Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online

Copyright Infringer Tries To Shut Down Reporting On Her Infringement 418

Posted by timothy
from the would-you-like-some-goose-with-your-gander? dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Further to the previous story on Slashdot where attorney Candice Schwager threw threats to sue a photographer who reported a DMCA violation against her for infringing use of his photography: Candice has now made a DMCA threat of her own against Petapixel, a photography site that reported on her infringement. The kicker? She's sent the DMCA notice an apparent six times not to Petapixel's registrar or their hosting service, but to Godaddy, her own registrar."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copyright Infringer Tries To Shut Down Reporting On Her Infringement

Comments Filter:
  • by pro151 (2021702) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:23PM (#40198073)
    She is!
  • by sdnoob (917382) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:27PM (#40198095)

    how the fuck did that happen?

    oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.

    • by griffjon (14945) <GriffJon&gmail,com> on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:32PM (#40198121) Homepage Journal

      As a Texan, I somewhat resent this statement. Some of us were lucky enough to have parents who valued education, despite the State's constant de-funding of it.

      Also, there are dumbasses everywhere in "amercia" it would seem.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:33PM (#40198125)

      how the fuck did that happen?

      oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.

      how the fuck did that happen?

      oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.

      I think somebody from texas, or several slashdotters from texas need to take copies of all this and send it to the texas state bar: Technically the:
      State Bar of Texas Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, for their review, this woman if she is indeed a lawyer needs to be dealt with swiftly. Also the state congressmen and senator need to be contacted if the state bar doesn't do anything because she is giving the great state of texas a bad name.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:53PM (#40198229)

        sorry for posting this earlier, but I figured its relevant, btw I'm not an american, I'm a Canadian, but I just hate it when a good state looks stupid because of one person, especially texas because southern texas women are HOT.

        To file a complaint you must:

        Contact a CDC Regional Office

        If you have questions about the grievance process or the status of a grievance, or if you need to request a grievance form, please call the office located nearest you.

        Austin, Texas
        Phone: (512) 427-1350, or
              (877) 953-5535
              Fax: (512) 427-4169

        Chief Disciplinary Counsel
              1414 Colorado St.
              Austin, Texas 78701

        Dallas, Texas
              Phone: (972) 383-2900
              Fax: (972) 383-2935

        Chief Disciplinary Counsel
              14651 Dallas Parkway, Ste 925
              Dallas, Texas 75254

        Houston, Texas
              Phone: (713) 758-8200
              Fax: (713) 758-8292

        Chief Disciplinary Counsel
              600 Jefferson, Ste. 1000
              Houston, Tx 77002

        San Antonio, Texas
              Phone: (210) 208-6600
              Fax: (210) 208-6625

        Chief Disciplinary Counsel
              Federal Reserve Building
              126 E. Nueva, Suite 200
              San Antonio, Texas 78204

        How to file a complaint:

        http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451

        Grievance Form:

        http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/TheGrievanceProcess/HowtoFileaGrievance/GrievanceFormEnglish.pdf

      • by darkmeridian (119044) <william@chuang.gmail@com> on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:53PM (#40198233) Homepage

        Read her blog. She sounds insane: http://attorney4specialneeds.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

