news.
    By offering an additional 20% discount for a period of time and some sort of a kickback for an order place this month.

    "That was Easy" - Oh wait that is Staples.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

    That is one beautifully formatted DMCA notice. Ironically, if you zoom in close enough, you can read
    DMCA Notification Form 10-739 Rev.7
    Copyright © 2011 Staples, Inc. All Rights Reserved
    along the bottom margin.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:45pm

    Re:

    you missed the "ps: Hail Hitler!" below that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:54pm

    Re: Re:

    Wow, these guys waste money like they are the gov't or something.
    How much do you figure they paid for someone to type "Office Depot" in red on white background and visa versa?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 2:56pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Wait, "depot" is capitalized.. I take it all back.. worth every penny.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 3:11pm

    DCMA NOTIFICATION?

    If you read the opening page you have to realize it is not a DMCA takedown notification.

    It is a DCMA NOTIFICATION.

    Whatever that is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 4:07pm

    Re: DCMA NOTIFICATION?

    And the notification (of whatever type) was finished with:
    Signed on this day, the 6 day of November, 2013, in the City of Boa Raton, Florida, USA.
    Boa Raton? Somebody had a bad typo day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Re: Re:

    When a company hires an ad agency to create something, the copyright is assigned to the company who paid for it to be created. Even if a company creates something in-house, it's still an employee that they hired who does it. This is how it works. My point being, what's your point?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 5:15pm

    Re:

    It has nothing to do with the direction. Hitler rotated it 45 degrees. And that website you link to is from a White Supremacist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 5:19pm

    Where the hell is "Boa Raton" FL?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    BAReFOOt, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 5:24pm

    Nonsense.

    It is physically impossible to “own” information.
    A trademark, copyright or patent is a temporary (and otherwise illegal) [pseudo-]monopoly and [pseudo-] artificial scarcity (also a crime) that has only still not been put down because its complete lack (and physical impossibility) of enforcability means that nobody had the pressure to form the urge to stop it.
    „Property“ has no meaning for information, just as it would have no meaning for a house that everybody could copy infinitely, no work required, without the physical possibility of anyone else even being able to notice. It is infinitely abundant and did cost absolutely nothing, and hence is literally worthless.

    Unfortunately, the “average” NPC drone is too retarded to comprehend this difference between real physical matter/energy/work, and purely virtual/imaginary information.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Robert, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 5:50pm

    And, the lawyers misspelled "its"

    The lawyers misspelled the word "its." Given that contracts have been invalidated over misplaced commas, this isn't a mistake lawyers should make.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 6:00pm

    lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Bob, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 7:37pm

    Office Depot was wrong..

    But so is this Junior lawyer, Jared Blake Namm. His name should be shamed from this and Office Depot should shunned for hiring such an amatuer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Mike Powell, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 7:44pm

    DCMA?

    Did anyone else notice that the heading on every page says "DCMA Notification"? (Instead of DMCA)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Mike Powell, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 7:45pm

    Re: DCMA?

    Oops, just noticed the prior comment on this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    aklekum, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 7:58pm

    Actually Swastika is the correct Sanskrit(Hindu) pronunciation of the word. The Sauwastika pronunciation is probably made up by white people to distinguish from each other.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    I Must Reply, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:01pm

    Re:

    Free advertising is free advertising. Thanks techdirt for the free publicity!

    -office depot web team

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:03pm

    Re: Brand ownership

    Like you said, all companies (big AND small) hire agencies to develop brand identities for them.

    The way the contacts for this type of work are written, all creative and intellectual works done on behalf of the client become the sole property of said client.

    They bought it, they own it.

    (and of course it's still not copyrighted, because it's a trademark)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Grappler, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:29pm

    He fucking OBLITERATED them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    John, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:35pm

    I hate this revisionist history crap!

    There is no such thing as a 'bad' or a 'good' swastika. There never was a distinction in India of left or right facing. All such variations were good luck.

    A long time ago, someone who wasn't fully informed said there was a thing called a suawastika, we learned that wasn't true, but this continues today as a common misconception and needs a concerted effort to stamp out. And this is all because we're uncomfortable about the atrocities committed by the nazi regime!

    Please just read Wikipedia for god's sake! It explains everything! You can clearly see that the distinction of left and right facing swasticas is wrong.

