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] icefalcon.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:47 am (UTC)(link)
Wouldn't they have to tell you what secret it was so you can, I don't know, take 'preventative measures' from it turning up again? Quite a few pictures crop up more than once on FS.

[identity profile] pimpmytardis.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:47 am (UTC)(link)
In Soviet LJ, copyright violates you!

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 04:48 am (UTC)(link)
Something similar to this happened over at [livejournal.com profile] ljsecret, because of 'underage porn' that posted. The picture was covered, but the girls looked about 14. The mod who posted the entry got 'perma-banned' and LJ!S argued their case that the material is not *their's* and made a reference to Post Secret and all that.

The mod got her journal back, but left LJ!S because of it.


So it is possible that with some explanation they'll let you off easy.

[identity profile] powercorrupts.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
Well... all LJ Abuse said was to take it down. So... take it down and they'll probably let it off. FS might go down in some sort of BAD list, but there was no mention of action being taken unless FS failed to remove the offending materials.

(no subject)

[personal profile] xenoglossy - 2008-04-08 06:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-10 03:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] xenoglossy - 2008-04-10 04:44 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] valkyriur.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:49 am (UTC)(link)
Maybe if they tell you what the freaking "violation" is, you could easily comply. I don't get why you should remove the whole thing.

[identity profile] laserdragon.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:55 am (UTC)(link)
Is it time to bust out the Pirate of the Caribbean quotes and cat macros? Please say it's time to but out the Pirates of the Caribbean quotes and cat macros.

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 05:14 am (UTC)(link)
LMAO. Yes.

(no subject)

[personal profile] xenoglossy - 2008-04-08 06:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] cyren-2132.livejournal.com - 2008-04-08 08:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] xenoglossy - 2008-04-08 08:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-08 12:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[personal profile] xenoglossy - 2008-04-08 17:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2008-04-08 20:31 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

[identity profile] schizo-niko.livejournal.com - 2008-04-08 20:32 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] yui-hime.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
I'm as torn as you are. On one hand, I don't see what there is to get all butthurt over, since it's not like any of us secret-posters are getting any kind of money from posting secrets! On the other, the same logic mandates not raising a fuss if someone else obviously thinks it's that important.

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 05:13 am (UTC)(link)
Somehow will not be surprised if LJ says "You can't post secrets with images, because we don't want to get our asses chewed out for it"

If this is the case, EVERYONE on LJ should be banned, since we're all using images that aren't our own! YAY!

[identity profile] shampoo.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:18 am (UTC)(link)
i'm with [livejournal.com profile] loneliestnumber because i bought a copy of the last unicorn movie from him at a signing and the guy representing him or whatever told us the whole story. he's been cheated out of a lot of money, so i imagine that he and the people helping him out are hardcore against anything being used unfairly.

but yeah, wait for a reply as long as you can before deleting the post + saving the html and all that.

[identity profile] iamthemurderer.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Dude, I had the guy representing him make an LJ comment in my Livejournal when I made a post on his troubles. It made me all kinds of paranoid.

(no subject)

[identity profile] shampoo.livejournal.com - 2008-04-09 01:51 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 05:19 am (UTC)(link)
Is this going to be some sort of new witch hunt?

I am so tired of striking/boycotting/etc. LJ every month.

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 05:20 am (UTC)(link)
Agreed. Totally freaking agreed.

[identity profile] spiletta42.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
Okay, my guess is secret #51. JKR is bored, mean, and richer than God, with legions of lawyers and other lackeys at her disposal.

[identity profile] ulf-boehnke.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:26 am (UTC)(link)
Since LJ is basically spineless when copyright is concerned, you will end up removing the entry whatever you do.

Hopefully this will be an isolated case, otherwise the comm is doomed.

[identity profile] xtirpate.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:29 am (UTC)(link)
Uh, what?

I'd say comply, but still, uh, weird.

[identity profile] thornyplums.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:34 am (UTC)(link)
I think before you go about deleting the post you should be aware of the fact that according to this (http://www.livejournal.com/legal/dmca.bml):

"LiveJournal will terminate, in appropriate circumstances, account holders of LiveJournal's system or network who are repeat copyright infringers."

By deleting the post and complying to LJ's notice you'll probably be recognized as a first-time offender. This will not help your case if someone files another complaint again. And it could all possibly lead to the deletion of this community.

