EFF Forces DMCA Abuser to Apologize 222
destinyland writes "The EFF just announced victory over a serial abuser of DMCA copyright notices. To set an example, their settlement required Michael Crook to record a video apology to the entire internet for interfering with free speech. He's also required to withdraw every bogus DMCA notice, and refrain from future bogus notices, never contest the original image again, and take a remedial class on copyright law.
He'd attempted to use flaws
in the DMCA to censor an embarrassing picture of himself that he just didn't want appearing online — but instead the whole thing backfired."
Re:Copyright Ownership? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why not Purjury (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, pun intended.
First you go after an obvious scumbag ... (Score:5, Informative)
That's why prosecutors start a child molester, if possible, when they're prosecuting the first case under a new censorship law.
Works just as well for the good guys:
- Start with some idiot who both exposed himself in public as part of a scam and used bogus DMCA takedown notices. Get the precedent established that bogus DMCA takedown notices are wrong and you can be punished for them.
- Next go after somebody who used bogus takedown notices without exposing himself or committing other previous (but somehow related) scams, but DID cause a bunch of financial and/or other damage by his activities. Establish that he has to pay for the damage plus a penalty.
- THEN take on the MAFIAA.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Informative)
Naturally you don't own the copyright to your image if someone else takes a picture of you and you sign a waiver giving up your copyright to that particular image and likeness.
In the end, he's just a sad, disillusioned jerkoff who does things the American Way(TM) - without thinking about or understanding his actions.
Re:That's it? (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, that's not quite correct. If somebody else takes a photograph of you, they own the copyright. Period. Waivers don't assign copyright, they just allow the image to be used for monetary gain (and I suspect - although I don't know for certain - that that's purely a "cover your backside" exercise, without any legal requirement beyond that of avoiding a drawn out lawsuit.)
I think (again, I don't know for certain) that it comes down to reasonable expectations. If you're on the beach, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy; any photo of you taken in such a situation is fair game for publication. If you're in your own home, or a hotel room, or similar, you do have a reasonable expectation, and any photographer or news media worth their salt would have you sign a waiver before using the image. Of course, the context in which the image is used may allow you to sue successfully for damages on the grounds of defamation or similar, but that's not related to the copyright on the image.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I am also not a professional photographer (although I am a moderately serious amateur, with some small knowledge of the law as it applies in Australia.)
Michael Crook? (Score:5, Informative)
Man's a creep. So he posts pictures of men he baits on craiglist posing as a woman but his image should be considered off limits? Hypocrite, to say the least.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Every action has a reaction. Play with the bull, get the horns. Crap, I just ran out of clichés.
For those who can't access 10zenmonkey, you can read a short blurb here [blogspot.com].
Not sure why he got all worked up for that picture anyway. I look way worse on most of my photos. And usually with my eyes closed.
not-yet-slashdotted-site with more story and photo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could somebody ... (Score:4, Informative)
Link is work safe. He looks like a mix of michael jackson and some stupid emo kid that has been crying (it looks like he has black eyeliner thats running down his face!).
I probably shouldn't be calling people emo while listening to My Chemical Romance...
Re:Could somebody ... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7vssO8jj1E [youtube.com] Video of him on Hannity and Colmes (poor sound quality)
Re:The best apologies... (Score:5, Informative)
Good find! If you don't like Crook's two-faced approach to his case, feel free to write him a letter or give him a call:
Michael Crook
8417 Oswego Rd. #179
Baldwinsville, NY 13027
Phone: 347-218-7773
Email: mcwhoismail@gmail.com
Info courtesy of Whois.net [whois.net].
scumbag (Score:3, Informative)
Just what we need, He's bitching the the DMCA doesn't go FAR enough. He goes on national TV, and complains someone snapped a shot of it. Scumbag.
Re:That's it? (Score:1, Informative)
Fixed it for you.
Close, but not quite right (Score:5, Informative)
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law. It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission. But make no mistake about it. If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
Re:No Wikipedia page. (Score:3, Informative)
Here's a link (Score:2, Informative)
'editorial' use (Score:3, Informative)
It's called "editorial use," and that's a specific case. An image that illustrates news or editorial information is different than an image that is sold as the image. So, selling a poster of you is different than publishing an article about you that happens to include your image. It's a little vague, because it has to be, but most people know editorial usage when they see it.
Re:Fox owns this image... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGyG1lVXLBw [youtube.com]
I am not a big fan of H&C but verbally kicking this guy in the nuts was funny.
Still not quite right. (Score:3, Informative)
What you are thinking about in your post is what's called a "model release". It's a little wrinkle in copyright law.
It isn't part of copyright law at all: people's faces are not subject to copyright (and if they were, the rights to your face would be owned by your parents, since they commissioned the work, so to speak).
It says that even though I own the copyright to anything I create, I can't use that photo commercially if there is a person who can be identified in the photo unless that person gives permission.
Care to cite the clause in copyright legislation or case law that says that?
Copyright doesn't restrict the use of an image by the rights holder in any way at all (where do people keep getting the word "commercial" from? Copyright ownership is neither enhanced or diminished by commercial exploitation). However, if the image is used in a defamatory manner, attributes fake product endorsements or otherwise misrepresents the individual, or violates a reasonable expectation of privacy the individual can sue. A release form is simply an agreement not to sue, and as such falls under contractual law.
Example 1: the NBC "Today" show can do their weather report outside the studio because the assembled audience have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Rockerfeller Plaza is a public space). No release forms required, even though individuals are clearly identifiable in a commercial broadcast.
Example 2: watch any news report about obesity that uses footage shot in public, and you'll see people from the neck down. This is because it is apparently defamatory to identify a lard-arse as "fat" (unless they've signed a release like the contestants on "The Biggest Loser").
Example 3: an actor plays a character in a film, but then refuses to sign a release. Does that prevent the film being released? No, because an actor invited onto a film set has no expectation of privacy, and by playing a character they aren't representing themself, thereby eliminating the question of misrepresentation or defamation. The actor could sue claiming that the editing was done in such a way as to make them look incompetent, but then they risk having the unedited footage presented in court and their incompetence proven (BTW, all this is paraphrased from my response to a genuine nastygram I received from an agent, based on advice from two entertainment industry specialist lawyers and a professor of legal studies. No, I don't mess around; getting it wrong could cost me thousands of dollars). Again, copyright doesn't enter into it.
If I take a picture of you, I can display it wherever I want (including my webpage), as long as I'm not using it commercially, without your permission.
Copyright law does not distinguish between commercial and non-profit use in this regard; whoever owns the rights owns the rights, period. If I make money off a photo of you without your permission you may have a basis to sue if I'd expressly said the photo wasn't for commercial use, but again that's contractual law, not copyright (and even then you only have a claim if your identity is central to the image and you weren't in a public area at the time).
This is why the newspaper can post your picture in an article, even if you object to it. It's called an "editorial" work.
There's no law protecting aesthetic sensibilities, so there is no basis for litigation if anyone publishes a legitimately acquired image you find objectionable. "Public interest" is a fair use defence for publication of unauthorised material which must be argued in court if challenged, so wherever possible news outlets try to avoid it.
You were initially right in saying "whoever creates a work owns the