    Furthermore I will take this chance to mention that the symbol we call a swastica was a good luck symbol in Europe before the nazi party, a good luck symbol in India, a significant symbol to a tribe of native Americans who chose to abandon its use after World War II in respect for the evils perpetrated by the nazi party and has been used by many and very disparate groups for thousands of years! We cannot take the fact of what that symbol was to so many out of our history simply because once upon a time some bad people used it to try for good luck, which is the reason the nazi party adopted the symbol.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    peekhumility (profile), Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:46pm

    a lot of times it's just about billable hours

    It's a stupid untenable take down notice, BUT it generates billable hours for the law firm, which no doubt will bill Office Depot for all its "hours" spent finding to so-called violation and composing the weak DMCA.

    I think people don't appreciate how a lot of the bogus DMCA and other legal stuff are just about generating billable hours. To me, baseless legal threats etc should cause the offending attorney to be debarred after X instances.

    This reminds me so much of other fee-generating licensed professions, such as stock brokers who churn and hedge fund's with fees so high their victim clients would have made lots more money with simple Vanguard low-fee index funds.

    Such bogus DMCA and other bogus legal threat letters should at least trigger notifications the lawyer's client that his or her lawyer/law firm is billing them for no good reason.

    I think billing for civil law work is out of control.

    Two property developers I know recently finished cases in which the lawyers took ALL or nearly all of the money from the verdict/settlement to cover legal fees for the case. In one case, a condo complex really only needed $10k from the developer to fix a sewage system problem but instead believed a lawyer who persuaded the condo assoc to sue the developer for $1 million. The condo assoc won the $1 million but the lawfirm took ALL of it, leaving the condo complex without even the $10k fix for the sewage problem, which the developer had offered gratis before the case. Another developer I know bought a high-rise building and sued the seller for $600k and won, but his lawyer's fees were $500k!

    Hedge funds and other financial pros also mostly rip off their clients, as do so many civil lawyers who don't care if their cases settle or lose in trial as long as they get to bill invoice for billable hours.

    Lawyers, hedge fund managers, stock brokers: fee whores who make money off their clients win, lose or bust.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Cassidy Sterling, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 8:52pm

    Maybe Namm is working from the inside

    and actually he hates Home Depot and sent this DMCA notice to bring more attention to this post so that other people will hate Home Depot too?!?! What??! Whoa!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonomous11111111111111, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 9:24pm

    Re: Office Depot Sends World's Worst DMCA Notice To Reddit

    Get butt hurt about something someone posted on the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 9:38pm

    You don't need to cite an infringed work in a DMCA notice, only the infringing work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 9:50pm

    Maybe It's Phony?

    With all the errors of grammar, style, and legitimacy, I'd suggest that the notice is bogus and didn't even come from a lawyer retained or employed by Office Depot. Is there any evidence that the notice is validly from OD?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    identicon
    Hunkachunk, Nov 6th, 2013 @ 11:00pm

    6/10

    10/10 on the rational pieces of the article. This guy's crazy, doesn't know what he's doing, etc.

    But you not only failed to miss the "DCMA" headline atop EVERY page, but you also missed the "www.redddit.com" nearing the bottom of page 1.

    Great work with the rest of the article

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Bon Jiourno, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 1:36am

    BRAVERY

    Can we PLEASE take a moment to recognize the BRAVERY of OP?

    Go back to "journalism school", Mike Masnick!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 2:13am

    Did they also confuse the NASA for the NSA?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    crackerjack, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 3:11am

    Kurt Greenbaum

    ... is still a pussy

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    Jon, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 4:07am

    To add to point 9, let's also not forget that Aaron Swartz, a man who hacked MIT to Robin Hood a bunch of academic books and papers, was a founding father of reddit. So, attempting any sort of censorship in reddit's view is not always a smart idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 4:37am

    Heisenberg69 lol

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Lonnie Sue Lonnie, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 5:36am

    Cupcake Hooters

    NEVER open a business letter with: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    It is the letter writer’s job to know exactly who they’re writing too. Furthermore, such a letter should be sent via certified mail so the sender knows the addressee received the letter. Laziness is no excuse to ignore proper business letter writing etiquette.