        "Isn't it ironic? Atty4kids' suffering began when a crafty Houston Chronicle Help Desk Guy, Jay Lee asserted what appeared to be false claims for copyright violation against her, wiping out this and 13 websites 8 days before the primary, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). Why do I believe it was false? A litany of facts suggesting Jay has very naughty. "Fair Use" Doctrine. Jay Lee and his outrageous lynch mob media printing lies to smear Candice have gone so over the top, there's simply more to the story. I've never met anyone so masochistic, begging to be smacked, as Jay. Call in the lynch mob! It goes all the way to Scotland! what's really up? Why would grown men put on an act like this,assassinating the Character of the President & Founder of Attorneys for Special Needs Children? Jay Lee is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids' websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. What was wrong with sites? Sheriff Garcia was called a cry baby and couldn't take it. Artsy people like Lee usually possess many talents. He is an Amatuer photographer. He had a right to file te claim if true, but Most people are kind enough to first notify the person going for the jugular. He did not. He whines that he didn't know this would occur, unlikely story. What I think he failed to anticipate was the devastation and anger he'd cause to a mom with three kids who is deeply committed to advancing the Civil Rights of Special Needs Children (Atty4kids) who is a force to be reckoned with. Realizing the damage caused, he withdrew his sworn infringement claim immediately and practically begged her ISP to restore service quickly. Whether her suspicions are right or not, HE SHOULD HAVE HIT THE ROAD After she apologized, offered payment, permitting him to NAME HIS PRICE, he withdrew the accusation and the image was removed. He did not, but began stalking Atty4kids on Twitter and accused her of infringement AGAIN in fron of 1700 followers. Livid, she said "you better be joking" and he disappeared in abject fear. Coupled with the bait and switch game he played on Flickr, theres reason for concen. First, he scripted a drama for others to play that was enough to make you vomit. He wrote his pathetic sob story all over the photo with a frowny face as onlookers gawked ooh, aah, and spoke of the money he should have been paid on Flickr, UNAWARE that he could have NAMED THE PRICE and FAILED. 10 seconds was my limit. I left ad clicked the link a short time afterwards of curiosity, POOF! GONE! A magician like Sheriff Garcia? With the Chronicle Head Sheriff Garcia's crafty weasly Campaign Manager, free lessons? What are the odds that less than 24 hours after calling Garcia a cry baby and 8 days prior to primary, her VERY POLITICAL, HIGH RANKED blog, Chicks and Politics, would be suspended by a hacking pro employed with the Chronicle! If you knew Bernie's influence with the Chronicle, you'd laugh. She traced the Twitter stalker immediately, finding Jay and his Chronicle association she knew before even looking. Media Libels Atty4kids & Violates Her COPYRIGHT (DMCA) Jay milked the horrific tragedy for 4 days at which time Atty had enough and demanded he remove all of his libel, infringement and harassment from the web within 2 hours. Several cease and desist letters were sent, but this one hit a nerve. Maybe it was Atty's advice, "Get a lawyer," for 4 days, every parasite imaginable seeking to cash in (they are collecting funds for Jay's Defense), not yet realizing they'll need one too, is defaming her too. Theyve republished a BS atiry to inflict damage. Keep it up, morons! Damages are looking great! Atty has given 1000 hours in our fight foe justice for disabled kids. She

        • It's like reading Timecube
        • by iter8 (742854)
          Insane? Perhaps. But even if she's not, she really needs to learn about this little writing technique called paragraphs. Perhaps, she needs also someone to clue her to that fact that using lots of phrases in caps makes you SOUND TOTALLY BATSHIT.
      • by snspdaarf (1314399) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:48PM (#40198535)

        ...because she is giving the great state of texas a bad name.

        Ha! After living there for 24 years, I already have a bad name for the state of texas.

    • Come on... Everyone has there "slow people." We try not the let them out without a parent, but sometimes they get into the red punch, and all that sugar...
    • The imbecile who started the Birther movement is a lawyer too. I know quite a few excellent lawyers and a few who must have gotten their J.D. from a box of CrackerJack.
      • by Cyberllama (113628) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:27PM (#40198417)

        Well you know Schizophrenia can sometimes have a late onset. I'm not a doctor, but her writing definitely has a certain rambling, imbalanced quality to it. That whole, huge thing was one long paragraph on the theme of "everyone is out to get me". It's possible that she is genuinely mentally ill, and yet she might have been a competent attorney once. All I can say is that, as a layman, I was somewhat concerned for her mental health after reading that blog entry. It doesn't strike me as the writings of a sane person, but I'm not an expert.

        • by jd (1658) <imipak&yahoo,com> on Sunday June 03, 2012 @04:37AM (#40199603) Homepage Journal

          That is perfectly true, but there's many conditions that can arise unpredictably or which can be triggered. I'd consider her closer to Borderline Personality Disorder, since Schizophrenia (as I understand it) alters the way a person's internal model of the world works but does so in a consistent manner. R. D. Laing exploited that to produce therapies based on the idea of having schizophrenics make the correct mappings at the conscious level.

          However, this attorney isn't acting in a consistent manner. Too random. She's also able to function (to some degree) in law and that's not something you would necessarily expect from a Schizophrenic. What we're wanting to look for is a mental or neurological disorder that's very narrow in focus and domain in comparison to Schizophrenia.

