If You Declare Your Content Is In The Public Domain, Can You Still Issue DMCA Takedown Notices?

from the just-wondering dept

Mon, Sep 17th 2007 6:18pm — Mike Masnick

The same guy who is fighting Uri Geller over bogus DMCA takedown notices may now need to be fighting the "Creation Science Evangelism Ministries," which has apparently forced a video off YouTube via a DMCA takedown notice. The video, not surprisingly, is critical of the group, but almost certainly does not violate the group's copyrights. The one really interesting thing here, is that the head of the ministry has apparently declared that all of the group's content is in the public domain -- which raises the question of whether or not you can still issue a DMCA takedown notice on content you've declared to be in the public domain?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: abuse, dmca, public domain, takedown

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2007 @ 6:39pm

I guess hypocisy is ok if comes from religious organaiztions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Sep 2007 @ 6:58pm

Re:
I think that's the very foundation of religion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker, 17 Sep 2007 @ 7:08pm

Was it?
I've been following this, and although they say "they are not copyrighted," I'm not sure that's enough to put them into the public domain. (I'm talking legal technicalities here.) What does it take to "opt out" of instant copyright protection these days?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat, 17 Sep 2007 @ 7:39pm

my nsho
There are two ways a work can become 'out of copyright'. It can expire (at least, this used to be possible..) or it can be granted to the public domain. Once it's in the public domain there is _no_ copyright holder. No-one exists who can legitimately file a DMCA takedown notice. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen, 17 Sep 2007 @ 8:14pm

Re: my nsho
Taking that further: filing a bogus takedown notice like that when you know it's a bogus notice can get you in some REALLY hot water. Not looking good for the Church...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zcat, 17 Sep 2007 @ 8:48pm

'not copyright' vs. 'public domain'
As a non-lawyer, I would consider 'publicly announcing that you do not consider your work copyrighted' to be basically the same thing as 'granting the work to the public domain'

Unfortunately non-lawyer's opinions usually don't count for much in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker, 17 Sep 2007 @ 10:44pm

Re: Re: my nsho
From what I understand, it's not a church.

But as far as the DMCA goes, the legal hurdles are very low for the whistle blower ("good faith") and higher for the counter claim ("penalty of perjury.") THEN there's the ten to 14 days to see if your counter claim is responded to legally (rife for time-sensetive abouse.)

And if all that fails, you're liable for costs. Sounds like a recipie for a SLAP-happy (and legally rewarding) world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ReallyEvilCanine, 18 Sep 2007 @ 2:08am

Good Faith
There is no "good faith" when demanding a take-down of an item which includes material you hold no copyright to, especially when said material was released by you or your organisation to the public domain. Assignment to PD is irrevocable; once you've done it you can't change your mind. EVER.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny, 18 Sep 2007 @ 8:29am

Re: Good Faith

There is no "good faith" when demanding a take-down of an item which includes material you hold no copyright to

There should not be any good faith when it comes to take downs but unfortunately there is plenty of good faith. Remember a few months ago when Viacom basically shotgunned Youtube with several takedown notices which included material that was not infringing on their copyrights?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 18 Sep 2007 @ 11:44am

Fair Use
Even if the content isn't considered in the public domain, wouldn't this be a perfect example of fair use for critique? I don't see how they can force this down regardless of the status of their copyrights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]