Copyright Owners Must Consider 'Fair Use' Before Sending Takedown Notice

[KRosh]

Interesting turn of events


In the nation's first such ruling, a federal judge on Wednesday said copyright owners must consider "fair use" of their works before sending takedown notices to online video-sharing sites.

The 10-page decision (.pdf) came a month after Universal Music told a San Jose, California federal judge that copyright owners need not consider the "fair use" doctrine before issuing takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to remove content.

The doctrine, recognized by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, permits limited use of copyright materials without the owner's permission.

"Even if Universal is correct that fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled. "Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with 'a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,' the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright."

Fogel added that an "allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim."

The legal dispute decided Wednesday centers on a rarely used clause in the DMCA -- originally approved by Congress in 1998 -- allowing victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages, in a bid to deter false notices and breaches of First Amendment speech. It is usually used when somebody issues a takedown notice and misrepresents ownership of the copyright.




http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...copyright.html

[JFK]

interesting post, so what are you trying to say ?

[After Shock Media]

Do not issue a take down notice and misrepresent copyright ownership. Also would not issue DMCA on parody as it falls under fair use as well. Other than that, not sure what he means JFK.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Interesting.

Soi Copyright means shit for nothing now.

Thats pretty big news.
TIme to open my program and just steal content outright. Fuck it who wants to litigate for 2 years over bullshit and protect content when the law itself is pissing on the protections of Copyright? Yet another stupid hoop hole for content providers to jump through LOL!

Them lawyers are really learning to tack on the cost of protection! Wootie woot!
You face a bigger risk of going bankrupt in protection of asset's these days.
Copy and paste/save as for the win!

It's a big day for sure...

[KRosh]

Originally Posted by JFK

interesting post, so what are you trying to say ?

hahah this was completely random and has nothing to do with your post

I just read this news on Wired and thought was interesting.

[GetSCORECash]

He is saying that I can't tell someone to take down, the images from Fubar, that some asshole has posted on another site without your logo.

Secondly, and I'm not a laywer. We need to prove that someone is actually profiting from our stolen images/videos...

[Jim_Gunn]

This is a non-issue. In the history of the online porn business, there has never been a case of someone using someone's else's content which could possibly be considered "fair use", unless you consider review sites perhaps who generally get permission. It's always just some asshole taking a whole movie or image as is and selling it or distributing it without authorization. There is never any commentary or creativity added to the original work, nor are they taking just snippets of it, it's always just a wholesale rip off done for nefarious purposes.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

This is a non-issue. In the history of the online porn business, there has never been a case of someone using someone's else's content which could possibly be considered "fair use", unless you consider review sites perhaps who generally get permission. It's always just some asshole taking a whole movie or image as is and selling it or distributing it without authorization. There is never any commentary or creativity added to the original work, nor are they taking just snippets of it, it's always just a wholesale rip off done for nefarious purposes.

da Man has spoken.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by KRosh

hahah this was completely random and has nothing to do with your post

I just read this news on Wired and thought was interesting.

just checking

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

This is a non-issue. In the history of the online porn business, there has never been a case of someone using someone's else's content which could possibly be considered "fair use", unless you consider review sites perhaps who generally get permission. It's always just some asshole taking a whole movie or image as is and selling it or distributing it without authorization. There is never any commentary or creativity added to the original work, nor are they taking just snippets of it, it's always just a wholesale rip off done for nefarious purposes.

Only exception I have seen to that would be those porn pictures where someone takes MSpaint of some shit and makes them not porn anymore, or some other one off style chops.

[marketsmart]

who cares... i use whatever content i feel like using....

my sponsors dont care so why should i...

[sortie]

"Fair use" and "internet" should never be used in the same sentence. OOPS!

[notime]

either something is legal or not, stolen or licensed, paid or unpaid
I see no middle way