[identity profile] amanuensis1.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 10:47 am (UTC)(link)
Not deleting the post, though, WILL lead to the deletion of this community. It will. They will also lose any journals and communities registered to the mod under the same email. That's how LJ works. The comm's already a first-time offender in LJ's eyes; non-compliance (failure to delete what they've asked you to delete) means you're terminated without waiting for additional violations. Ugly, but true.
karel: (text; invent human beings)

[personal profile] karel 2008-04-08 05:42 am (UTC)(link)
god, such serious business. I'd say comply, just because I don't want your journal getting deleted, and if it does, I don't want to have to friend another one. Lazy Ky is lazy ):

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 05:43 am (UTC)(link)
Because of what [livejournal.com profile] thornyplums said, you should go through the process of fighting it, which I believe generally involves contacting the person/entity making the request. Ultimately you may have to comply, but it's worth trying at least so you don't get this on your own record.

[identity profile] thornyplums.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 05:46 am (UTC)(link)
Exactly. A lot of people think this bullshit will go away if we just sate one angry person. But who's to say it won't open it all up for more people to file complaints every time they get pissed?

27 OP

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 06:03 am (UTC)(link)
My secret is completely original. In the event you delete the entry, could you repost or archive it?

Re: 27 OP

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 06:22 am (UTC)(link)
Take screenshots of the secret and relevent reply threads?

[identity profile] fools-game.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 06:13 am (UTC)(link)
Um, one thing to keep in mind - I believe, though I am not a lawyer, that deleting the entry will be seen as an admission of guilt. Which means that if somebodsy else comes after you in the same way next week for a different secret, you may be viewed as a repeat offender, which could lead to your account being deleted even though you have complied with all their requests.

[identity profile] amanuensis1.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 10:51 am (UTC)(link)
LJ looks at it this way: NOT deleting the entry is non-compliance. Deleting the entry is only evidence that you complied with LJ's request because they demanded it of you if you wanted to keep the journal; it is not an issue of admission of guilt. They are saying, take it down or we delete, putting you in the circumstance of complying or losing your journal.
prototypical: (Lelouch)

[personal profile] prototypical 2008-04-08 06:15 am (UTC)(link)
I'm going to throw my hat in with the people who said to explain this in terms of what happened at [livejournal.com profile] ljsecret.

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 06:15 am (UTC)(link)
what what in the butt

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 06:26 am (UTC)(link)
LOL. Srsly.
xenoglossy: (Ever17 // Tsugumi is mocking you)

[personal profile] xenoglossy 2008-04-08 06:16 am (UTC)(link)
But no one made a secret about Chancery Stone!

[identity profile] rejects.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 06:17 am (UTC)(link)
I'm going to say comply, because I don't want to see F!S suspended.

However, I fail to see how these secrets don't fall under fair use. IANAL but I think secrets meet pretty much most, if not all the criteria. IDK. :|

[identity profile] artemekiia.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 06:23 am (UTC)(link)
Personally I'm kind of surprised that a copyright holder would file suit against this since any secret is hard proof that their creation is out there and probably has fans. I mean, if any of my creations got on FandomSecrets I think I'd pass out with glee. Then again I guess it could have been a negative secret :/ .

As for what to do, I say comply. One F!Secrets post isn't worth getting banned and people get REALLY weird about copyright infringement. Not to mention there are some serious (although completely unreasonable) penalties out there.

[identity profile] kyriesanctus.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 06:27 am (UTC)(link)
I say remove the content of the journal and replace it with something--like just saying that it's been taken down for now, and save the code and stuff rather than deleting it.. That way, if you can figure out what the copyright violation is, you can remove that specific thing and put it back up, and you wouldn't have even lost the space where the original post was.. Also, they can't say you didn't listen because.. They didn't say yu had to delete the entry, just remove the stuff that violated copyrights until you can find out exactly what it was and keep it off for good.

(Anonymous) 2008-04-08 07:01 am (UTC)(link)
Don't care. I'm just loving all the 14 year old e-experts on law in here.

I do hope another kick ass WE'LL SHOW THEM strike is in order. *snort*

[identity profile] digivolution.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 03:17 pm (UTC)(link)
lol IAWTC

(no subject)

[identity profile] kidalana.livejournal.com - 2008-04-10 03:03 (UTC) - Expand

[identity profile] bobalunatic.livejournal.com 2008-04-08 07:05 am (UTC)(link)
Dammit, why do these things happen so often?

In the meantime, will secrets be posted as per usual? Since we don't know the exact reason why this all came about, isn't there a possibility that F!S will get hit again for the same violation? (Unless there's some kind of special immunity until the deadline that I don't know about.)

As to the question of comply or not to comply... This sentence kind of bothers me: "Filing a counter-notification indicates that you are willing to defend yourself in a court of law against a claim of copyright infringement." I doubt anyone's gonna bust in here and start suing technophile's ass off or anything, but it's probably not worth the risk. So I guess I'd have to say to comply, as much as I hate to.

Page 3 of 6