Marketing Guy: Google Image Search Is A Honeypot Set Up By Aggressive Copyright Litigants

from the I-lost-a-lawsuit-and-all-I-got-is-this-lousy-advice dept

There are a lot of people out there that don't understand intellectual property issues. But perhaps no one misunderstands them quite as badly as internet marketing guru Dan Dasilva. And Dasilva has no excuse. He's been on the losing end of a copyright infringement lawsuit. Despite this, Dasilva continues to express his ignorance -- and proclaim his victimhood -- publicly on his YouTube channel. (h/t Techdirt reader Andy Gural)

Dasilva snagged an image from Google's image search and used it on a website he set up for one of his clients. The photographer who took the picture -- Michael Grecco -- sued Dasilva for infringement, ultimately ending up with $27,000 settlement and $10,000 in legal fees.

Dasilva has seemingly learned nothing from this experience. In fact, it appears the lawsuit may have actually made him stupider.

"The reason I was sued was because I used a picture that I found on Google Images," Dasilva says in his warning to other content creators. But instead of simply warning people about the dangers of infringing on photographers' copyrights, Dasilva decides to warn people about "malicious" people out there who are trying to profit off their copyright.

"I never really thought that there are malicious people out there… there are people out there who maliciously put pictures on the Internet," Dasilva states. "They copyright pictures that they take, and what they do is, they'll get a copyright on it, and they'll put it out on the Internet, and it's freely available on the Internet. If you run a Google search their image will appear."

Yes, Dasilva somehow believes copyrighted photos returned in Google image searches are honeypots created by photographers. But that only scratches the surface of Dasilva's ignorance. He also appears to believe photos need to be watermarked clearly with copyright symbols in at least 12 point text so people like him won't fall into the trap of being sued for grabbing images off the internet and treating them as their own.

There are more gems to be found in Dasilva's video, including his assertion he's not going to slow down his infringing use of other people's photos. But then again, what do you expect from a video that leads off with "my lawyer told me not to make this video?"

Dasilva appears to believe he should have been given a warning by Michael Grecco, rather than sued. But given his grasp of the underlying issues (and his plan to continue his infringing acts), it's hard to believe a mere cease-and-desist would have been sufficient. He does suggest viewers search for Creative Commons images, which is a start, but seems to imply it's a last-ditch option for people with a reasonable disinterest in being sued. He also fails to clarify that Creative Commons is not nearly the same thing as public domain. Some CC licenses forbid commercial use.

If Dasilva knew anything about Grecco, he would have known the photographer is an aggressive litigant. He's sued plenty of publishing industry giants for alleged infringement. Grecco's litigation history may appear troll-like, but he's not in the business of suing IP addresses en masse or targeting individuals who may have posted his photos on their personal blogs. Grecco's aggressive litigation stance in no way validates Dasilva's claims he's the real victim here. And it must be noted Grecco has taken a far more progressive stance than many engaged in the business of infringement litigation. When he noticed PDFs of his photography book being shared at filesharing sites, he took it to mean he needed to create an electronic version to serve this underserved market.

If Dasilva finds himself sued again, it's doubtful he'll be able to secure the same representation. Unfortunately, the fallout from his lawsuit means thousands of people looking to him for e-commerce advice have just been made stupider.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    TechDescartes (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:08pm

    It's a scary world out there

    Maybe Mr. Dasilva will start going after those evil websites that post copyright notices in tiny font at the bottom of the page and include "Terms of Service" like this:

    ALL CONTENT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SERVICE, SUCH AS TEXT, GRAPHICS, LOGOS, IMAGES, AS WELL AS THE COMPILATION THEREOF, AND ANY SOFTWARE USED ON THE SITE, IS THE PROPERTY OF VANCE SOFTWARES OR ITS SUPPLIERS AND PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND OTHER LAWS THAT PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND PROPRIETARY RIGHTS. YOU AGREE TO OBSERVE AND ABIDE BY ALL COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPRIETARY NOTICES, LEGENDS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN ANY SUCH CONTENT AND WILL NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES THERETO.

    But be careful. That particular website specifically states that it reserves the right to change the terms:

    CHANGES TO TERMS VANCE SOFTWARES RESERVES THE RIGHT, IN ITS SOLE DISCRETION, TO CHANGE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH HTTP://ECOMDUDES.COM AND ANY VANCE SOFTWARES, LLC (DAN DASILVA) OWNED WEBSITE IS OFFERED.

