case: ([ Mori; ...? ])
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2008-04-07 11:56 pm

(no subject)

"Dear LiveJournal user technophile,

We have received a report, properly formatted under the provisions set forth by United States law, indicating that your entry located at http://community.livejournal.com/fandomsecrets/141092.html violates the copyright of another person. As such, we must request that you remove that entry in its entirety as soon as possible, but no later than 0:01 AM EDT, Apr 11, 2008, to avoid further action against your account.

If you feel that this report is in error and that your use of the material is allowed under copyright law, you are entitled to file a counter-notification, also under the provisions of US law; please contact us for information on how to do this. Filing a counter-notification indicates that you are willing to defend yourself in a court of law against a claim of copyright infringement.

Regards,
Douglas
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team"


So. Thoughts? Comply Y/N? Personally I think "hey, mind removing this secret for copyright reasons?" would've worked far better, but that's just me.

ETA:

Is there any way you could tell me which is the offending picture? If it's possible to just remove the one picture (or multiple pictures) that was reported as copyright infringement instead of the whole entry, that would be great.

Thanks,
Case


ETA 2:

Dear LiveJournal user technophile,

Thank you for your inquiry. However, once a work is reported as a copyright infringement (in our case, a LiveJournal entry or comment), US federal law requires us to remove the entire work from our servers. The law does not give us the ability to allow the removal of part of a work and then declare that it is no longer in violation of another person's copyright, as it we do not have the legal authority to determine whether a violation has occurred.

Unfortunately, as a result, we have to require the elimination of the entire entry in order to ensure that we comply fully with US law.

Regards,
Douglas
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team


Sorry, the thing is this is a case kind of like with LJSecret (a community where mods post anonymously made and submitted secrets created by watchers of the community i.e. we don't create the images ourselves). The post in question contains a lot of images, any of which could be the one reported as infringing on copyright. I have no problems with deleting the entire post, but in order to make sure we don't do this again, we'd have to know which one was the offending image and how. Is there any way you could give me more information on that?

Thanks again,
Case

ETA3:

Dear LiveJournal user technophile,

Our privacy policy ensures that all requests made to the Abuse Team are confidential in nature. Because of this, we cannot disclose who contacted us or the content of their complaint. Please be assured that their notification was verified as complete and accurate before we took the step of contacting you.

The safest way to ensure this does not occur again in the future is to avoid copying any material which you do not have explicit written permission to copy. This includes, but is not limited to: screenshots of web pages, including the journals of other users, text or images from other web sites, and scanned images from magazines or other publications. Generally, these are all protected by copyright law, and if we receive a report that they have been copied without permission, we are required under US law to remove them from our servers as soon as possible.

Regards,
Douglas
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team

So I guess if anyone wants to save the epic post:



fdjhfjh

[identity profile] winter-ruins.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:10 am (UTC)(link)
XD I'm going to have to agree that it probably falls under "Fair Use" but not worth the battle.

[identity profile] powercorrupts.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:13 am (UTC)(link)
How so? Without knowing the secret, I don't know that you can really say that it was properly a parody or not. Otherwise, I don't believe it could fall under fair use. It's not like fs is particularly educational?

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 04:11 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_lounge/695614.html
You'll probably want to read this thread... They had something similar happen to them.

[identity profile] fiannan.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:11 am (UTC)(link)
Comply, I say. Livejournal are only doing what they have to do to obey the law, and they're obviously not the ones who've reported the copyright infringement, so it's not really their fault in this case. Personally, I don't think it's worth getting into trouble and possibly having your account frozen over. Just remove the entry in question and we can all get back to posting secrets. I wouldn't want to see the comm disappear over something like this!

[identity profile] ricordi.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:11 am (UTC)(link)
Yeah, I mean, if you comply, then you're going to have to comply every single time, which could run the risk of every single post being shut down because of a few copyright violations. So -

I'd say, yeah, comply for the secrets that apply, but auughh, argue that you don't need to remove the entire post?

Good luck. Auughh stresss aughhhh.

[identity profile] sidewinder.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 01:26 pm (UTC)(link)
What probably happened was someone who felt wanked/targeted by a particular secret went and complained. And LJ basically has its hands tied and has to follow through.

[identity profile] theflamingrose.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:12 am (UTC)(link)
What.

...In the Hell.

[identity profile] flow.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:13 am (UTC)(link)
Sci-fi doesn't like people whining about Atlantis?
Disney wants moar clothes on Kim?

...Lol, who knowsssss~~. Just delete the post, I guess.

[identity profile] sarajayechan.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:14 am (UTC)(link)
Well, shit.

Which secret violated copyright law?

[identity profile] teostra.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:14 am (UTC)(link)
Removal is probably the best path to take. As for which one? My guess is 5, because is uses a logo in such a clear manner. Then again, there's the logo to FFVII in the same post, so who knows. XD
karmadownurgun: (James Dean - Smoking)

[personal profile] karmadownurgun 2008-04-08 04:14 am (UTC)(link)
Technically, using any image from a(n) TV show/movie/artwork or likeness of a person is copyright infringement. Even usericons and banners for our LJs, for the most part, are against copyright laws, but most companies don't nitpick and sue every person who uses their copyrighted material for things such as low-quality, shoddy-made icons.

