Axl Rose DMCAs Unflattering Photo For Which He Doesn't Hold The Copyright

from the by-any-other-name dept

Show of hands: who remembers Axl Rose? Last we here at Techdirt checked in on him, Rose was busy suing video games and hassling music bloggers over album leaks. The younger among you may chiefly be familiar with his Axl-ness via a somewhat popular string of internet memes centered on some rather unflattering pictures of the musician taken from a concert in 2010.


There are, like, tons of these. And, as you can surely understand, Rose isn't pleased that these memes are going around. Hell, we all have photos taken of us that we probably don't find flattering, and Father Time ends up foisting pounds and wrinkles on all of us that we'd rather not have. What most of us don't do, however, is cook up a copyright claim on a photograph we didn't take and try to get Google to remove every use of the picture from the internet. Rose has done that. And you'll never guess who he employed to help him do so!

“Copyright image of Axl Rose. Please be advised that no permission has been granted to publish the copyright image so we cannot direct you to an authorized example of it,” the notices sent by Web Sheriff on behalf of the singer read.

Hi there, Web Sheriff! In between money-laundering, abusing human rights, and generally breaking roughly all the laws over here at Techdirt, we had just enough time to notice you have a strange view on how copyright law works! This comes as only a mild shock to us, given how confused you folks appear to be on all the other laws you routinely talk about, but let's give this a go, shall we?

The DMCA notices all revolve around photos taken in 2010 at a concert. Those photos were taken by Boris Minkevich and published by the Winnipeg Free Press.

TorrentFreak tracked down the photographer who captured this moment to see if he was aware of these takedown efforts. We eventually found Boris Minkevich at the Winnipeg Free Press where his fine work is published in all its glory. During our initial discussions a few things became clear. Firstly, Minkevich definitely took the photo. Second, Minkevich had no idea that Rose was trying to “cleanse the web” of his photo. Perhaps the first reaction here is that Rose has no right to take down Minkevich’s photo. Since Minkevich was the one who took it, he must own the copyright, right? Web Sheriff doesn’t seem to think so.

“We can gladly confirm that all official / accredited photographers at [Axl Rose] shows sign-off on ‘Photography Permission’ contracts / ‘Photographic Release’ agreements which A. specify and limit the manner in which the photos can be exploited and B. transfer copyright ownership in such photos to AR’s relevant service company,” the company told TF in a statement.

Now, TorrentFreak reached out to Minkevich, who had no idea this takedown blitz was underway. He confirmed that some concerts do indeed make photographers sign these types of agreements, but couldn't recall if this concert included one or not. Web Sheriff, who certainly should be able to produce the agreement, having taken the lead on the copyright claims, isn't doing so. When asked, Web Sheriff's response was instead to insist that even if the photographer had not signed an agreement -- leading me to believe he probably didn't --, that Rose would still be able to claim ownership over the photo.

“[If a photographer] was there and taking shots without permission or authority, then other considerations / factors would come-into-play as to what such individuals can and cannot do in terms of attempting to commercially exploit the resultant images of someone else’s show,” TF was informed.

I would politely ask Web Sheriff what the sweet child of mine it is talking about here. Unless the photographer transferred copyright of the photo over to Axl Rose, the photographer retains copyright ownership over it. One would think that if any transfer had actually taken place, Web Sheriff would simply produce it, but it hasn't. If no transfer ever occurred, Web Sheriff is simply wrong in claiming copyright over the image. Indeed, Minkevich even mentioned to TorrentFreak that the photos are infringing, but that they are infringing on his and/or the Winnipeg Free Press' copyrights. And even that may not be true, given the room that Fair Use carves for using copyright images.

And the best part of this is that Axl Rose employed Web Sheriff to do all of this to keep the unflattering images out of the public sphere. How is that working out for him?


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 11:54am

    Maybe I am weird,but seeing that photo makes me want to listen to his music not drive me away.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      Maybe I'm weird, but I just had lunch and that picture is imperiling my ability to hang on to it.

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

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 12:11am

      Re:

      Maybe I'm weird, but an unflattering photo of a celebrity taken years ago has no effect on my current desire to listen to any of his music one way or the other. Same would apply if photos taken on his current AC/DC tour showed him to be a fine physical specimen.

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

      • identicon
        JEDIDIAH, 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:34am

        As Nasty Canasta would say...

        That's not an old photo. That accurately reflects his condition today. It was probably taken during his recent "Guns and Roses" tour.

        THAT is the man that ate Axl Rose.

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

  • icon
    Blaine (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:00pm

    I miss Chris Farley :'(

    Wow, if it wasn't for Web Sherrif confirming the picture is actually Axl Rose, I would have thought it was Chris Farley doing an Axl Rose impersonation.

    Thank you Web Sherrif for verifying the authenticity of the picture.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:26pm

      Re: I miss Chris Farley :'(

      At first I thought it was some meme about heavy girls and pies that I did not understand.

      But your right, its just Axle Rose who apparently ate too many pies.