    Who knew there were people like this in the world?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:38pm

      Re: It's a scary world out there

      Stating in the terms that you can change the terms is actually very bad for enforceability. If one side can change the terms at will, you no longer have something that could be considered a valid contract.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:30pm

        Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

        In order to be valid, does a contract have to be agreed to by both parties?

        For example, how does a EULA become a valid contract, as some people claim, when it is a given that most all people do not read it? Has this issue ever been ruled upon by a court of law in the US? I do not recall reading about it occurring yet.

        Also of interest is the fact that one is not allowed to put anything they desire into a contract, as a judge could invalid the entire contract because the terms are unconscionable.

        For example, giving up your first born would be unconscionable.

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

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

          For example, how does a EULA become a valid contract, as some people claim, when it is a given that most all people do not read it?

          There's also the issue that many EULAs appear only after purchase and opening the package, no return allowed. It's a done deal, too late to back out, and then they show you all the conditions.

          Which in turn raises another issue: If they have that right, then so do you. "By continuing installation in my computer or printer, the vendor agrees to these terms..."

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

          • icon
            Roger Strong (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

            Or just don't treat an EULA as scripture.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

            On a side note, there was that Russian guy who altered the credit card form he was sent, filled it out and returned it and got a card. I forget the details ....

            Ahhh - Here it is:

            http://www.nasdaq.com/article/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit- card-agreement-then-sues-now-settles-cm267708

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

            • identicon
              Zonker, 30 Oct 2017 @ 4:17pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

              On a side note, there was that Russian guy who altered the credit card form he was sent, filled it out and returned it and got a card.

              Yeah, I always figured the way to handle the one-sided EULA problem would be to always replace their "EULA.txt" (or "license.txt" or whatever) with your own (more reasonable) terms before running the installer.

              A screenshot of the acceptance screen and local storage of the new terms should suffice, since there is no contract signing involved and courts have ruled that click-thru acceptance of terms is enforceable.

              I have yet to see anyone try it though, but wouldn't advise it either.

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

          • icon
            Bergman (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 4:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

            When I encounter a EULA online, I read it and as I do so, I draw a line through terms I find objectionable on the screen with my finger, before clicking accept at the bottom.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

              I recite to myself: "I don't accept a goddamned thing. By forcing me to read this bullshit, you've accepted my terms."

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

          • icon
            That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 8:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

            There's also the issue that many EULAs appear only after purchase and opening the package, no return allowed. It's a done deal, too late to back out, and then they show you all the conditions.

            Can you imagine if that sort of practice was applied elsewhere?

            Imagine if you would buying a car sight-unseen, no ability to test drive, look it over before purchase, no idea what the terms of sale were until you had already bought it.

            Adding insult to (financial) injury the contract that you were only able to read post-purchase was filled with clauses stating when you could drive the car and where, which shops you were allowed to take it to for repairs, even setting out which gas stations you were allowed to refill the tank at, with a final clause that if you didn't agree to all of the above you were prohibited from driving the car, re-selling it, or even returning it for a refund.

            Pretty sure any car dealer that tried that sort of thing would get a brick or two (dozen) wrapped in lawsuits through the windows from furious customers, yet it's considered acceptable practice when it comes to software for some insane reason.

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

        • icon
          Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's a scary world out there

          Should a EULA be a completed contract? No.

          But it appears that too many people, which includes some courts, say differently. That those people forget that a contract needs to be negotiated and agreed to by both parties appears to be irrelevant, even though they are in fact wrong. They keep missing that the end user in a EULA never had a seat at the negotiating table, and those EULA's that are 'enacted' after the package is opened have serious deficiencies (no prior notice or negotiation), and those that are so long that no one will read (or understand) them are also seriously deficient (no comprehension and no negotiation).

          Now to get the courts to agree.

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

    • identicon
      Rekrul, 31 Oct 2017 @ 12:46pm

      Re: It's a scary world out there

      Maybe Mr. Dasilva will start going after those evil websites that post copyright notices in tiny font at the bottom of the page and include "Terms of Service" like this:

      Which only means something if the image is actually on the web site that holds the copyright to it. If someone else downloads the image and puts it up on their blog, which is where you find it, where's the copyright notice?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:38pm

    Thumbs up and down counts are hidden, and comments are disabled in his video.

