| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2009 02:03:12 AM · #1 |
YouTube was notified by me a few days back about some jerk who had one of my photos inserted into his video. They pulled the video right away so I thought all was done. Now they just emailed me this:
Hi there,
We received the attached counter-notification in response to a complaint
you filed with us. As described in the United States Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA) 17 U.S.C. 512, by this email, we're providing you
with the counter-notification and await your notice (in not more than 10
days) that you've filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the
counter-notifier's allegedly infringing activity. Such notice should be
submitted by replying to this email. If we don't receive notice from you,
we will reinstate the material to YouTube.
If you have any questions, please contact copyright@youtube.com.
Sincerely,
The YouTube Team
WTF!! Why must I incur the cost of a court order to protect rights already stated I have in the Copyright Act.
If I had the money I would sue the shit out of the little f*ck who posted the video. But then he probably doesn't have two cents to go after or he would have been able to afford to buy a camera and shoot his own photos to put in his dumb ass video.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 02:27:23 AM · #2 |
| I feel sorry for you. It reminded me of this thread. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 02:35:28 AM · #3 |
| The email says you have to notice them that you filed an action, not that you actually have to do so :-P |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 02:43:37 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by MistyMucky:
I feel sorry for you. It reminded me of this thread. |
Sounds like the boat I am in - no money to be spending on fighting this battle, and also not able to even go back and forth with it right now as I will most likely be having surgery on my back in about 3 weeks.
I may just have to harass the little f*ck head instead. Now is when I wish I knew how to hack into a computer and do some real damage
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 05:47:18 AM · #5 |
| What did the counter-notification say? |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 07:43:39 AM · #6 |
All in all, I'd say unless you are willing to spend a few $$$ to prove your point to this moron then you aren't going to be able to do much. Is the photo registered with the Copyright office? If so you have a much better chance of not spending any money and actually gaining some. Next move is up to you, if I remember right that was a pretty good stock earner for you, I'd want to protect it.
Matt |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 10:20:16 AM · #7 |
Is the version he posted your stock version or the altered version the Greeting Card Company used? If the latter, sic THEM on him, they'll be happy to go after him...
Anyway, what did the "attached counter-notification" say?
R. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 10:34:33 AM · #8 |
Seems like you are stuck. If I read correctly:
Someone used your photo in a video.
You saw it.
You notified Youtube.
Youtube sent you notice that the user countered saying basically "this is my picture". Youtube even quoted you the statute saying you now need to send reply saying you need to send notice that you have filed in court a restrait against this persons use of you photo.
As someone pointed out...just send them an email that says you filed in court...(you haven't yet)
The person on the other end can fall for the bluff or take the photo down.
What do you think would happen?
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 10:54:08 AM · #9 |
what's the youtube video.. At least we can all bombard him with comments saying what a rip-off he is for using someone else's work with out their permission.. Especially if he's trying to pass it off as his own.. Sometimes that is enough for them to remove it all by themselves..
Come on everyone.. LETS GET THIS GUY..lol.. I felt the group of guys in the begining of Shrek for a second.. :-) |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:02:08 AM · #10 |
Linda,
Bluffing can lead you to damages, I wouldn't go down that road:
Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys̢۪ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner̢۪s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Here is the pertinent section of the DMCA regarding counter-notifications:
(3) Contents of counter notification.— To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider’s designated agent that includes substantially the following:
(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriber̢۪s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber̢۪s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
I suggest replying to YouTube asking if the counter-notification contains all the elements above, ask to see a copy of the counter-notification with relevant personal information omitted.
If the infringer continues down the road the above "Misrepresentation" section applies and you can ask for and get (assuming you win) all your costs recovered. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:04:47 AM · #11 |
A link to US Code: Title 17, Section 512, for those wanting some light reading.
If you post anything online I highly suggest reading this.
Message edited by author 2009-08-20 11:05:49. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:11:55 AM · #12 |
Why don't you write an official letter to YouTube indicating that you intend to file an injunction in whatever court in your jurisdiction. Maybe just the receipt of a letter of intent would be sufficient to help YouTube keep the video off their site.
If this incident isn't a good enough lesson that you need to copyright your work..... well. But even with copyright, if someone used your photo in a creative way you might still be SOL. But..... were it used commercially by a company with deep pockets, and you had copyrighted it, I'm sure there would be many, very smart, young gun attorneys that would be more than happy to take your case.