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

  • icon
    Zarvus (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:04pm

    This kind of makes me want to listen to the song AND eat a pie.

    He should do a cross-promotional campaign with Marie Callander's and commercialize this. You know, cause then he'd get free pies.

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

  • identicon
    David, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:08pm

    So?

    It seems quite plausible to me that we are talking about unauthorized photographs that were not publishable due to violating venue rules and/or personality rights.

    Rose being able to have them taken down is not really all that much out of line. And he's using the simplest and easiest available tool with least repercussions for that, a DMCA.

    That's pretty much a no-brainer. It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

    On the overall scale of seriousness this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations.

    In other words, this is how the laws are intended to be applied according to their most important corporate sponsors.

    It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:35pm

      Re: So?

      It seems quite plausible to me that we are talking about unauthorized photographs that were not publishable due to violating venue rules and/or personality rights.

      1. No.
      2. You don't get to claim copyright if you don't have the copyright. End of story.
      3. Even if they had violated the venue's rules, the ONLY remedy is that the venue could then refuse future service, not get the posts removed.
      4. If there was a publicity rights claim, that still doesn't make it okay to lie about the copyright.

      Rose being able to have them taken down is not really all that much out of line.

      Please look up prior restraint. Thanks.

      And he's using the simplest and easiest available tool with least repercussions for that, a DMCA.

      You mean misusing or abusing a tool for censorship without having a legitimatet claim. That's not okay.

      That's pretty much a no-brainer

      Abusing the law for censorship is a "no brainer"?

      It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

      So you admit that there's no real punishment for abusing the DMCA to censor content you have no right to censor?

      In other words, this is how the laws are intended to be applied according to their most important corporate sponsors.

      Huh?

      It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.


      I disagree and I run this place.

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

      • identicon
        ryuugami, 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: So?

        Mike, you might want to check your sarcasm detector, I think you're overreacting to this one. It seems to me that the original post is a cynical, sarcastic assessment of the situation as it is, not something the poster agrees with.

        At least, that's the impression I got from overall tone, especially the parts about laws working as intended by their corporate sponsors and "this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations".

        He's saying it's perjury, but the courts are not enforcing it, which is exactly the problem with DMCA. I believe you've pointed it out yourself a few times :)

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

      • icon
        beltorak (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:27pm

        Re: Re: So?

        Wait, you're replying to this guy, does that mean he's serious? I thought it was satire. Seriously. I LOLed almost all the way through it. I mean,

        > On the overall scale of seriousness this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations.

        Well, maybe that part wasn't facetious. That one seems dead on.

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

        • identicon
          David, 7 Jun 2016 @ 11:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: So?

          Wait, you're replying to this guy, does that mean he's serious? I thought it was satire. Seriously.

          If it's any consolation to you, I cannot tell the difference either when reading about the U.S. political and judicial system.

          Tom Lehrer stated about 50 years ago "Political satire became redundant when Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize." and things have been going downhill ever since.

          I still don't see the point in describing things how we wish they should be rather than how they are. If you want things to change, the first step is to stop lying about them.

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

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 12:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

            Some people say this stuff to be provocative or trolls others. Some actually mean it. Unless it's made obvious, you can't distinguish the satire online.

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

            • identicon
              David, 8 Jun 2016 @ 2:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?

              Unless it's made obvious, you can't distinguish the satire online.

              And whose fault is that?

              I feel that it is the job of the U.S. government and administration to unambiguously establish the difference between being the subject of a joke and being a joke.

              They are getting paid a hell of a lot more for that than I am.

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

      • identicon
        Remember Me?, 8 Jun 2016 @ 11:00am

        Re: Re: So?

        You disagreed with me so much on the GoldiBlox case (FAIR USE FAIR USE NEENER NEENER NEENER) and were shown so total-fucking-ly wrong that your judgment is suspect prima face. You obviously haven't changed. Still as opinionated - and arrogant - as ever.

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

    • icon
      Atkray (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:04pm

      Re: So?

      There are people who think the easiest tool for settling a disagreement is a knife or a revolver.


      Just because something is easy doesn't mean it is acceptable.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 5:50pm

      Re: So?

      It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

      And you don't see the persistent expectation of copyright law being consistently used as a "fuck you judge, bend your ass over" card as a problem?

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

      • identicon
        David, 8 Jun 2016 @ 11:25am

        Re: Re: So?

        And you don't see the persistent expectation of copyright law being consistently used as a "fuck you judge, bend your ass over" card as a problem?

        As long as the judges are bending over in a manner making Chinese contortionists pale with envy, who am I to criticize?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 9:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: So?

          When the term "copyright" is being used as an "Open sesame" password for plaintiffs to whatever the hell they want with the law... yeah, it's a problem.

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

    • icon
      techflaws (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 10:04pm

      Re: So?

      It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.

      Thanks for your permission. It's really appreciated.

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

  • identicon
    Darth Catbus, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:21pm

    We all eventually become...

