Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Protecting My Copyright

baldheretic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#61

Post by baldheretic »

tomflack wrote: post #22
baldheretic wrote: post #17

To be clear, I took no joy in shutting her site down. GoDaddy is a bit heavy handed in their response and I have learned a lesson here. The main point is that she used the image without permission and her site went down because of it. To turn around and accuse me of being a part of a diabolical conspiracy was out of left field. She should have contacted GoDaddy and worked it out. I did my part by rescinding my DMCA w…

She's still using the image on the business' Facebook page. Are you going to tackle that one too or is the burn not worth it at this point?

I have contacted Facebook about that image, but I suspect they are too busy rolling in their new found wealth to give it much attention.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#62

Post by pdonis »

Natsu wrote: post #52
sbronstein wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.

Actually, there have been fair use decisions when an entire work was used non-commercially: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/ I'm not saying that's the case here, but whether the use was commercial or not is one of the four factors considered when deciding fair use.

I don't think "commercial" requires you to "make money" from the use. I think using the photo as an illustration on your business website qualifies as "commercial" even if you can't show that it brought you any business. (Of course, IANAL.)

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#63

Post by pdonis »

drostie wrote: post #39
dangrossman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What should GoDaddy be doing instead? If they want the safe harbor protection from the DMCA so that they're not liable for the infringement, they are required to remove the content. There need be no direct mapping between the website URL reported in the complaint and any specific file they can identify on a server's file system; it might be dynamically generated, served by a CMS doing URL rewriting, coming from a dat…

As low as my opinions of GoDaddy have fallen, the more I think about it, the more I think that Candice was probably trying to cut costs and inadvertently tied GoDaddy's arms behind its back. The GoDaddy "Deluxe 4GH" plan costs $6/month and could easily hold 14 web sites, and one feature they offer at this stage is "Multiple Web Sites: Unlimited". At first it sounded like GoDaddy had simply rerouted all of her domain…

> Candice could have used a good fence between her charity and her infringing account.

Agreed, but GoDaddy could have also taken option 2) from dangrossman's post above, which happens all the time with "live" servers anyway, every time people change their own configurations through the web "control panel" for their hosting provider. For the kind of plan it looks like she had, her URLs were most likely being served by the same Apache instance as the URLs for dozens of other customers; so any time any customer changes their setup, the "web server" has to reconfigure itself. That's why servers like Apache do that on the fly, without requiring a restart.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#64

Post by jorgeleo »

bigiain wrote: post #56
jorgeleo wrote: post #50

I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it? I can understand that someone might react against seeing their work all over the Internet used for free, and use the DMCA to prevent that. I can also understand a generous reaction, and feeling flatter instead. While I don't…

"I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?" It doesn't work that way. Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234". The _default_ is that if you dont own a photog…

In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive.

You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way.

I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly.

Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers.

One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#65

Post by slowpoke »

etfb wrote: post #46
slowpoke wrote: post #43

This is ridiculous, and I don't mean the response of that site owner. While yes, that woman is at least slightly nuts, the problem in the first place was "oh the horror, people are using my image, let's throw around DMCA takedowns". Yes, it's not nice to not give attribution, but I don't see a fundamental problem here. What was the loss involved? Nothing. People liked the image, so they used it. Where's there any the…

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you lack empathy and experience. If you like, send me a copy of every piece of creative work you've ever produced -- songs, poems, articles, computer programs, graphics, whatever -- and I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution. If you can tell me you're OK with that, I'll modify my opinion: rather than saying you lack empa…

>I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution

Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that.

My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large.

On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws.

So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#66

Post by slowpoke »

jekub wrote: post #54
slowpoke wrote: post #43

This is ridiculous, and I don't mean the response of that site owner. While yes, that woman is at least slightly nuts, the problem in the first place was "oh the horror, people are using my image, let's throw around DMCA takedowns". Yes, it's not nice to not give attribution, but I don't see a fundamental problem here. What was the loss involved? Nothing. People liked the image, so they used it. Where's there any the…

The problem here is that when you want to use a photo, you either take it yourself, or you take one made by someone else and ask him what are his conditions. When you take a photo and put it one your web site, this doesn't mean that anyone can grab it and use it. The problem here is that people think that they can do what they want on the web and if you just send them a mail they will do nothing. DMCA is globally a b…

>And remember that the copyright law is what make GPL possible...