Good luck with the back. Oh, BTW have you used the Cokin Filters yet? |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 11:33:21 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Why don't you write an official letter to YouTube indicating that you intend to file an injunction |
I would suggest not since intentions aren't addressed, only actions, and the provider (Youtube) will reinstate the alleged infringed work after 14 days:
Relevant section of the code:
(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and
(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider̢۪s system or network.
Linda, did youtube already send you a copy of the counter-notification? They are required to. I'll go back to my previous post, ask for a copy of the counter-notification.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 12:07:39 PM · #14 |
Have you tried contacting the videographer directly?
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:18:01 PM · #15 |
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press. I explained this to YouTube when I first contacted them.
I'll post the attachment later - I am leaving here for a doc appt in a few and have to convert the attachment from a pic to a text first
JP, I am not going to go down the bluffing adventure. Not gonna get me anywhere that way. I would like to have a hack get into a destroy his hard drive though. lol
When the video goes back up, I will post the link here so everyone can harass him at will
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:19:14 PM · #16 |
| seems to me that Avanti Press has an interest in filing against this hijacker. The rights being infringed are also theirs. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:41:34 PM · #17 |
You should contact Avanti Press AND, on your own, an IP attorney. A lawyer shouldn't cost you more than your time until you actually retain them to represent you and even then, most are willing to accomodate reasonable financial arrangements. In this case, I'd suspect an open and shut case and the infringer will be stuck with your attorney's fees. In any event, my advice is to talk to a lawyer who KNOWS what they're doing and leave the DPC forums for commiseration with your fellow photogs.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:47:43 PM · #18 |
| Ahhh, not the pugs in love? :( |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 01:53:15 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by frisca:
seems to me that Avanti Press has an interest in filing against this hijacker. The rights being infringed are also theirs. |
Yes, but I'd think it's the responsibility of the photographer to make sure that what rights were granted to Avanti Press are maintained. If they aren't then Avanti Press could go after the photographer, not the infringer. Though, I'm not a lawyer so could very well be wrong here. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 02:24:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by frisca:
seems to me that Avanti Press has an interest in filing against this hijacker. The rights being infringed are also theirs. |
Could be as simple as contacting Avanti and informing them that the image was used in the video, asking if the user properly purchased the usage rights from them. Almost certainly he did not, and then you have let Avanti know about it. They can also contact youtube--and they probably have the necessary virtual documentation to show that he should have paid them for use. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 02:30:03 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press. |
If you are selling it as stock how do you know the videographer didn't simply purchase it?
Also, would the stock image license allow one to use the image on their own greeting cards and sell them? ...like this?
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about the one second frame i the middle of a youtube video, but I probably would be upset about the greeting card. (unless that's the place you licensed it to or your stock agreement allows it) |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 04:17:49 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press. |
If you are selling it as stock how do you know the videographer didn't simply purchase it?
Also, would the stock image license allow one to use the image on their own greeting cards and sell them? ...like this?
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about the one second frame i the middle of a youtube video, but I probably would be upset about the greeting card. (unless that's the place you licensed it to or your stock agreement allows it) |
That's the Avanti product, I do believe.
eta; yeah, the stock # is AV02392, probably Avanti merchandise.
eata; I see more than one site selling that card with the same stock #.
Message edited by author 2009-08-20 16:35:19. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 04:29:30 PM · #23 |
*hides the Pug Love T-shirts he's been selling*
|
|
|
|
08/20/2009 08:54:35 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press. |
If you are selling it as stock how do you know the videographer didn't simply purchase it?
Also, would the stock image license allow one to use the image on their own greeting cards and sell them? ...like this?
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about the one second frame i the middle of a youtube video, but I probably would be upset about the greeting card. (unless that's the place you licensed it to or your stock agreement allows it) |
Let me correct myself....the image was not sold through a stock image site. It was leased with exclusive rights to Avanti Press through a direct contract. Avanti can use the image on cards, stationary, etc - and can let other retailers sell the items for them. |
|
|
|
08/20/2009 09:27:40 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Matt, yes it is a good stock earner - and still under an exclusive rights contract to Avanti Press. |
If you are selling it as stock how do you know the videographer didn't simply purchase it?
Also, would the stock image license allow one to use the image on their own greeting cards and sell them? ...like this?
Personally, I wouldn't be concerned about the one second frame i the middle of a youtube video, but I probably would be upset about the greeting card. (unless that's the place you licensed it to or your stock agreement allows it) |
Let me correct myself....the image was not sold through a stock image site. It was leased with exclusive rights to Avanti Press through a direct contract. Avanti can use the image on cards, stationary, etc - and can let other retailers sell the items for them. |
Retailers like Carlton Cards :)
 |
|