    "La la la, I'm not listening!"

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      Pretty much this.

      Either he put it up that way knowing someone would disagree with him, or someone did in the comments and he disabled comments afterward.

      Either way, if comments were enabled, he would likely get blasted for his utterly unbelievable cluelessness.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re:

        He probably disabled the comments as soon as he saw people calling him an idiot. In the video, he specifically says, "and I want to know in the comments down below if you have any experience with this as well because this is something that I really really need to know..." so it seems like he thought it would be well received. And then reality hit him straight in the comments section.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 5:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I want to hear from other people that have encountered this" and 'no comments' sounds like he was hoping for people to justify his position and reinforce his idea that he's right. With people instead pointing out that he's dead wrong, making a colossal fool of himself and giving really bad advice he probably figured 'just' blocking comments was the best course of action(because he can't possibly be wrong, so obviously those people are merely blaming the poor innocent victim, him).

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Well... since he's disabled comments, why doesn't someone just re-upload his video with a nice subtitle commentary to their own YouTube channel?

        It's not like he'd sue someone for using video they found on Google is it?

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

  • identicon
    Tin-Foil-Hat, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:41pm

    Just Ask

    If you ask nicely a copyright holder may give you permission to use their photos as long as you give them proper credit for their work.

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

  • identicon
    Machin Shin, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:43pm

    This guy really is clueless. Piracy is not something you do in a professional environment. He really should have known better than that. Now he is giving others horrible advice.

    If your doing something for a buisness it is pretty simple test.

    1)Did you make it? If yes your good. If not see #2)

    2)Did you check the license and verify your allowed to use it? If not, then don't use it till you have.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 1:53pm

    Next thing you know, Dan Dasilva will be claiming that shop displays are an invite to take the goods.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:03pm

    Anything you place online freely is up for grabs by anybody in kind, regardless of what license you have on it. It's unfortunate, but you can't act like there isn't somebody, somewhere who'll do it anyways.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:37pm

      Re:

      You couldn't be more wrong if you stated the world is flat.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:37pm

      Re:

      This is true, however,

      - If someone downloads your picture from the internet and uses it for their personal PC wallpaper - who cares?

      - When they use it to generate income then there is a higher probability that the copyright owner will notice and take action.

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

      • icon
        ralph_the_bus_driver (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:05pm

        Re: Re:

        Not entirely true.

        Who cares? I care.

        I do a lot of part time photography. It became so difficult to get some people to pay that now, until they pay, they only get a thumbnail of the photo. We don't even bother putting a copyright notice over it anymore.

        They can d/l the thumbnail, enlarge it, or whatever. But they remain unusable for anything serious. If you want to see the good, HD photo then pay us or come into our office. Paying for my work helps keep a roof over my head, buys my equipment, and will help send my kid to college.

        So who cares if you steal my work? I do.

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

    • identicon
      Jordan, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:39pm

      Re:

      That's... literally the reason copyright exists.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 12:26am

        Re: Re:

        No. Copyright exists because in the past it was possible to produce works in a market before the owner was able to enter said market. It's origins are rooted in an era of horses being the fastest method of delivering material to new customers not people using pictures without permission.

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

        • identicon
          David, 31 Oct 2017 @ 3:39am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not really. Copyright is from before the area of electronic media. It was created because there were ripoff publishing houses who specialized in creating cheap copies of just-published works without paying the author because the author did not have a contract with them.

          And this was before the age of photographic reproduction: they still had to retypeset the books from available copies. So obviously they weren't "first to market". Just early enough to make a major dent.

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

          • identicon
            anon, 31 Oct 2017 @ 5:51am

            copyright for authors or government?

            i'm going with copyright for government. can't have seditious text undermining the monarchy(^^).

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Copyright was their to protect a printers investment in creating copies of a book, because they have to print as many copies as they think they will sell, in sections, and cannot sell any copies until they have printed the last section. A rogue publisher could cause them to end up with a large number of unsold copies, and if that happened too often, they were bankrupt.

