ADM Says Video Mocking Them Is Copyright Infringement; Abuses Copyright Law To Stifle Free Speech

from the not-cool dept

So we just had that post about how a TV station in Boston was abusing copyright law to take down slightly embarrassing video of a weatherman it employs. In the post, I noted that while this was just over a potentially off-color joke, there were important free speech implications to it. Law professor Peter Friedman quickly points us to a more serious case of a giant company stifling criticism through DMCA takedown. Apparently, food conglomerate, Archers Daniel Midland (famous, among other things, for getting caught in a massive blatant price-fixing scheme that made pretty much all of your food a lot more expensive than it needed to be), doesn't believe criticism of its CEO should be allowed. Friedman had posted a link to a video that took a bland, boring video of ADM's CEO droning on about "agriculture's role in the growing economy," and edited it to "make it appear as if she were speaking openly on behalf of an evil multinational bent on the gross and horrific exploitation of the world and especially of multinational food markets." Honestly, the original video looks just like the ridiculous corporate video that is made in the movie Michael Clayton, about a company that is clearly supposed to be ADM.

Friedman points out how this is a clear abuse of copyright law and a violation of free speech:

This is outright copyright abuse. Criticism is fair use. When anyone asks whether in fact fair use is grounded in the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, all you need is to think of a situation like this -- one can appropriate copyrighted works to criticize and parody the copyright holder. And to use the copyright laws to silence that critique has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property and the rights of a creator to profit from his, her, or its creation: it's unconstitutional censorship!

The courts have tried to reconcile the question of how copyright law can possibly survive a First Amendment challenge (after all, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law that interferes with freedom of speech... and yet that's exactly what copyright does) by saying that a robust fair use exception is the key to making it okay. But when fair use is trampled on repeatedly, it makes you wonder how anyone can still claim that copyright isn't a massive abuse of the First Amendment.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

TV Station Issuing DMCA Takedowns To Try To Hide Weatherman Making A Bad Joke

from the fair-use-anyone? dept

It's been well documented how many people/organizations abuse the DMCA takedown process to try (and usually fail) to make content they don't like disappear, even if there's a legitimate reason for it being up. In the latest such example, a weatherman in Boston made a comment that many considered to be... a bit off-color for the local evening news. In discussing the snowfall in certain areas, he noted: "Picking up some snow are we? Yes we are. In Princeton we picked up 9 inches of snow and in Billerica we had 7." Then there's a brief pause before he steps forward and says: "The biggest amount I could find--almost as big as me--about 9 inches."

The station came up with an explanation for the statement, saying that he had a problem with his monitor and was displayed funny -- and thought that the viewing audience could see him that way too. Perhaps.

Still, though, the station, WHDH, has been aggressively issuing DMCA takedowns over the video (who knows how long the video above will stay up), even though it's almost certainly fair use, and courts have found that those sending takedowns need to take fair use into account. Justin Silverman, over at the Citizen Media Law Project, explains succinctly why this is almost certainly fair use:

In this case there's a fairly strong argument that the 27-second clip of Bouchard is fair. The amount of the original broadcast used is very small, the purpose of the clip is to spur public discussion, and there is arguably no effect on WHDH's news market. It's likely WHDH either didn't consider fair use before ordering the clip's takedown, or it simply didn't care.

And that's an issue. The DMCA allows copyright holders to shoot first and not care later. And that's a problem, because it can put a serious crimp on public discussion (which raises some serious First Amendment questions). Yes, in this case, it's just an off-color joke, but in many other cases it could be much more important speech.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Government Shuts Down Yet Another Yes Men Parody... Takes Down 4,500 Innocent Sites

from the collateral-prank-damage dept

Famous politico-pranksters The Yes Men have a long history of putting forth convincing parody websites that get those they parody to rush around to get the websites offline. Back in 2007, there was the fake ExxonMobil site that got pulled. Earlier this year it was the fake Chamber of Commerce site that the real Chamber issued a DMCA takedown over. The latest prank is based up in Canada, with the Yes Men setting up some parody sites of Canadian government organizations, promising massive greenhouse emissions reductions. This greatly upset the Canadian government who ordered the websites' service provider to pull them down. However, as Michael Geist points out, in the rush to pull down the sites, the ISP also took down 4,500 other websites. Seems like quite a bit of unnecessary collateral damage. Of course, this is exactly what the Yes Men want. For every takedown, they get another burst of publicity.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Games Workshop Goes After Its Biggest Fans With Takedown Order

