Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
The Courts United States Your Rights Online

Removal of Photo Credit Qualifies As DMCA Violation 71

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Removal of Photo Credit Qualifies As DMCA Violation

Comments Filter:
  • Karma's a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Caerdwyn ( 829058 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @05:25PM (#36547288) Journal

    We can all argue about what fair use of copyrighted materials should be, but I think we can also more-or-less agree that deliberately stripping off a creator's name is uncool. Of course, the conduct of the defendants in question (RTFA, they were shock-jock DJs who responded to the photographer's cease-and-desist with a smear campaign chock full o' slander and libel and just-plain-lies) probably made it a lot easier for the judge to apply the bitch-slap to 'em. They deserved it.

  • Re:Karma's a bitch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 23, 2011 @06:09PM (#36547834) Journal

    It isn't about "likable" defendants it is about flagrant slander after ripping someone off! The courts tend to frown on those that brag about their acts when such acts are a violation of literally decades of established law and slandering the person that is taking you to court on a national medium like radio is NOT a smart move. Sorry but these ass clowns deserve to be sued along with the station for a VERY large amount of cash.

    To me this is no different than those asses like Ebaum that snatch anything they can find and try to pass it off as their own,or the pricks that steal GPL code and try to lock it behind a paywall. in all of the above you are taking something you have NO rights to and passing it off as your own and this isn't "information wants to be free" this is theft, as you are depriving someone else with your actions which in this case the photographer who is just trying to make a living.

  • by Plekto ( 1018050 ) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @06:20PM (#36547978)

    If you use it for your own personal use (say as a background image on your computer screen), no. Though, few people are that anal to go to such lengths for such a minor thing. If you use it in any commercial way or in any manner that is shown to the public, yes. This is basic copyright 101, folks. You can't show it or make money off of it, directly or indirectly, unless you pay royalties.

    This is exactly like removing the signature from a painting and passing it off as your own work. Of course they got reamed in court over it.

    Lazy employee costs company millions in legal fees. News at 10...

"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury