Ask Slashdot: How To Fight Copyright Violations With DMCA? 455
szyzyg writes "I've created some popular science videos showing how asteroid discoveries have happened over the last few decades. However I've run into a problem with a religious organization which borrowed my video and redubbed it to promote their religious message. Ultimately I filed a DMCA takedown request via YouTube's site, it's as easy as filling in a form and the video was removed. But this organization has since submitted a counterclaim claiming 'under penalty of perjury' that they do in fact have the rights to this work, and YouTube has reinstated the video. It looks like the only way I can pursue this further is to spend the money to take the organization to court and get an injunction, but even if I did so I'd have to pay court costs up front and since they're based in another country I'd have a difficult time actually collecting any money from the other party. It feels like this other group is simply gambling that I won't spend the time and resources to take further legal action, the DMCA is supposed to provide equal protection but the more lawyer you have the more 'equal' you are. So does anyone have any suggestions for how I should proceed here?"
Re:Good Job, Scott Manley (Score:5, Informative)
The video used my name, and picture and implies that my research supports their creationist message.
Re:How to fight it... Don't (Score:5, Informative)
That's part of the problem sir, they've put my picture on their video and are implying that I'm endorsing their message.
Re:The DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Seeing as YouTube is a US site, I'm thinking it still "means shit" in this guy's case.
Re:How to fight it... Don't (Score:4, Informative)
http://mukto-mona.net/debunk/harun_yahya/index.htm
which states that Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) and his followers have a history of using both extortion and violence against anyone who interferes in their criminal enterprises. With that said perhaps your best bet would be to pursue another DCMA process with YouTube along with proof that you own the media as another commenter suggested.
Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but that would cost money, and while I could probably get damages It would be practically impossible to collect on them.
And possibly easier said than done, given this guy's previous form:
"When Dawkins publicly lampooned the research in the Atlas of Creation (he pointed out that one of the photos of a Caddis Fly was in fact a fishing fly, complete with metal hook, stolen from the internet, pictured), and labelled Yahya a charlatan on his website, Yahya used his considerable influence and battalion of lawyers to sue for libel and have Dawkins's website banned in Turkey. This is just one of thousands of cases he has brought before the Turkish courts."
Lots more here, including lurid claims about blackmail and sex parties:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2131 [newhumanist.org.uk]
Re:DCMA is not for you (Score:2, Informative)
That is a typical example that shows that DCMA is only useful for big corporations. If you had dared to use a few chords of a copyrighted song and RIAA decided to remove your videos it would be done very quickly, rest assured.
You misunderstand what the DMCA takedown request actually does.
This portion of the DMCA allows the victim to file a claim with a third-party hosting provider (youtube in this case) stating that someone (the unnamed religious organization) has infringed on your video which is protected by copyright.
Acting on the request, youtube can take down the video and allow the unnamed religious organization to respond, identify themselves and claim that they do not infringe the victim's copyright. Youtube can then put the video back up.
Having identified the infringer, the victim can then sue the unnamed religious organization for damages.
By following the DMCA takedown request law, youtube has no liability for copyright infringement.
The DMCA takedown request does not create or eliminate liability by the infringer. It merely serves to identify the infringer so that the victim can sue in court.
If the infringer doesn't identify themselves, then youtube must keep the video offline, or if youtube puts the video back up, youtube now runs the risk of liability for copyright infringement.
Re:A burning bush talked! (Score:5, Informative)
For the lazy, that would be http://www.harunyahya.com/ [harunyahya.com] ...
For a guy who supposedly thwarted a cocaine conspiracy (cf. http://www.harunyahya.com/bilgi/yazarHakkinda?pageNo=2 [harunyahya.com] ) ... the DMCA must seem like nothing.
Re:The DMCA (Score:2, Informative)
The point is to uphold national laws within the national borders. The internet on the other hand is a global playground, and no one country's laws control it.
Which is exactly the point of the internet.
GrokLaw (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA has worked the way it was intended; he filed the claim with Youtube, Youtube took down the video and notified the poster of the take-down complain, then the poster counter-claimed. After the counter-claim it's up to the courts
Re:That's the way the cookie crumbles (Score:5, Informative)
Thank you, that's interesting and, at least in theory potentially useful to me some day.
(Only had one real copyright claim, someone used one of my images on the cover of their death metal CD and was selling it. No returned phone calls for weeks. Good thing it was the cover, Eventually I DMCA'd the album cover from Amazon's web site, got a call back in *minutes*, whole matter was settled an hour or two later. If they'd counterclaimed, or just used m images inside the CD booklet, ... well, anyway. Weird how these things work.
Anyway, thanks again for the data.
One other thing: The copyright office has an RfC or the like on making a copyright small claims court. I think something like that might be sensible, but IANAL. Anyway, FYI, http://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/ [copyright.gov]