    That letter belongs in the trash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Frank, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 6:10am

    If someone would hold them accountable for their signature "under penalty of perjury" then these wouldn't be signed by lawyers anymore. You've got malpractice, FRCP rule 11 sanctions based on failure to factually investigate, frivolousness, intent to harass; intentional interference with third party relations; 42 USC 1983 civil rights as under color of federal government DMCA statute depriving us of our collective free speech (and corollary free reading) rights (as the image is now censored falsely under color of law). Can we please: 1)boycott the shit out of Office Depot; 2)report him to Florida Bar, ethics commission; 3)push for reforms on DMCA? There's is a legitimate 1st amendment right of parody, of nominative trademark fair use, of de minimis un-copyrightability of small words and phrases, and if this jackasshole is going to hold himself out to the world as an "intellectual property specialist" with "copyright" experience (which is an ethical violation itself) then let's hold his goddamn feet to the fire and let him suffer the consequences so other idiots will do at least a modicum of googling before filing these things. It's no joke, he's speech-blocking and he should know better. I'm pissed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 7:35am

    Re:

    DMCA Notification Form 10-739 Rev.7
    Copyright © 2011 Staples, Inc. All Rights Reserved


    Wow, violating copyright with a (non) copyright takedown notice.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 7:48am

    Re: Point 10

    I think you are characterizing "circlejerk" incorrectly. Circle jerks sole purpose is to make fun of reddit. All posts lambast reddit culture in some way.

    For example:
    I have a broken arm and I penned this masterpiece up tokes to the left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    identicon
    Todd Belcher, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 9:48am

    Ouch - search for "office depot logo"

    Clearly this DMCA was ill-advised, but you can definitely sympathize with a brand who doesn't want searches for "office depot logo" to turn up a pile of nazi imagery.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 10:31am

    Re: Ouch - search for "office depot logo"

    Clearly this DMCA was ill-advised, but you can definitely sympathize with a brand who doesn't want searches for "office depot logo" to turn up a pile of nazi imagery.

    And this DCMA [sic] Notification has drastically increased the odds of that happening. So you're left sympathizing (or not) with either really stupid executives or really stupid lawyers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 1:43pm

    Re: Re:

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 3:43pm

    The Copyright Infringement Claim is Legitimate

    The DMCA takedown notice appears to be made in good faith. Most attorneys would presume that the logo you see was lifted from the OfficeMax website or another property. It appears that the swastika was drawn on top of the logo, which doesn't change the nature of the fact that the use of an OfficeMax image is still infringement. That's how you get to the DMCA.

    The extra items added in was a way of informing the company about the violations of its terms of use to make it easier for Reddit to take down the offending image. While I am completely into the rights of free speech, I can understand why OfficeMax isn't happy and felt a need to do something about it. I'm apprehensive to say this, wondering how many will get angry at what I'm saying. How many of you would want to have images of your own small company's brand with a swastika on it being seen anywhere? People might get the wrong idea. I'm sure many would even write to Office Depot complaining about the company adding a swastika on their logo, lol. Seen it before - it's all in the realm of possibility! Don't think this is a big deal...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 7th, 2013 @ 6:53pm

    Are you sure?

    A complete and utter myth? The website you posted with that information seems to also have holocaust denial related text. I'm sure that the millions dead are just complete and utter myths.

    Please don't post more things on the internet if you don't understand.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 8:12pm

    The DMCA takedown notice appears to be made in good faith. Most attorneys would presume that the logo you see was lifted from the OfficeMax website or another property.

    First, it's Office Depot, not Office Max. Second, using that logo cannot be copyright infringement, only (possibly) trademark infringement. The DMCA covers only copyright, not trademark, so the lawyer either has no idea what he's doing or sent the notice in bad faith.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 8th, 2013 @ 12:15am

    Re: The Copyright Infringement Claim is (Not) Legitimate

    Why would Office Depot send a violation notice to the website, not the user? Why would they change their story (what was that? was that three?) multiple times?

    "images of my SMALL COMPANY (hah. Office Depot. Gotcha) branded with a [thing that looks like a swastika to an ignorant person]" is not a copyright violation. It's a modification posted to an internet message board as an expression of one's opinion.

    Are you ignorant to the law, or are you an Office Depot employee?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Heh, Nov 8th, 2013 @ 2:08am

    Everybody look up Office Depot CEO on Google Images.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Humpbort Stinklestien, Nov 11th, 2013 @ 1:44am

    There's Also This

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    Operating Teuton, Nov 14th, 2013 @ 10:36pm

    and . . . here's the fallout

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q02lf8p9vV4

    Looks like the Adolfs have come home to roost!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Dave, Jan 5th, 2014 @ 6:58am

    Re: The Copyright Infringement Claim is Legitimate

    How dare OfficeMax try to sneak into free publicity for Office Depot!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This