      • What we can garner from this is the "few excellent lawyers" aren't lawyers at all, and to be a lawyer, you have to apparently go through some sort of head trauma.

        That's the only way to explain Congress.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:09PM (#40198321)

      oh, wait.. she's from texas. never mind.

      You might have just as well said something along the lines "she was black, that explains everything". It's the same fucking sort of bullshit.

      Texas has produced a lot of brilliant engineers, scientists, leaders, and good regular people too.

      Have states like California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, and etc. ever produced douchebags? Of course not...

      • Hey, here in California we restrict the douchbags to SF and Hollywood. In both cases we are hoping for the San Andreas to fix this issue for us. Also, I would like to point out that we in California are the only state to get you to watch our douchbags hours on end in our movies. You even spend money to watch our douchbags.

        We do occasionally promote them to be governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and possibly president *(I don't think Regan was a douch, but I'm sure some do).
        -nB

  • Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?
  • by truesaer (135079) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:34PM (#40198129) Homepage

    petapixel's registrar appear to also be GoDaddy. Of course that may not be their host...in fact probably is not. Her takedown notice still makes her sound like a lunatic though.

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:38PM (#40198147)
  • by gstrickler (920733) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:40PM (#40198155)

    She needs to look up "fair use". In case she's reading, I refer her to 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu]

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by gstrickler (920733)

      I should have included this in my original post, but for anyone too lazy to follow the link, 17 USC 107 [cornell.edu] states (in part):

      Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright....

      In short, it appears to be an explicit and clear cut example of fair use.

      IANAL

      • by Cyberllama (113628) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:34PM (#40198457)

        Showing a picture of a hamburger (as an example), then reviewing the food is not what is meant by "criticism, comment, news reporting"--if you didn't take the picture, that's just plain old infringement. It means commenting on or criticizing the *actual* photograph in question as a work of art--not the subject of the photograph.

        So if I run newspaper, I can't just use whatever graphic for any story I want and claim fair use because "news reporting"--I only get to invoke fair use if the news story is about the photograph in question.

        She might be able to make a fair use claim somewhere, but I doubt she can make a fair use case for the vast majority of the infringements. I don't see how some guy's campaign for Sheriff qualifies as an entitlement to free use of any stock photography he wants.

        That's just my 2 cents. But, like yourself, IANAL.

        • by gstrickler (920733) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:44PM (#40198505)

          She doesn't have a fair use claim, but petapixel has a very clear fair use claim for the thumbnail screen shots of the original photo, and her infringing usage of it. That appears to be the photo she's claiming a DMCA violation on, and she has no valid claim because of 17 USC 107. Also, the fact that she doesn't own the copyright to the image in question means she may have committed perjury when she filed the DMCA takedown notice.

          I'm only a layman, and my conclusions are not legal advice. But I have read the copyright law many times, and that's how interpret it. YMMV.

  • So, how long before the Texas bar pulls the Jack Thompson trigger on Ms. Schwager for conduct unbecoming?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 02, 2012 @10:44PM (#40198181)

      They need a complaint first:

      Contact a CDC Regional Office

      If you have questions about the grievance process or the status of a grievance, or if you need to request a grievance form, please call the office located nearest you.

      Austin, Texas
      Phone: (512) 427-1350, or
        (877) 953-5535
        Fax: (512) 427-4169

      Chief Disciplinary Counsel
        1414 Colorado St.
        Austin, Texas 78701

      Dallas, Texas
        Phone: (972) 383-2900
        Fax: (972) 383-2935

      Chief Disciplinary Counsel
        14651 Dallas Parkway, Ste 925
        Dallas, Texas 75254

      Houston, Texas
        Phone: (713) 758-8200
        Fax: (713) 758-8292

      Chief Disciplinary Counsel
        600 Jefferson, Ste. 1000
        Houston, Tx 77002

      San Antonio, Texas
        Phone: (210) 208-6600
        Fax: (210) 208-6625

      Chief Disciplinary Counsel
        Federal Reserve Building
        126 E. Nueva, Suite 200
        San Antonio, Texas 78204

      How to file a complaint:

      http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Filing_a_Complaint&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15451

      Grievance Form:

      http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/TheGrievanceProcess/HowtoFileaGrievance/GrievanceFormEnglish.pdf

  • Clarification here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:02PM (#40198275) Homepage

    Petapixel is reporting on her copyright infringement. As such they have a thumbnail screen shot of her site as proof. That thumbnail includes her logo, just barely readable. This woman needs to go back to law school and look up "fair use" and the difference between copyrights and trademarks. Next thing you know, she will be claiming copyright infringement for publishing her DMCA letter. If she really is practicing law then she ought to be disbarred for her behavior.

