Removal of Photo Credit Qualifies As DMCA Violation

mattgoldey writes with this excerpt: "A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has reinstated a photographer's copyright lawsuit against a New Jersey radio station owner, after finding that a lower court came to the wrong decision on every issue in the case. Most significantly, the appeals court said that a photo credit printed in the gutter of a magazine qualifies as copyright management information (CMI) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA prohibits the unauthorized removal of encryption technology or copyright management information from copyrighted works."

Re:Copyright notice != CMI

[element-o.p.]

From the TFS: "...the appeals court said that a photo credit printed in the gutter of a magazine [emphasis mine]..." Yes, there are print magazines that are also published in electronic format, but TFS sounds like it was the print version, which TFA corroborates: "After the image appeared in the magazine, someone at WKXW scanned it without permission [emphasis mine, again]..."

The radio station published it electronically, but the original image was published on paper and scanned by the radio station.

While my sympathies are with the photographer in this instance and while I can easily see how the radio station's actions violated copyright on the image, I agree with GPP -- how, exactly, does the DIGITAL Millenium Copyright Act apply in this case? They weren't removing copyright/accreditation from an electronic format. I'm no lawyer, but it seems really asinine to apply the DMCA here. Obviously, however, the judge disagrees, and his opinion carries a lot more weight than mine.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI

[rahvin112]

I'd rather have the courts stick to the letter of the law and implement congress's bad law then have them try to dance around bad language and end up with a situation that's just as bad and has no clarity. This type of thing SHOULD fall under the DMCA and some high profile people should get stung by it.