from the when-will-they-learn dept

dave blevins points us to the unfortunate news that game publisher Games Workshop seems to be attacking its biggest fans by ordering the super popular site BoardGameGeek to takedown all fan-made player aids. Basically, the biggest fans of Game Workshop's games have been helping make those games better, including "scenarios, rules summaries, inventory manifests, scans to help replace worn pieces." Basically increasing the value of those games so that it's easier to play them and easier to keep playing them. And, in response, Games Workshop sends out its lawyers? How does that possibly make any sense at all?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MPAA/Sony Pictures Realizes That Shutting Down Muni-WiFi Over Single Download Was A Bad Thing

from the back-up dept

Last week, we wrote about the ridiculous situation, whereby the MPAA had an entire muni-WiFi network shut down because one person using that system had downloaded a single film. The story ended up getting a fair amount of press, and it looks like the MPAA and Sony Pictures in particular, quickly realized that this was really, really bad publicity for the company. After the company got bombarded by complaints, Sony Pictures contacted the town and asked them to turn the WiFi back on, while also claiming it could help the town set up tools to block such things in the future. Of course, as Broadband Reports notes in the above link: "Of course if the MPAA and Sony had approached the network owners like human beings in the first place -- instead of engaging in the kind of scorched earth tactics they've employed for several years now -- they probably wouldn't have gotten the bad press to begin with." But, acting like human beings in the first place isn't the sort of thing the industry does well.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Last Call For Techdirt DMCA Takedown Shirt

from the last-call dept

Just a final reminder that if you want the Techdirt DMCA Takedown T-shirt, today is the last day to order them, either alone or with my Approaching Infinity book. And, remember, we also have the regular Techdirt logo t-shirt (and again, the logo t-shirt with the book) and the Techdirt logo hoodie, all of whose sales end tonight at midnight PT. The DMCA t-shirt has proven to be incredibly popular (sales have far outstripped our last t-shirt), so if you want in on the fun, make sure to order one in the next few hours. We're thrilled so many people like the shirt so much...

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DMCA Takedown Shirt Only Available For A Few More Days

from the then-we-file-the-counter-notice dept

In case you missed it, last week we added our DMCA Takedown T-shirt to our ongoing CwF+RtB experiment, and it's been incredibly popular (people sure do love mocking the DMCA). You can just order the t-shirt (which also comes with the Techdirt Crystal Ball and insider badge), or you can get the DMCA Takedown T-shirt with my book, Approaching Infinity. However, the t-shirt is only available for a few more days. All orders need to be in by Monday November 16th at midnight, PST, or you'll have to go without...

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Modern Warfare Game Modder DMCA's Infinity Ward

from the bogus-DMCA-claims-are-no-laughing-matter dept

Reader Cameron Boykin alerts us to the news that a game modder appears to have filed a DMCA claim against Infinity Ward for its video of a certain part of Modern Warfare 2, claiming that the element in the game was influenced by a mod he had created. While this may seem amusing to the folks who are pissed off at Infinity Ward for various consumer-unfriendly positions, it still appears to be an abuse of the DMCA. It doesn't sound like Infinity Ward flat out took this guy's code or anything -- and having similar gameplay elements is unlikely to be copyright infringement at all. While it may have just been a joke or a "protest" sort of move, filing a bogus DMCA takedown is bad news no matter how you look at it, and can get the filer into a lot of legal hot water pretty quickly.

