Comments on: When NOT to File a DMCA Notice

By: Has Your Blog Content Been Copied? A DMCA Takedown Notice May Help | AFFILIATE PLAYGROUND

Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:40:02 +0000

[...] definitely look at using this as a first course of action when appropriate. However, doing so may not always be the best option, so it is important to look into things first, particularly where the breach of copyright may not [...]

By: Frivolous DMCA Notices - Net Builders

Frivolous DMCA Notices - Net Builders — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:55:20 +0000

[...] might have already found this page, but it contains some interesting info. When NOT to File a DMCA Notice | PlagiarismToday In particular, it references Section 518(f) of the US Code that provides penalties for people who [...]

By: Marshall Lerner Harvard Lecture Copyright Infringement pt2/7 | Trademark Law

Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:13:35 +0000

[...] When NOT to File a DMCA Notice (plagiarismtoday.com) [...]

By: Marshall Lerner Harvard Lecture Copyright Infringement pt2/9 | Trademark Law

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:14:57 +0000

[...] When NOT to File a DMCA Notice (plagiarismtoday.com) [...]

By: Paddock Park – Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (NEW VERSION) | Copyright Law

Paddock Park – Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (NEW VERSION) | Copyright Law — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:24:06 +0000

[...] When NOT to File a DMCA Notice (plagiarismtoday.com) Related Posts [...]

By: my good name copyright act dmca and plagiarism - digital photography by Ted Szukalski

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:19:38 +0000

[...] only applies in cases where site or an individual has nominated DMCA agent. His opinions are echoed later on by Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today web [...]

By: Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:46:43 +0000

First off, to be clear, you have nothing but my sympathies for what happened to you and your work. I know its frustrating. You didn't ask for this or deserve it.As far as what I would have done in your position, it's a difficult question in part because it is a difficult situation. Personally, for me, I would have approached the Webmasters involved and asked them personally, without a DMCA or C&D letter, to either remove the image or add a disclaimer that you did not create it. Even though you said you did that, you didn't say if you asked for a disclaimer that it was not your work. I think that might have been more useful in this case.You are right that you do not deserve to have your reputation besmirched by a random photoshopper but this approach would have also spared the headache of a false DMCA notice.Most, I can imagine, would have complied with this request. Bloggers tend to be willing to make corrections but are hesitant to remove works.Likewise, I would have issued statements on my own saying that the revised image is not yours. and publicize them greatly. Finally, since you are an Australian, you have no requirement to register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office to file suit. I would have at least looked at finding an attorney who could research this matter and find out who the original photoshopper is and target them. As Sheffner pointed out, and I largely agree, their fair use argument is much more weak than the sites that have discussed it.That's just my short take. It's a difficult situation though and there are a lot of wrong answers but no clear right one. In the end though, your reputation is more important than the damage to this one work so I would focus on that more. Once again, you have my sympathies and if there is anything I can do to help, let me know.

By: Ted Szukalski

Ted Szukalski — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:06:06 +0000

Hello Jonathan,indeed this is an informative article. If this and Ben Sheffner's article were available to me before I emailed Patrick Frey of Patterico.com I would not have done the "fools errand" as Ben puts it. I have extensively explained rationale behind this action on Patterico.com and I hope majority of your audience will see it in a more complete light. I'd like to see an article, which would elaborate on what I should have done. Here I am, a photographer taking an image. The image get modified by unknown author and is "virally" distributed in USA via email, in many cases with my name attached to it (there are still copies of that image on the internet. Later due to a news story the image starts being published by news site and subsequently by blogosphere. No one explains or even acknowledges this image is an unauthorized derived work (plagiarism), no one shows as much as a link to original image. As a result I get called racist. There is no distinction in viewers/readers/email recipients eyes between the plagiarist and me. So, at first, I left comments on many of these sites pointing to this fact. I have also sent emails to various website owners. In some cases I get pointed to DMCA form. I guess since those were effective it may have put an idea in my mind that is the way to proceed about this. In a way I am glad Patrick, Ban and you commented on it. Firstly, I know now this is not the way to do it. Secondly, I have received some understanding (a reversed Streisand Effect). Yes, I have been criticized for the approach, but I have also made many people see I am not the author of what in many people's minds is a racist photograph and hopefully it shows I had no ill intend by sending these notices other than trying to clear my name of racist accusations . At no point did I try to censor people's opinion on the photograph.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:26:00 +0000

Great information.

just an FYI, The page has some formatting issues.