    ...our parents

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

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:33pm

    Web Sheriff might become the perfect test case

    What better test case than Web Sheriff to get some kind of restraint on abusive DMCA takedowns. Could it possibly even lead to actual legislation to fix it?

    Maybe Web Sheriff needs to go up against Google or Facebook in a real court battle where the DMCA takedown has no actual copyright issue AT ALL. Where no copyright can be produced. Where no specific copyright can be shown to actually be infringed. Extra credit: where Web Sheriff is not the copyright holder's authorized agent (assuming that an actual copyright were in play here).

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

  • identicon
    mcinsand, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:36pm

    successful effort to disappear a photo?

    I've seen multiple articles on Rose's effort to make this photo go away. Mr. Rose, you have just entered... the Streisand Zone!

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

  • icon
    justok (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:39pm

    I

    I shot the web sherif, but I didn't shoot the DCMA

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

  • icon
    That Other Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:45pm

    If a monkey takes a photo of Axl Rose, who owns the copyright?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:59pm

    And the New Reigning Champion For...

    Streisand Effect of 2016 [to date] is Axl Rose!

    Oh, and as for Web Sheriff...

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160606/02071834632/web-sheriff-accuses-us-breaking-bas ically-every-possible-law-pointing-out-that-abusing-dmca-takedowns.shtml#c150

    ...we're gonna need a bigger bucket.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:02pm

    Oh I know this guy, he's from Guilty Gear, one of my mains.


    Whoah, where did you goooo, oh Axl?

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

  • icon
    Oblate (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:11pm

    Mashup?

    That picture makes me hope someone produces a mashup of Axl songs and Don McLean's song American Pie.

    Sorry Axl, no gravy on this one.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:28pm

    Thanks Web Sheriff!

    Thanks Web Sheriff! I would have never seen this hilarious meme had it not been for your futile efforts to censor the Internet.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:38pm

    More like XL Rose

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:27pm

    Please Please for the love of god correct your spelling.

    >>> Sheriff

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:44pm

    Did you ever imagine you'd be missing the relevant discussions on who owns a monkey selfie? I sure didn't!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 4:14pm

    Beyoncé’s lawyers tried to do the same thing with unflattering photos of her.

    I feel confident in saying the same results they achieved—none whatsoever—will be the endgame of this case.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:17am

      Re:

      I feel confident in saying the same results they achieved—none whatsoever—will be the endgame of this case.

      Not quite. In both cases the only reason I ever saw the photos was because of the takedown attempts, so they accomplished that.

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

  • identicon
    TMC, 7 Jun 2016 @ 4:28pm

    Just imagine how many dogs the Web Sheriff employees could buy with Axel Rose money.

    Remember that guy that had heard somewhere that Web Sheriff employees can only achieve sexual release upon bashing a dog's head in? Yeah, I still don't believe that, and neither should you.

    But if it was true, the bashed corpses of many a dog would be heaped on either side of Web Sheriff HQ. What a nasty, filthy, despicable rumor! Don't believe it! Sure, Web Sheriff is equally vile, but that doesn't mean we should believe they'd murder dogs in order to orgasm. I beseech the Internet to squelch this vicious, unfounded rumor.

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

  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 7:28pm

    Watch Out for the Grammar Police

    Hi there, Web Sheriff! In between money-laundering, abusing human rights, and generally breaking roughly all the laws over here at Techdirt, we had just enough time to notice you have a strange view on how copyright law works!
    This is the first time I've seen a misplaced comma result in an admission of criminal activity. I believe Tim should have put the comma before "over here at TechDirt", not after.

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

    • icon
      TechDescartes (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 8:58pm

      Re: Watch Out for the Grammar Police

      Ignore my comma-ent. Apparently one is required to read both the article and the linked TechDirt articles.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:20am

      Re: Watch Out for the Grammar Police

      It was a pretty confusing sentence. I didn't figure out until later that he meant Web Sheriff had accused TD of those things.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 8:58pm

    Poor Axl spent money to try and make sure less attention would be paid to the memes, and Web Sheriff has catapulted them to a huge topic of discussion....

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 9:17pm

    Dear Axl:

    Own it.

    Publish your own memes with those pictures.

    Express how the stingy ones burn.

    Show that you can roll with criticism.

    That is the coolest of the cool. That is engaging the public.

    DMCA takedowns are a cover-up. And they stink like a cover-up. And they make you look like the kind of guy who covers things up.

    Don't be that guy.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 6:45am

    New publicity model Streisand Agency.

    The photographer should send a thank you note to AXL Rose for paying Web Sheriff to do all this publicity for him.

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

  • icon
    wereisjessicahyde (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 8:20am

    Shush....

    Please don't tell Axl about the tribute band I've put together - "Buns and Doughnuts" I don't want to get into trouble with the Web Sheriff.

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

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 10:29am

    Let me get this straight...

    An aging rock star who is at least as famous for being a total dick as for his music is acting like a total dick when people tease him for being an aging rock star?

    Sounds about right.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.