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Perfect Pitch Accused Of DMCA Abuse To Censor Criticism [Update]

from the copyfraud dept

Michael Scott points us to yet another (yes, another) case of copyfraud, where someone sends a DMCA takedown notice to stop criticism, rather than actual infringement. In this case, the party accused of misusing the DMCA in this manner (which is illegal) is whoever is behind the website PerfectPitch.com, who offers a fee-based training program that is supposed to help people learn to have (surprise, surprise) perfect pitch. Mac Donn had put up a blog post on TheSession.org, asking about the general concept of having perfect pitch (not the course specifically) leading to a relatively tame discussion in the comments. However, one comment sorta kinda maybe referred negatively (barely) to the website PerfectPitch.com, suggesting that that there are plenty of free resources to help train your ears. In response, it certainly appears that the owner of PerfectPitch.com, Gary Boucherle, sent a DMCA takedown request to Google, who removed all links for that supposedly-offending page from its search index.

But, of course, that makes no sense. Nothing on the page violates the copyright of Boucherle at all. There isn't any content from his website. There is just a reference to it (and it's basically an aside, rather than a direct discussion). From what's presented, it's difficult to see how this isn't a violation of the DMCA with Boucherle claiming copyright on content that he has no rights (at all) over, in attempt to remove from Google's index a webpage that suggests that there are free alternatives that are better than paying for expensive courses.

We see this kind of abuse of the DMCA all too frequently, as various parties use it as a sledgehammer to censor content they dislike, rather than for anything having to do with copyright infringement. It's a massive problem with the DMCA's notice and takedown process, which puts tremendous pressure on services like Google to simply remove the content first, before there's any actual evidence of infringement.

Update: To his credit, Gary Boucherle stopped by and wrote up what appears to be a very sincere apology. We'll take him at his word that this was just a big accident for which he feels bad, and will work to prevent from happening again.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Latest Bogus DMCA Takedown Sent By NPR?

from the you'd-think-they-know-better dept

You wouldn't normally associate NPR with sending bogus DMCA takedowns, but via the EFF we learn that NPR has sent a DMCA takedown to YouTube over a commercial that uses a clip from NPR. The commercial is from a group that opposes same-sex marriage, so there's likely a political angle here. NPR claims that it issued the takedown to "protect NPR's valuable reputation as a trusted and unbiased source of news," but that's not how copyright works. This is quite similar to when CBS tried to stop the McCain campaign from using a snippet of a broadcast in an ad. In both cases it seems that the use is a clear situation of fair use, with the content not being used for commercial reasons (yes, we'd like to believe that politics still isn't commercial) and only a snippet was being used.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ralph Lauren Admits It Needs Photoshop Help... Doesn't Say Much About DMCA Help

from the could-go-a-bit-further,-you-know... dept

Following last week's hubbub over Ralph Lauren and its lawyers sending bogus DMCA takedowns to sites who posted a Ralph Lauren ad that appeared to show an inhumanly skinny model, the company has put out a statement confessing that the ad was terrible:

"For over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body. We have addressed the problem and going forward will take every precaution to ensure that the caliber of our artwork represents our brand appropriately."

That's nice and all... but it doesn't address the question of sending bogus takedown notices to both the Photoshop Disasters' webhost and Boing Boing's webhost. The fact that the company later admits that its photoshopping was done poorly actually makes the situation seem even worse -- as the company, rather than admit that at first, used a bogus legal proceeding to take down legitimate criticism -- criticism that the company itself is now admitting was perfectly legitimate.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Ralph Lauren And Its Lawyers Discover The Streisand Effect On Bogus DMCA Takedown

from the someone's-bright-idea dept

Will they never learn? Issuing bogus DMCA takedowns to get content down that you don't like, rather than which is actually infringing, is going to backfire. Badly. Last week, the website Photoshop Disasters put up a post showing a ridiculous Ralph Lauren ad with a woman who was too skinny to be alive. Boing Boing put up a post about it, along with the tag line "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis." While some have questioned whether the ad is even real, one thing is clear: Ralph Lauren was not pleased. The company's lawyers at Greenberg Traurig sent DMCA takedown notices concerning both posts. Despite Blogger's new DMCA policy, Google still quickly took down the post at Photoshop Disasters, causing the site to ask whether or not Ralph Lauren or its lawyers have ever heard of the Streisand Effect (yay). BoingBoing's host, however, doesn't automatically take content down and passed along the info to BoingBoing, who quickly pointed out that this was clearly fair use (commentary, criticism, etc.) and the DMCA takedown wasn't being used to stop infringing content, but to stifle speech.

