Dances with DMCA
Jun. 24th, 2003 09:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
serindeNot the usual file-sharing stuff; this is more involved (and therefore more perilous)...
We have a user who is a graphic designer. As designers are wont to do, he has samples of his work on his web site. This includes a logo he made for a particular company. Apparently his relationship with them ended poorly, in the crockery-throwing kind of way. He says he has copyright on the logo and their web site (screen shots of which he has on his site). They say he doesn't. Their lawyers sent us a DMCA notice saying "this shit infringes, yo, pull it down". I read up on the text of the act and then mailed the user. He mailed back a counter-notification (this is a notice in a particular format containing specific information saying "no, this is my shit, and here's where the Law can find me if someone wants to argue it"). I duly forwarded this to the lawyer as the law says. He mailed back saying "Oh, well, it's not 'mistake or misidentification' because the user is disputing the copyright, so you have to pull it down anyways."
This smells a lot like bullshit to me. If both sides are claiming in good faith that they own the copyright, then someone has to be mistaken, neh? (We are leaving aside the likelihood that someone is lying through their teeth, because heaven forfend we should doubt anyone's claim of good faith.) What else is that provision FOR, if not to deal with a case where there is doubt over whether the material is infringing? So I am pretty darn sure that the lawyer is trying to scare us into just yanking the page. I don't cotton to that at all. If he's so sure his client is in the right, he should stop bugging us and fight it out in court, with the person they actually have a beef with.
We have a user who is a graphic designer. As designers are wont to do, he has samples of his work on his web site. This includes a logo he made for a particular company. Apparently his relationship with them ended poorly, in the crockery-throwing kind of way. He says he has copyright on the logo and their web site (screen shots of which he has on his site). They say he doesn't. Their lawyers sent us a DMCA notice saying "this shit infringes, yo, pull it down". I read up on the text of the act and then mailed the user. He mailed back a counter-notification (this is a notice in a particular format containing specific information saying "no, this is my shit, and here's where the Law can find me if someone wants to argue it"). I duly forwarded this to the lawyer as the law says. He mailed back saying "Oh, well, it's not 'mistake or misidentification' because the user is disputing the copyright, so you have to pull it down anyways."
This smells a lot like bullshit to me. If both sides are claiming in good faith that they own the copyright, then someone has to be mistaken, neh? (We are leaving aside the likelihood that someone is lying through their teeth, because heaven forfend we should doubt anyone's claim of good faith.) What else is that provision FOR, if not to deal with a case where there is doubt over whether the material is infringing? So I am pretty darn sure that the lawyer is trying to scare us into just yanking the page. I don't cotton to that at all. If he's so sure his client is in the right, he should stop bugging us and fight it out in court, with the person they actually have a beef with.