            That is copyright served the useful purpose of regulating the printing industry. It has never served the interest of authors, who could sell manuscripts to printers (who needed content) before they were granted copyright, and has enabled publishers to take control over authors works, and pay them as little as possible so long as they were gatekeepers to the printing presses.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:05pm

    don't get out much do ya?

    "I never really thought that there are malicious people out thereā€¦"

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

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:25pm

    "My lawyer told me not to make this video..."

    Dan DaSilva thinks he's saying "Hold my beer and watch this"...

    If Dasilva finds himself sued again, it's doubtful he'll be able to secure the same representation.

    ...but his lawyer is hearing the army basic training quote "Okay, I pulled the pin. Now what? Where are you going?"

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

  • identicon
    Valkor, 30 Oct 2017 @ 2:51pm

    This kid is a marketing guru?

    Last time I checked, "absolute cluelessness" was not one of the four tests of Fair Use.

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

  • identicon
    SirWired, 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:24pm

    I just don't get it TechDirt

    Just recently (it showed up in the "related articles" box), you took Disney to task for having the gall to enforce their copyright against a costume company shamelessly ripping off Disney's characters. And how, while they were legally in the right, should have just let things slide.

    But when a photographer goes after some small-time moron using some photos without a license, that's just A-OK?

    Do large companies have fewer intellectual property rights than individuals? Do costume companies have more rights to use IP without payment than this random idiot?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:39pm

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      The answer is that copyright law is more nuanced than you think.

      The issue with Disney's case falls under a different part of copyright than this.

      And in both cases, the underlying question should be: which side is promoting science and the useful arts?

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

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:45pm

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      Do relevant markets and nuance mean nothing? The words in all the articles... are they just there for filler, as a long way of saying x sucks, or are they maybe describing relative merits of certain particular situations?

      Also. Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced. (But some call him... Tim?)

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

    • icon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 3:53pm

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      Just recently (it showed up in the "related articles" box), you took Disney to task for having the gall to enforce their copyright against a costume company shamelessly ripping off Disney's characters. And how, while they were legally in the right, should have just let things slide.

      But when a photographer goes after some small-time moron using some photos without a license, that's just A-OK?

      Do large companies have fewer intellectual property rights than individuals? Do costume companies have more rights to use IP without payment than this random idiot?

      No more than Disney did when they ripped off the public domain when they created their characters.

      So the result is that one needs to say they also ripped off the public domain (The Brothers Grimm) when creating their characters, and make some differences in the actual appearance. Problem solved.

      On the other hand, taking someones photograph off the net and posting it on your site is just not the same thing as ripping off the public domain and redesigning the character to be different than the ones Disney created. Ever seen Snow White as a blond? Is that enough to make it dissimilar? Some courts yes, some courts no. It might be better odds than Roulette. Make you changes, take a roll.

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

    • identicon
      Thad, 30 Oct 2017 @ 4:07pm

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      But when a photographer goes after some small-time moron using some photos without a license, that's just A-OK?

      The article does not say that.

      It makes no statement, one way or the other, on whether the copyright holder who sued DaSilva was (ethically) in the right.

      The article is about DaSilva's video and its outlandish and inaccurate claims.

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

    • icon
      FamilyManFirst (profile), 30 Oct 2017 @ 6:16pm

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      Nice false equivalency, SirWired, not to mention a failure to summarize the articles correctly.

      In the former article, TechDirt took Disney, the copyright owner, to task for being dumb at marketing. Not once did TD say that Disney's actions weren't following the law, just that they were stupid. TD recommended a more nuanced approach to copyright infringement on Disney's part to maximize its public image and, ultimately, its own profit.

      This article isn't about Mr. Grecco, the copyright owner, being dumb at marketing, it's about Dasilva, the copyright violator, being dumb about copyright. Not only dumb, but deliberately dumb, refusing to learn. Indeed, TD has moderate praise for Mr. Grecco's personal policy about copyright infringement, as it is - gosh - nuanced.

      These articles have different theses, SirWired, but they do approach them from the same perspective, if you look.

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

    • identicon
      JEDIDIAH, 31 Oct 2017 @ 10:22am

      Re: I just don't get it TechDirt

      > against a costume company shamelessly ripping off Disney's characters.

      Since Disney raids the public domain, this actually could be a real gray area.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 4:05pm

    That Youtube Video Title is in all Caps!