So, not surprisingly, BoingBoing put up a nice post explaining the whole thing, including a nice quote from lawyer Wendy Seltzer about fair use... and, of course, another version of the image, and dared Ralph Lauren to sue. Hopefully Ralph Lauren and its lawyers get the message and offer a quick apology. In the meantime, it makes you wonder what the hell anyone was thinking in sending out such a bogus DMCA. Do people really not recognize the consequences?

52 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is CBS Trying To Take Down Letterman Revelation Video?

from the what-good-does-it-do? dept

Last week, soon after the news broke that David Letterman had confessed, on air, to a variety of affairs with staffers, following a blackmail attempt about those affairs, Peter Kafka over at AllthingsD pointed to a YouTube video of the 10 minute revelation, noting that he expected CBS to be playing wac-a-mole in trying to force all of the clips offline. And, indeed, that's exactly what's happening. CBS has apparently been sending takedown after takedown to YouTube to get the clip offline. This is odd for a few reasons. First, CBS is actually one of the few TV networks to actually like YouTube, and use it regularly to its own advantage. Way back in 2006, the company announced that tests showed that when it put clips on YouTube, it resulted in more viewership, not less.

So why take down all these clips?

The anonymously sourced explanation in the article is just that there was a request from Letterman's production company to CBS not to put that clip online. I can see why that request was made in the first place (who wants that embarrassing clip up there...) but it still doesn't make much sense once you think about it. If Letterman didn't want that video out there, then why discuss it at all on the show? The show went out to millions of people. It's pretty silly to then pretend it doesn't exist at all. All it really does is call that much more attention to the situation. Meanwhile, the clips keep going up, and employees at both CBS and YouTube have to waste a ton of time repeatedly taking them down... And, in the end, the clips will end up on other sites anyway. If anyone wants to see the Letterman explanation, they'll see it. So why not put it up on the official CBS/Letterman feed and deal with it that way?

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

YouTube Takedown Again Being Used To Try To Block Newsworthy Content

from the but-why? dept

Apparently, there's a big hubbub up in Canada over an embarrassing act involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper pocketing a communion wafer during a Catholic funeral. The video of the episode is getting a lot of attention... but now one of the main copies of the video has been taken down due to a YouTube copyright claim. Still, what's really odd is that the video was done by CPAC, but the takedown notice is from Radio Canada. As Michael Gesit points out, it's difficult to see what the copyright claim is, as the clip itself can be considered newsworthy and "fair dealing" (Canada uses "fair dealing" rules rather than "fair use") for others to show it.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again, Before Sending A DMCA Takedown, It Helps To Actually Own The Content

from the just-a-suggestion dept

Jason points us to the news that, once again, someone who doesn't own the copyright to something has sent a DMCA takedown on a YouTube video. The link doesn't fully explain the situation, which is explained in the following video:

But, basically, someone used a video to respond to a guy from the Discovery Institute concerning a recent appearance he made on Fox News. The Fox News video is Fox's copyright. Yet, the Discovery Institute sent the takedown notice. Furthermore, the use of the video (even if Fox had sent the takedown) is almost certainly fair use. It was used for commentary in a non-commercial manner. The last time something like this happened (quite similar, actually) the EFF got involved, and forced the false DMCA issuer to rescind the DMCA notices, take a copyright law course and issue a public video apology.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Next Big Copyright Battle? The 'Real-Time' Web

from the it's-coming dept

The history of copyright law is pretty straightforward: basically every time some new technology comes along that shows just how obsolete copyright law is, rather than recognize that fact, entrenched interests warn politicians about how they'll just die if they don't get new protections, and another layer of protectionism is slapped onto the law -- not (as copyright law intends) for incentives to create new works, but as a policy to protect an old industry. That's created a house of cards, where copyright law keeps getting stretched and twisted every time it's adjusted. In 1909 the problem was player pianos. A big part of the reason for changing copyright law in 1909 was the fear that player pianos would destroy the market for sheet music and even (potentially) live performances. So the law was changed... but the player piano soon died. But the copyright law it gave us stuck around. When radio came about, we got changes to copyright law to deal with that. When the internet came about, we got the DMCA. So what's next? Perhaps the internet's new big buzzword: "the real-time web."

