Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor DMCA Terrorism

[_Buffalo]

BTMFA

[_asbestosman]

Ban Joseph.

Or we could make Joseph a mod. Maybe if we promote both him and Darrick?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Ban Joseph.

Or we could make Joseph a mod. Maybe if we promote both him and Darrick?

I wouldn't say no to that. I'd say hell no.

If photos can be protected from being copied onto other sites, and the owners don't care enough to put that protection in place, then why isn't it safe to assume that the photo is free use?

OMG, that sweet kitty. He sure looks more comfy in his underwear than he did in the cone.

[_Joseph]

lucrreata, you assume an image is copyrighted until shown otherwise, just as you assume an automobile you see parked on the street belongs to someone else and you don't try to take it without permission.

[_The Nehor]

Ban Joseph.

Or we could make Joseph a mod. Maybe if we promote both him and Darrick?

This would also work. Joseph for moderator or banning!

[_Simon Belmont]

just as you assume an automobile you see parked on the street belongs to someone else

Uh... the automobile parked on the street is MY CAR!

BTMFA

[_moksha]

It would seem that message board terror via the DMCA is only effective to the degree that the "chilling effect" is allowed to affect message board policy.

Could any DMCA takedown case be successful if no piracy of value-laden content is committed? My thinking is that it would take a judge, with a dim view of freedom of speech, to make such a ruling. Most likely the judge would be amenable to imposing court costs for a frivolous lawsuit.

.

[_Andy]

It would seem that message board terror via the DMCA is only effective to the degree that the "chilling effect" is allowed to affect message board policy.

Could any DMCA takedown case be successful if no piracy of value-laden content is committed? My thinking is that it would take a judge, with a dim view of freedom of speech, to make such a ruling. Most likely the judge would be amenable to imposing court costs for a frivolous lawsuit.

.

you have a point ..

[_Joseph]

Copyright is Federal. Formal filing grants a statutory award of attorneys fees. Check out the cases of unauthorized use. The size does not matter when it comes to attorney fees being awarded.

This does two things. It limits the number of cases being filed as non-registration means you don't automatically get attorney fees awarded and it puts teeth into copyright actions when they are filed against infringers.

http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/ ... sible.html

Read this one and learn a bit. $4000 for a $10 photo use.
Be aware a number have filed and won for small uses. Do you really want to see this site administator, owner, ISP and individual posters named in a Federal Lawsuit? If you don't believe l-dsinc and its many lawyers on retainer would do it you are crazier than a bedbug.

Even worse now are the public statements by many on here that they would deliberately post copyrighted photos without permission. All these forum discussion topics would be used as evidence if this was done.

Once again, why are so many so hell bent on posting work that is not theirs? It is easier to use images in the public domain, royalty free stuff withing the scope of licensing, copyrighted photos you get permission to post or your own photos? Why the major effort to steal, and say so publicly???

[_Joseph]

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/news/Remov ... 3095.shtml

Read it and see how the Appeals court handles the trial court dismissal... and think how much attorneys fees are for those misusing images.