Just an old retired girl from Ontario (though sometimes, I'm just tired). Retired photographer, doing freelance and stuff for fun now. Not very politically motivated, but there are some things that can get me riled up some...
Neri SOLD the artwork to the homeowner. The homeowner can do as she sees fit with it (unless she actually made some weird stipulations in the contract ... like she (Neri) retained the copyright to the actual work). Whether she (the homeowner) allows it to be photographed, or has someone take a video of herself smashing it to bits, the artwork now belongs to the homeowner, and not to Neri.
She has no claim at all on it, or what's done with it. Including the photographing of the artwork or displaying it on the web.
The invasion of privacy stuff is ... actually, I'm not sure I can even find a word to describe it. Ridiculous is too mild.
Google seeks to control this content and copyright at all costs and in this example -complete disregard for the rights of the Individual and threats to her life.
"She" doesn't own the copyright to the film. And the film is what was uploaded. Nobody uploaded her 5 seconds worth of performance on it's own. Had they, she might have had a case.
The owner of the copyright of the film has the right distribute it as they see fit. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.
Had this been a big Hollywood production, we would not be here discussing it at all. The courts would have squashed her case like a June bug on concrete.
Google is upholding the law they're supposed to uphold. Copyright law, and in this case what was handed down doesn't resemble copyright law in any way shape or form.
Google is quite right to fight against it. This time.
This is not about Freedom of Speech or censorship. This particular case should be centered on the rights of an individual that are subject to great fraud, politics and Google self-interests.
I fail to see how the individual who agreed to take part in film has any rights with respect to the finished film itself. According to the Copyright office, she was unable to file any copyright claim at all over her performance in the film, since the film is considered to be a single performance, and as such, the entire film may copyright ... which she doesn't own the rights to.
If the copyright office would not give her copyright claim over her performance, the courts should not have done so.
Google may be the big bad wolf in a lot of ways, but in this one, I hope the wolf wins.
I find all of this a bit silly. If I were the producer, I'd remove this woman's 5 seconds of screen time and republish the movie without her bit part, and without her in the credits.
Not having seen the movie, I don't know how much impact her part has, but given how much grief she's caused, it might be worth the effort to remove it.
The movie in it's own right has caused a lot more grief, but she seems to be the one pushing it to clear levels of idiocy. Half the world may never have seen or heard of this movie without her bringing it to this point.
On a personal level, I'm not a fan of movies that set out to turn on an entire religious society, regardless of what that religion is, so I doubt I'd have considered the movie of interest to me and passed on watching it.
In this case though, I strongly disagreed with the judge in the initial case, because the reasons were simply wrong. I think I'd be suspicious of the judge's motives, both in the first ruling and any subsequent ruling, on the same subject.
Clearly, there are others involved in the film who would (using his ruling as a basis) also have copyright interest then, in this film. What of their rights remain? What if they want to assert their copyright claims in the movie, and upload their own copy?
Apparently they have none (at least as it applied to YouTube) since the Garcia case says the movie cannot be published. She appears to now be able to demand that nobody else's rights can be considered.
So now, the US has given the terrorists the ideal plan. Have one terrorist be the comedian, make and publish videos and jokes about how to get rid of the president ... then when all the agents are busy stomping on the terrorist comedian, the terrorists can get on with it.
Nice diversion. Provided by the US itself. Good job.
Need an "edit" button here. The following paragraph should read
I "DON'T" file a DMCA with Google Search. Once the content is removed from the host, I don't really care if the URL is still in search or not. It might be faster to get the URL removed from search, but it's an effort that is useless if the content still exists.
Sending a "takedown" notice to Google search only results in the URL being removed from search engines.
It doesn't end up in "the actual content" being removed. Not unless the site hosting it is also owned by Google.
Seems to me the people filing the DMCA notices need to send notices to whoever is HOSTING the infringing contents in the first place.
When the content is removed from the host server, the URLs become useless anyway.
Maybe the DMCA filers should be less concerned about the URLs and more concerned about the content host.
I've filed my own share of DMCA notices. First, if the site carries advertising and the advertising company has an avenue for DMCA, I file with them. After that, I contact the site owner directly. Then, I file with the webhosting company of the website owner asking for removal of the hosted content from the server. And let the DMCA service do it's job, which it usually does.
I file a DMCA with Google Search. Once the content is removed from the host, I don't really care if the URL is still in search or not. It might be faster to get the URL removed from search, but it's an effort that is useless if the content still exists.
To go any further isn't worth the effort for me.
As for the Copyright Alliance, they don't represent me. Nor would I want them to, since almost everything I've read about them appears to make them almost clueless.
[AGCOM may order the ISPs to selectively remove the infringing digital works]
... and they would expect them to do this ... how?
ISPs don't have control over websites, unless they also provide webhosting services. They only have control over what people can access. Expecting ISPs to contact webhosts they have no control over is equivalent to asking Google to have Yahoo remove content from sites using it's hosting plan because someone out there in the world doesn't like it.
[Looks like Agcom is in for a rough ride.]
Good. Hopefully that ride will end in a flaming bush at the bottom of Mont Blanc.
... somebody must have spiked their vino the day they thought this up ... er, well apparently "thought" isn't something that happened at all.
If you live in Florida and drive to PA and purchase a product in one of their shopping malls, then drive home with it ... is the business in PA required to pay taxes to FL for the product you purchased from PA store?
Rather reminds me of an "energy" company we have here. I'm not associated with it, but my poor old aunt got sucked into it. After she sold her house and had to move into a nursing home the contract followed her ... for a product she no longer used. After she died, they wanted to charge us (the estate) for an "early cancellation" fee.
Essentially I told them if they wanted to sue a dead lady with no monetary estate, have at it. And then I'd make sure every newspaper and TV channel in Canada carried the story.
[And there should be, also, a very tiny tax on email," perhaps one-hundredth of a cent. He said this would discourage spam and not have much impact on the typical Internet user. Wozniak went on to suggest a sales tax on internet transactions that could help, in part, fund "vital functions that the post office serves."]
Remind me not to send emails to anyone in the US. Geeze.
The snail mail postal services actually do serve a purpose. Not everyone even has email or internet access, and thousands still send greetings cards by mail, and wedding invitations and even (gasp) bills. And how would one send a package containing a gift by email (okay, one could use courier, but the post is usually cheaper)?