We've already talked about how it was only a matter of time until someone was sued for "lifecasting." With video recording and streaming technologies getting cheaper and cheaper, there are a number of services out there that let people broadcast anything they're doing. For many of them, it's a lot of fun... but in almost every case, some copyright lawyers could make an argument that it represents copyright infringement. If you are videotaping, and you walk past a TV broadcasting a copyrighted show, some would argue that's infringement. If you happen to hear some music, that's infringement. Yes, there may be a fair use defense, but this is hardly a situation where people are going to want to go to court just to defend the fact that they walked past a TV.

In reality, this should (again) demonstrate the silliness of copyright laws right now. The fact that merely walking past a TV while streaming video could be considered a copyright violation should be seen as a joke. It's legal if I see it with my own eyes, but if I include a virtual eye that lets others see it as well... that's infringement? Yet, there are already lawsuits over this sort of thing, and Liz Gannes at NewTeeVee has a thoughtful article wondering if copyright holders are going to start complaining that the DMCA is insufficient to deal with these sorts of situations.

As it stands now, the DMCA already goes too far in allowing someone to claim they are a copyright holder and demand a takedown of content they believe is infringing. To retain the DMCA's safe harbors and avoid potential liability, a site then has to take down the content. This gives copyright holders (or even those who claim to be copyright holders) tremendous power to force content offline for at least a few days. Yet, the fear is that in a "real-time" world, that's not fast enough. If I'm watching a baseball game, and turn on my camera, by the time MLB or whoever the broadcaster is discovers it and sends out the takedown, the game is already going to be over. They could still sue me and perhaps that acts as a deterrent, but we've see how little a deterrent mass lawsuits have had in the music industry.

So what happens next? My guess is that we'll see some sort of push to change copyright laws again to try to deal with this "problem." Perhaps even something that would put liability on any company that enables "real-time" streaming. The content companies won't want the burden of actually changing their business model, so they'll try to dump the burden of enforcing the old business model on the innovators. Hopefully, though, there are enough folks out there who won't simply let such a change go through unchallenged.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did Michael Savage Violate The DMCA By Demanding Takedown Of Content Already Declared Fair Use?

from the questions,-questions,-questions... dept

We've written a few times about radio show host Michael Savage and his misuse of copyright law. Last year, he sued a group that he had criticized on-air for using the clip from his show on their website to respond. It took just a few months for a court to toss out the lawsuit and explain the basics of fair use to Savage. However, soon after that, Savage and his syndicator, Online Talk Radio Network (OTRN), sent out new DMCA notices, including one to the documentary film company Brave New Films, for a video clip that used the same material that had been used in the original lawsuit in a commentary about Savage. In response, Brave New Films, with the help of Stanford's Fair Use Project sued Savage and OTRN.

Savage responded on a number of points, trying to get himself out of the lawsuit, which have now been rejected by the court, though some interesting questions are raised by Eric Goldman in analyzing the decision. First, Savage claimed that he's not liable for a false DMCA takedown because OTRN sent it, rather than Savage. Except... Savage owns the copyright and in filing the takedown, OTRN had to claim that it was representing the copyright holder's interests, so the court tossed out that argument. Then Savage claimed it wasn't really a DMCA takedown, so he shouldn't be subject to sanctions for bogus DMCA takedowns, but the court found it to be substantially similar, so that argument got tossed as well.

But what makes this case interesting is what Goldman discusses in the final paragraph. You may recall last year, that a court ruled that those who are sending DMCA takedown notices need to at least consider if the use is fair use before sending the DMCA takedown (it doesn't say that you can't send the takedown, but that you first have to consider whether it's fair use). However, as Goldman notes, this case takes the question a step further because of the earlier lawsuit, where the use of substantially similar content was already ruled by the court to be fair use. To send a takedown on the same content certainly seems pretty questionable.