I say 'N' to complying and message them back saying to be a bit more specific, because being vague really gets the message across. -eyeroll-
ext_99196: (Default)

[identity profile] celestriad.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:15 am (UTC)(link)
what the... any copyrighted material that shows up there should constitute 'fair use'. i don't see how there's any violation there.

as so many others have said, you might want to ask what exactly about the entry is perceived to be in violation, or just delete it to avoid trouble.

[identity profile] arashi-tenkai.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:16 am (UTC)(link)
...Ask which one's offending and WHY it abuses copyright.

Mebbe it's someone going "Hey! I made that secret!"
Or mebbe someone used fanart for a secret and they're anal about it.

[identity profile] yuliee.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
The hell.

Eh, like everybody said, delete first and then ask which one it was, if it was just one in particular. Not like they'll reply, but it's worth a shot. (On the off-chance it's merely one, save the entry HTML to a document first. Though that's kind of common sense.)

[identity profile] tomeka04.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:17 am (UTC)(link)
ya know.. it's probably the Disney post - they get butthurt over everything

[identity profile] whatdied.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-08 20:42 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] whatdied.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
You should probably remove it to save yourself and us from the wank...but of course, save the secret's HTML like others have suggested.

[identity profile] bergeronprocess.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:20 am (UTC)(link)
Just do as the Cybermen do and delete it. Who reads old secret posts anyway? Nobody will notice it's gone.

[identity profile] rosehiptea.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:21 am (UTC)(link)
Maybe Rankin-Bass is upset over that old Hobbit movie?

No, seriously, I've got nothing. But better to comply, though asking which pic was more than reasonable.

[identity profile] mythicbeast.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:22 am (UTC)(link)
Since it uses the phrasing 'copyright of another person', it might be possible that it's something that used fanart. Just a thought.

[identity profile] powercorrupts.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:27 am (UTC)(link)
I'd think that's the most likely. Iirc from past dealings with LJ Abuse, it's very difficult to get copyright infringement through them unless you can prove that you hold the copyright. Fanart would probably be the easiest thing to get through LJ Abuse, so that's what my money's on.

(no subject)

[identity profile] mythicbeast.livejournal.com - 2008-04-08 04:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] mythicbeast.livejournal.com - 2008-04-08 05:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] alenxa.livejournal.com - 2008-04-10 04:55 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] spiletta42.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
It falls under fair use in exactly the same way that the crap on Perez Hilton's site falls under fair use. If the copyright holder wanted a lawsuit, and you fought, you could win, but it could potentially take time, effort, stress, and money. However, you're not dealing with a lawsuit here, or directly with the copyright holder who would have to take several more steps before suing you, or with courts and due process. You're dealing with LiveJournal, and they can pretty much just delete your account for a terms of service violation, which doesn't give a frak about fair use or freedom of speech, and put you on the offensive. You'd have to sue them to get your day in court, and in the meantime, no LJ account.

Delete the whole frakking post, everyone's already read it anyway.

[identity profile] counterfeitcoin.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:24 am (UTC)(link)
Clearly Steinbeck came back from the grave to lodge a complaint about the Of Mice and Men secret.

Man, if you find out what secret it is/who complained about it, I bet the wank would be epic.

[identity profile] luckypagoda.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:28 am (UTC)(link)
The complexities of this case lie in the intent of the secrets. There is no money being exchanged, and there is no intent to claim ownership. The addition of F!S being an anonymous community clouds the issue even more.

I very much doubt that a lawsuit could occur for something as trivial as this, but some individual or corporation seems to be very upset about one particular use of their copyrighted concepts.

[identity profile] glamourcorpse.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:28 am (UTC)(link)
Well, you know it's not the Torchwood stuff. I bet RTD gets off every time someone wanks over his shows.

[identity profile] colortheory.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:29 am (UTC)(link)
Like everyone else suggested, I'd just go ahead and delete it. It isn't worth the drama, and I'd really rather that [livejournal.com profile] fandomsecrets not go the way of [livejournal.com profile] fandom_wank.

Unfortunately, the community violates copyright merely by existing (since 90%+ of the secrets posted use copyrighted material), so if somebody gets butthurt again and reports it, the great El Jay will have to take action.

...

In Soviet LJ, copyright violates you?

[identity profile] lady-mercury.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:29 am (UTC)(link)
Then LJ is just one big giant copyright violation ;)

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 04:41 am (UTC)(link)
Truer words have never been spoken.

(no subject)

[personal profile] cyanglow - 2008-04-08 04:45 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] post-position.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:33 am (UTC)(link)
I say delete the post, but it wouldnt hurt to ask which particular image was a violation. Perhaps this is the time to consider making this community members only?

[identity profile] colortheory.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:52 am (UTC)(link)
That would go against the whole purpose of the community, which is anonymity. If we made it members only, people wouldn't be able to comment anonymously to respond to secrets considered too wanky, or to reply to other people's comments about their own secrets.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-08 05:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] colortheory.livejournal.com - 2008-04-08 05:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-08 05:27 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] iamthemurderer.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:35 am (UTC)(link)
I best it's 4. Peter S. Beagle has really been cracking down on usage of The Last Unicorn since his not getting paid for copies of the movie and other merchandise fiasco.

[identity profile] kirarakim.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 11:56 am (UTC)(link)
This is what I thought it might be too.

Page 2 of 6