It's funny you say that, because RMS has cited the creation of a post-scarcity society has one of the explicit goals of free software. In such a society, copyright would not exist, because everything would be free (as in both speech and beer). The GPL is but a means to an end, not an end unto itself, and it just so happens to use the current system of copyright to progress towards that end.

So yes, without copyright, there would be no GPL. But without copyright, we would not have most of the problems the GPL is trying to solve.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#67

Post by DanBC »

notspanishflu wrote: post #40
DanBC wrote: post #25

Is she a lawyer? She claims to be a lawyer. In the UK it is not legal to claim to be a solicitor if you are not one. Isn't it the same in the US?

Maybe I'm misreading it but I can't find her claiming she's a lawyer. I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.

Weakly here:

> a partially disabled atty

and weakly here:

> You cost me thousands in billable time

But then directly here: (http://chicksandpolitics.com/nauseatingsagagarciaboohoo/)

> Attorney & CEO of Schwager Consulting & Marketing;

Also here:

(http://www.whenigrowupi.com/)

> though I still practice law via the Schwager Law Firm. My law practice thrives

Claims several times to be the grand-daughter of Henrik Ibsen. I have no reason to disbelieve this. But it's mildly interesting.

(http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/)

If I was going to go all Internet detective I'd ask the Mormons[1] for genealogy advice. And then I'd carefully check each of these logos:

(http://houstonattorneysocialmedia.com/logo-design-is-the-fou...)

I don't particularly want to pile on (perhaps a bit late) but, while I know nothing about design, I can say that I dislike those logo examples. I also dislike the copy-writing. (Removing the many errors wouldn't help.)

[1] For anyone who isn't aware, the church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints (or whatever they're called) have extensive genealogical databases. They're friendly and welcoming to people who'd like to research family trees. At least, when my pa did that in London they made no attempt to convert me and provided him with help using their systems and computers.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#68

Post by DanBC »

Semaphor wrote: post #58
slowpoke wrote: post #43

This is ridiculous, and I don't mean the response of that site owner. While yes, that woman is at least slightly nuts, the problem in the first place was "oh the horror, people are using my image, let's throw around DMCA takedowns". Yes, it's not nice to not give attribution, but I don't see a fundamental problem here. What was the loss involved? Nothing. People liked the image, so they used it. Where's there any the…

This is a perfect example of why DMCA is great. He manually made a list of site and sent notices. No wrong claims, no automatic bullshit. Now if only there were some laws requiring DMCA to be used that way… But taking something, making money of it and not even attributing where it's from? That's just the lowest of lows.

I agree.

And she had a simple remedy if he made a false claim; she could have filed a counter notice.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#69

Post by peetahb »

DanBC wrote: post #67
notspanishflu wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misreading it but I can't find her claiming she's a lawyer. I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.

Weakly here: > a partially disabled atty and weakly here: > You cost me thousands in billable time But then directly here: ( http://chicksandpolitics.com/nauseatingsagagarciaboohoo/ ) > Attorney & CEO of Schwager Consulting & Marketing; Also here: ( http://www.whenigrowupi.com/ ) > though I still practice law via the Schwager Law Firm. My law practice thrives Claims several times to be the grand-daughter of Henrik Ib…

Claims several times to be the grand-daughter of Henrik Ibsen. I have no reason to disbelieve this. But it's mildly interesting.

I also found that interesting, but being that his two great-grand kids are male, I highly doubt she's a descendant.

Re: Protecting My Copyright

#70

Post by wpietri »

unreal37 wrote: post #7
wpietri wrote: post #2

Wow. That is quite a story. I hope he doesn't actually file suit against her. Partly because she's so obviously nuts that I'd feel a little bad. And partly because it's a bad idea to get involved in a court case with a crazy person. You may win in the end, but your lawyer can rack up some big bills keeping up with a manic loon.

Worse if the crazy person is themselves an attorney. She can just file crazy motions all day long and it won't cost her anything. I think GoDaddy is to blame in this. Taking multiple sites down for one DMCA take down request. And the blogger too seems too happy about taking sites down as he does. He should work harder (at least for GoDaddy sites) to contact the sites directly and get a license fee. Diplomacy before n…

Having had one of my photos stolen, I can understand entirely why he doesn't bother trying to contact site owners first. It is very hard to find a mailbox that connects to the actual responsible person. And then they may just ignore you. Hosting companies at least answer the phone.

I agree that GoDaddy is the problem here. When people pick hosting companies, they should think a little about how well they'll be treated when something goes wrong. Because something always goes wrong eventually.

Post reply on HN