    But not called "GROWN MAN-CHILD REACTS TO COPYRIGHT CLAIM! TOO FUNNY, MUST WATCH!!!"

    What a wasted marketing opportunity.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 5:02pm

    Whole new world?

    When I was young, books were made from physical materials and had associated costs to create, manufacture and distribute. If I wanted a picture I needed a camera, film, needed to pay to have the film developed.

    My children grow up in an age where a huge amount of information is available with a Google search. They can take a picture and post it to Facebook using my old obsolete phone I don't use anymore.

    These are two different worlds.
    It is so inexpensive to take and distribue an image the perceived value of doing so is far less than it was when trees and chemicals were needed to do the same.

    I think we will continue to see more and more people in younger generations who have a hard time grasping why someone deserves to be paid for doing something that anyone else can do for essentially free.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2017 @ 9:23pm

    I think we will continue to see more and more people in younger generations who have a hard time grasping why someone deserves to be paid for doing something that anyone else can do for essentially free.

    I do believe that content production will become more and more commonplace and less and less expensive, but I don't think that younger generations will have difficulty grasping the concept of paying for someone else's time, effort, and expertise, unless their parents do a crap job of explaining it to them. It's very simple. If you want someone else to do something for you (take photos, cook food, move your belongings, paint your house, etc.) or if you want to use their stuff (photos they took, rent their houses, cars, take a flight), you pay them for it. If you don't want to pay someone, do it yourself.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:33am

    I am confused (on many things, but will limit it to this article at this point in time) why this article is on Techdirt.

    Hmmm, a marketing guru that truthfully, I have never heard of, looking at his website, there is a good reason I have never heard of him, so it isn't like this person is famous.

    He took someone's photo and put it on his companies website, which obviously isn't something that people don't know that they shouldn't do. Its not like the article is teaching people not to do that, since well, duh.

    He was sued and now owes $37K for using someone else's friggin picture, so its not like the poor shmuck wasn't punished. I mean, $37K is some real money.

    So he made a stupid video making stupid claims. Is that what the article highlights? Some guy I never heard of did something stupid and ends up paying $37K for it? That is the reason for the article?

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:41am

      Re:

      It's a copyright issue, and more specifically it's about someone who appears to have hilariously incorrect views on copyright, views which they are sharing such that there's the potential for other people to make similarly stupid moves thanks to him.

      A counter question would be why wouldn't this story show up on TD?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 8:14am

        Re: Re:

        Yeah, the guy "appears to have hilariously incorrect views".

        Maybe, but maybe his video is just an attempt to draw more attention to himself, which is happening and caused this article, which brings even more attention to himself.

        I think this is a big issue here in the US. I call it the Kardashian of America. Everyone wants to be famous, everyone acts famous.

        I see it more and more on LinkedIn, I don't go on other platforms, but now it is all likes, shares, followers, etc. People's goal is to be famous for being famous. I think this guy is part of that.

        So that is why this shouldn't show up on TD. It isn't news, it doesn't teach anything, except it just gives someone more publicity.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 8:44am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Maybe, but maybe his video is just an attempt to draw more attention to himself, which is happening and caused this article, which brings even more attention to himself.

          Contrary to the views of some, all attention is not good attention. In this case the 'attention' he's getting is people learning about how clueless he is, and how even getting slapped down for thirty-seven thousand apparently isn't enough for him to realize just how stupid his position and actions were/are.

          'Look at me playing the victim card (badly) and defending something that got me sued' is probably not the attention he was going for if that was his goal, especially given how it might impact his ability to attract new clients.

          So that is why this shouldn't show up on TD. It isn't news, it doesn't teach anything, except it just gives someone more publicity.

          Fool gets slapped down in court, fails to learn lesson and continues to present horribly flawed ideas as to the law is relevant news for TD, highlighting just how stupid he was/is and why is most certainly educational for anyone who might have bought his 'woe is me, I'm just a poor victim' argument, and as for the publicity angle I covered that above.

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

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 31 Oct 2017 @ 12:59pm

    He kind of has a point.