  • by Formorian (1111751) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:13PM (#40198333)

    It says:

    Sorry right clicking is disabled, please respect copyright.

    WTF? really lady? You didn't with that photo and go on some crazy rant. I can't even read some of what she writes without just rolling my eyes.

  • by BillX (307153) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:27PM (#40198409) Homepage

    Does anyone else find it ironic that the actual infringer's sites [ http://chicksandpolitics.com/ [chicksandpolitics.com] , http://atty4kids.org/ [atty4kids.org] ] have an anti-right-click script that produces a smarmy message about respecting copyrights?

    • by Rary (566291) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @12:47AM (#40198831)

      I love (in the ironic sense) when websites do that sort of thing. I was trying to do the right-click "open in new tab" to check out one of the links she provided without leaving her site, but got the ridiculous "respect copyright" message. I even tried copy/pasting the link, but the page doesn't allow highlighting of text either. So I had no choice but to leave her site (and I won't return).

    • by Arker (91948)

      Nope, didnt notice that at all.

      One of the beautiful parts of enjoying the web properly, without allowing random servers to execute scripts on my machine.

  • by Static (1229) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:34PM (#40198455) Homepage

    She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.

    Wade.

    • by RedBear (207369) <redbear&redbearnet,com> on Sunday June 03, 2012 @06:17AM (#40199907) Homepage

      She needs to hear the other point-of-view from someone she trusts and respects. Someone she will listen to and actually take it onboard when they tell her she's being pretty stupid and wasting her own time. Probably someone she works for at one of the sites she maintains. And if you locate someone, be nice. Real nice. I shouldn't need to say it, but distingush between Ms Schwager and her actions and also between her actions and these organisations. Point out how her idiocy is making them look bad.

      Wade.

      You are sooo wrong, sadly. This woman has gone far beyond being an idiot. Even an idiot at some point would know to just shut up. This is much worse. She is full-blown narcissistic paranoid-delusional loony-bin material. There is no person left on this planet that she will listen to, because EVERYONE who says anything negative to her or about her is automatically assumed to be in cahoots with the EEEVIL Sheriff Garcia. This includes all kinds of random internet people on Twitter, the commenters on the photographer's original article (the initial "lynch mob"), as well as the commenters on the PetaPixel article. According to her all of these random people are part of a conspiracy run by this Sheriff Garcia that she's trying to get rid of. If she ever finds out about Slashdot we'll all be included in the conspiracy too, I'm sure.

      Even if you got the Christ-figure in this drama, her immaculately-conceived hero Louis Guthrie, to speak to her about this, it wouldn't make any difference. In fact, the next article on her blog afterward would be something like, "Guthrie Sells Soul to Garcia, Satan Wins!" And it will be yet another extensive, zig-zaggy, rambling diatribe about how the whole world is trying to destroy her (and by extension, how the world is trying to destroy the disabled children she has supposedly dedicated her life to serving).

      This woman seriously needs to be put in a padded room and given some intense psychological help before she ends up living on the streets arguing with imaginary people. It may be as simple as a dose of lithium to even out a manic episode. I'd hate to think she's been this crazy her whole life and nobody's noticed, but that's not unheard of either. Witness Michelle Bachmann.

      P.S. It's really interesting going through the comments on the PetaPixel article. With her odd writing style it's quite easy to identify the dozen or so comments she made in support of herself WHILE PRETENDING TO BE OTHER PEOPLE. Hint: She's the only one who keeps harping about Jay Lee (the photographer) "taking down her websites" and slipping in references to "Garcia". Oddly she never says a word against her beloved web host GoDaddy, the ones who actually took her sites down.

