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] coloredink.livejournal.com 2008-04-10 12:53 am (UTC)(link)
I don't know much about copyright law, but it seems to me that fandomsecrets should fall under "fair use" as according to U.S. law.

There is a four-prong test. If this works like the other tests used for first amendment law, if it fails one prong then it fails the entire test:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

While fandomsecrets are hardly "educational," they are certainly nonprofit.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

I don't remember what this means.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

I think a single image, with some text pasted written over it, hardly constitutes a substantial portion of the work for. . . anything, really.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This is related to the above. IIRC, the original case involved a guy who shot himself out of a cannon for a living. When someone videotaped his entire performance and aired it on the news, he sued, saying that this damaged his living (since now people could or had viewed his performance for free, essentially). Again, a single image with some text pasted over it does not damage anyone's ability to make a profit out of the work in the future--if anything, fandomsecrets has probably increased the profits of some works, judging by the number of "I started reading/watching/listening to [work] because of fandomsecrets" secrets.

Corporations slap down "cease and desist" and "copyright infringement" letters all the time despite not having a legal leg to stand on; they're really just trying to protect the company's image by scaring people into submission. You'd win this case, if it actually got taken to court--which it wouldn't. Legal battles are long and expensive, and any judge would roll his/her eyes at this case. However, it is--as others have said before me--your battle, and this would be the stupidest free speech case ever. It would not be something to tell your grandchildren about.

That said, LJ is a private entity and they'll certainly try to cover their ass so as to avoid getting their named dragged into a lawsuit, and that means they'll shut down the community if they feel like it. Free speech does not exist on servers owned by a corporation.
Edited 2008-04-10 01:15 (UTC)