    Let's say you want to talk about a celebrity appearing at some event. To illustrate this, you need a photo of said celebrity, but unfortunately you weren't there to take your own photos. You could just grab one off the net, except that in today's world, everything is owned by someone. Do you pay $50-100 for the rights to use a single copyrighted photo on your blog? What if you grab the image off a site where it seems to be free, but they took it off a site where it's copyrighted. Is your use of the photo "fair use"? Maybe, but do you have the money to go to court and prove it?

    It's gotten so that using any photo that you didn't shoot yourself or any piece of artwork that you didn't personally draw, opens you up to the risk of being sued for thousands of dollars.

    Think back to the early days of the web. Everyone used everyone else's images and web sites flourished. Then it started getting more commercialized. Now, professional photographers put their entire portfolio on online and sue when someone dares to use one of their photos without paying for it. Or news web sites buy a photo, put it online, someone else uses it and the photographer sues.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      Using a picture to accompany a story is quite different from incorporating an image in a web design.

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

    • icon
      ralph_the_bus_driver (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 7:30pm

      Re:

      Not quite. Fair Use allows someone to use other's work for personal or informational use. What Fair Use doesn't do is allow you to profit off of other's work.

      A site can use a picture of Peyton Manning to illustrate a news story. If that photo is the subject (instead of an illustration) then they will need to pay for the use.

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

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 31 Oct 2017 @ 10:36pm

        Re: Re:

        Not quite. Fair Use allows someone to use other's work for personal or informational use. What Fair Use doesn't do is allow you to profit off of other's work.

        That's not actually true, though it does seem to be an unfortunately common misconception. Commercial use can weigh against a finding of fair use as one of the factors that are considered in court, but it's not an automatic disqualification, and in fact a quick search through the TD archive found at least one case where an entire work was used and not a cent was required to be paid, and bouncing between articles found another example of commercial use still being considered fair use.

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

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 1 Nov 2017 @ 2:07pm

        Re: Re:

        Not quite. Fair Use allows someone to use other's work for personal or informational use.

        But what guarantee do you have that even if your use is fair use, the copyright owner won't try to sue you?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2017 @ 2:16pm

    Marketing Bozo Fails To Shock World

    The guy's a marketeer. That's the only four-year degree program that requires crayons in the curriculum.

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

  • identicon
    Loki, 31 Oct 2017 @ 4:09pm

    My guess is Dasilva is a product of one of the entertainment industry's "education" programs who spent most of his time sleeping or texting on his phone.

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

  • identicon
    John Smith, 1 Nov 2017 @ 12:12am

    Inconsistent

    What about "implied license?" That would have to be revoked before a lawsuit. He wasn't warned? What about the DMCA? This isn't adding up.

    Meanwhile, Perfect 10 couldn't even win against Visa when Visa was processing payments for pirated images on the grounds that Visa didn't "control" the infringement.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 1 Nov 2017 @ 6:46am

      Adds up fine when you aren't throwing in phantom numbers

      What 'implied license'? Simply showing up in a search result does not in any way 'imply' that an image is free for use, so there's nothing to revoke. If you've got some extra information about an 'implied license' then by all means share it, because as it stands I'm not aware of any such thing.

      A warning would have been nice, but from the sound of it he was using the image in question for business purposes, and not in a fair use fashion, so I imagine the photographer wasn't in the mood to play nice(not to mention his actions post-lawsuit leave me skeptical that it would have done any good), and while a DMCA is a method of telling someone to take something down it's not like there's a requirement (as far as I know) to file one of those first and only move on to a lawsuit if that doesn't work.

      As for Perfect 10? Yeah... if you're using them as an example, you might want to do a little research, because they've failed spectacularly in multiple cases with their novel interpretations of the law, so might want to choose a better former company to hold if if you want to bolster any argument you are making.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2017 @ 1:48pm

      Re: Inconsistent

      You don't send a DMCA notice to the alleged infringer. The DMCA doesn't protect that party in any way.

      For example, suppose you embed an infringing copyrighted image in a comment here at TD. The copyright owner can now sue you with or without warning. If they want the image removed faster, they send a DMCA notice to TD. Then, TD can remove the image, or choose not to remove it and risk inclusion (for contributory infringement) in any lawsuit against you.

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

  • identicon
    CJ, 1 Nov 2017 @ 8:02pm

    We've been hearing it for years to use original images, and now the crackdown is just starting to happen.

    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
Close
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
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
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.