    • You are correct, but based on my experience I would bet there are no such people. I expect that anyone who attempts to tell her she is being stupid and wasting her time, no matter how diplomatically phrased, will almost certainly immediately be classed by her in the "enemies" group. I could be wrong, but what little of her writing I have read suggests that she is a paranoid who thinks there is some vast conspiracy out to silence her. Anyone who does not fully support her is a tool of her enemies.
  • Disbarred already? (Score:4, Informative)

    by mpoulton (689851) on Saturday June 02, 2012 @11:44PM (#40198503)
    Although her Linkedin profile states that she has worked as an attorney in the past, the Texas bar website does not show her as a current member. She claims to have made a voluntary career change and left the practice of law to become an attorney marketing guru. That's somewhat plausible, except that NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances. Even those who leave the practice of law almost always maintain their bar memberships. I would bet she was disbarred or suspended for an extended time.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/MemberDirectoryDetail.cfm&ContactID=198610

    • by dbc (135354)

      NO attorney who has been admitted to the bar would allow their admission to lapse voluntarily except in VERY unusual circumstances.

      Not true. My wife is an attorney, and is keeping her ticket alive despite a stint as a stay-at-home mom, because she plans to use it again and the California bar has a 45% pass rate -- no way is there any way she wants to submit to that hellish 3 day long exam again. But there are hassles, she has to keep up with bar dues, she has to earn CLE credits (Continuing Legal Educatio

    • by FriendlyStatistician (2652203) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @02:34AM (#40199245)

      Following one anonymous coward's idea that she might be registered under her maiden name, another anonymous coward found her registration as Candice Leonard and a record of her marriage to Richard Schwager in 1999. I just though I would bring this to the attention of people who do not read anonymous cowards, so that you know who to complain about to the Texas State Bar:

      http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2891243&cid=40199217 [slashdot.org]

      She has not been disbarred or suspended, though her recent actions seem to warrant it...

      Though it's not relevant in this case, you're absolutely right about attorneys not letting their bar membership lapse. My dad maintained his bar membership for more than 30 years after he stopped practicing, even though he hated being a lawyer and never had any intention of going back into practice.

  • Isn't this libel? (Score:4, Informative)

    by flimflammer (956759) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @12:14AM (#40198691)

    PetaPixel Michael Zhang Exploits Disabled Kids Non-Profit

    Couldn't this qualify as libel? And isn't she perjuring herself by claiming that this individual is violating her copyrights even though it's a clear cut case of fair use? Not to mention the crazy claims she made about the other individual.

    This series of events have been so awkward and strange that I'm seriously starting to wonder if everyone is in it together to troll the internet. How is this crazy lunatic woman a lawyer, really, without even seemingly a basic understanding of the law?

    Someone needs to put this hag in her place.

  • What the... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nitehawk214 (222219) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @02:23AM (#40199193)

    From a post on her batshit insane rambling website.

    Jay is a hacker and tech expert and knows everything imaginable about computers. He would certainly know how to take down 14 of Atty4kids’ websites with a single accusation. He would also know that images can be purchased through licensing, if he did not truly own the image motivating him to slice her jugular. He undoubtedly knows how to kill a server with a Trojan virus, though I’m not suggesting he did this to a mom of three little boys, one with special needs.

    And SHE is suing HIM for libel. Holy shit.

  • by Skapare (16644) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @03:23AM (#40199373) Homepage

    Because lawyers think they have some God given right to be above the law.

    This crazy woman thinks that just because she is involved in programs supporting disabled children, she should get a free pass at violating the law? It's entirely HER FAULT that she put these multiple sites together under one in which she infringed on someone else's copyright. If she wants them to go back online, then it's simple. Remove the infringing content (or agree to by a specified date). Or split the sites apart. But instead, she wants to use her law background to do the things that get lawyers hated by the public, and to even further extend her own misery on the internet.

    Candice: just get a clue. Here's a free one (and feel free to copy it, too). Put your web sites back up elsewhere under other domain names. Just leave out the copyright infringements when you do.

  • by dutchwhizzman (817898) on Sunday June 03, 2012 @04:35AM (#40199597)
    Jay Lee needs to pick this up again, just to get a conviction against her. That would make it easier to get het disbarred. Lawyers should learn when to sue and when not to and that sueing people can have consequences to themselves as well.

Never trust a computer you can't repair yourself.

Working...