Of course, I'd guess that Savage's response would be that Brave New Films' use wasn't exactly the same, and thus he (or OTRN) no longer believed the use to be fair, but that may be difficult given the similarities between BNF's use and the use in the original case. Either way, this may be an interesting case to watch to see if someone finally gets in trouble for sending a DMCA on obviously fair use content.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Not Smart: Warner Music Issues DMCA Takedown On Larry Lessig Presentation

from the this-is-going-to-hurt dept

If there were anyone out there to whom you would not want to send a random takedown notice for an online video, it would probably be Larry Lessig. Given that Lessig has become the public face for those who feel that copyright has been stretched too far, as well as being a founder of Stanford's Fair Use Project, and who's written multiple books on these issues, you would think (just maybe) that any copyright holder would at least think twice before sending a DMCA takedown on a Larry Lessig presentation.

Apparently, you'd be wrong.

Lessig has announced that Warner Music issued a DMCA takedown on one of Lessig's own presentations, in which his use is almost certainly fair use. Lessig, of course, is a lawyer, and a big supporter of fair use, so it's no surprise that he's also said he's going to be fighting this.

The thing that I can't understand is who at Warner Music would decide this was a good idea? We've seen Warner make a number of highly questionable moves over the past six months, but this may be the most incomprehensible. Warner Music may claim it was an accident or that it didn't mean to send the takedown, but that's hard to fathom as well. The DMCA rules are pretty clear, that the filer needs to clearly own the content, and previously lawsuits have said they need to take fair use into account. I'm guessing we haven't heard the end of this yet...

Update: Some people have been asking which Lessig presentation was taken down. It's been reposted elsewhere, so you can check it out, and then explain how Warner Music has any claim to a takedown.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Custom Toy Blogger Accused Of Infringing On Wolverine

from the take-a-look-at-the-photos dept

Reader shaniac points us to a blog post on a custom toy blog, where the blogger explains how some of his photo galleries of custom toys he made were forced offline due to a DMCA takedown notice from 20th Century Fox, claiming that they infringed on intellectual property from the Wolverine movie. Except, if you look at the images, it seems pretty clear that they've got nothing, whatsoever, to do with Wolverine. In other words, 20th Century Fox appears to have broken the law, in claiming it held the copyright over the figures in those images, when it appears it did not. Unfortunately, the site hosting his content doesn't fully understand that under the DMCA it can re-enable his content if he files a counternotice and 20th Century Fox fails to file a lawsuit within a specified period of time. Instead, it's told the blogger that he needs to get the lawyer from 20th Century Fox to agree that the content doesn't infringe -- and the lawyers don't seem to be responding to any emails, meaning that the blogger is stuck in limbo for no good reason.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Activist Group Uses DMCA To Take Down Video Exposing Its Fake Concerned Citizens

from the dmca-abuse? dept

We've definitely seen cases where activist groups, upset with what people were saying about them, used the DMCA abusively to remove content that they had no real say over. However, this latest story is a bit strange. Before we get to it, though, I'm going to ask, politely, that the comments stick to the copyright issues at hand, rather than the political issues... Apparently, a group called The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) put together a video of "ordinary people" worrying about the impact of gay marriage being allowed. It turns out that everyone in the video is an actor, and the fact that they're "fake" received plenty of attention earlier this week, including being shown on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, which included clips of the audition tapes of the actors. The clip of the MSNBC segment was then put on YouTube. And here's where the copyright questions come in... the video was of the MSNBC segment, but NOM put in a DMCA takedown request, which YouTube obeyed.

That raises all sorts of questions... MSNBC reporting on the videos is almost certainly fair use of NOM's videos. But, it was someone else who uploaded the MSNBC clip to YouTube. MSNBC is still running the clip on its own site -- but, if anyone had any sort of DMCA claim on the video, one would think it would be MSNBC... not NOM. So, then, is NOM abusing the DMCA takedown process, in demanding an entire video (most of which is not its content) be taken down? Seems like you (or, say, the EFF) could make a pretty strong case for that...

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..