No One Is Obligated To Take Down Perfectly Legal Content You Don't Like
from the just-so-you-know... dept
We get angry requests every so often, demanding that this or that comment be removed from Techdirt because someone doesn't like the content of the comment. However, unless the content is illegal, there is no obligation to remove that content. Unfortunately, many people don't see it that way. They seem to think that, if they don't like any particular content (especially when it has to do with them specifically), it must be removed. Unfortunately, it seems that those who should know better are perpetrating this myth. I recently came across an "advice" column in the UK where a young girl asks the columnist what she should do about an embarrassing photo of her found online, and the columnist responds:YOU can email YouTube or wherever the photograph appeared and ask them to remove it, which they are obliged to do.Of course, beyond the fact that YouTube hosts videos, not photos, this advice is simply incorrect. The site is under no obligation to remove the photo unless it's a copyright violation -- and since the girl did not take the photo, she doesn't own the copyright on it. Sure, perhaps it's too much to expect an advice columnist to understand such things, but this is how these myths continue to live on, when supposedly knowledgeable people give advice that is completely false.
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: obligations, takedowns
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
LOL no, but the grammar nazis have ALWAYS been with us. I guess it makes that English degree at least slightly less useless =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
I simply love how this "boost" guy criticises the first AC for writing "envolved", but then writes "knoweledge" himself!
Hilarious! Grammar Nazi, correct thyself! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF . . . . ?
my two cents off topic :) but im in a mood today...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF . . . . ?
Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
I doubt that. I know its fashionable to come down on the ACLU, but they simply test the limits. Truth be told they are hated mainly for thier defense of "objectionable" speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF . . . . ?
"Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU..."
isnt it sad and embarassing when what you think you know isnt just wrong, but actually the OPPOSITE of the truth? why do you hold an opinion, and speak out publicly, on an organization about which you know not even in the slightest ????
sometimes "best i can tell" just isnt good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF . . . . ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Peter,
I'm referring to the Digital Millineum Copyright act. We have tracked over 250 thousand downloads of the album in question on torrent sites globally. Many of the sites
have removed the link as per our request over the past year. Your reluctancy to remove the link is incomprehensible. Happily you aren't as popular as Minnova and bit-torrent. I am simply requesting that you remove the URL
link to the torrent. I am giving you notice as to prevent any copyright infringement.
As you are aware , the DMCA, does not grant blanket protection from copyright infringement liability. The service provider may not take advantage of the DMCA's safe harbor provision if:
1. The service provider has actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
2. The service provider is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
3. The service provider does not expeditiously remove or disable access to the material upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness of the infringing material.
In addition, if the service provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and if the service provider receives a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, the service provider
will not be protected by Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If the service provider satisfies the above requirements of the DMCA and receives a proper notice of infringing material, the service provider must
expeditiously remove or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
I am a millionaire and do not claim to be bankrupt. Your opinion is not necessary or relevent to my request that you remove the URL.
Thank you,
Indiana Gregg
from bkp
to Indy
date Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:02 PM
subject Re: Response From a Pirate Torrent Site - Something has to be done now ! ......Re: TPB: Legal threats
Oh my, this is such a treat. You keep on surprising me with more and more displays of stupidity.
Let's go back to the basics.
1) TPB follows Swedish law, the country where we live
2) DMCA is an american law
3) Sweden is not a part of the United States
4) TPB has no connection to United States and hence does not follow US law
Is that understood? Ok, great.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Obligated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Obligated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Obligated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Obligated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just so you know, Mike
In most european countries, you retain the right of personality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just so you know, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just so you know, Mike
Also, isn't it too late to prevent damage? The photo has probably been saved on 100 hard disks now. Little preteens jerking it to your thong. Ha.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just so you know, Mike
So if you are saying that they would be because of UK law, then YouTube (last I checked) was has it's HQ in the US. Therefore, US laws apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes sense to me!
TAKE IT DOWN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the same law everywhere
And article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects "the right to respect private and family life".
Generally speaking one can only publish photos of private people without consent in the context of a newsworthy story...
So, um, yep, YouTube (or whoever) would have to take down the photo if it was complained about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same law everywhere
Firstly, why do you believe YOUTUBE is subject to an agreement among European countries? Also, can you demonstrate in what way this image doesn't respect "the right to private and family life"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
But sticking with YouTube;
It doesn't matter if YouTube, Google, or anyone else, thinks that they don't have to take into account EU law. It only matters if the EU or the individual countries think that they do. Or haven't you been following the problems that Google, Yahoo, EBay etc. have been having?
Also, YouTube does in fact have a UK presence - YouTube.co.uk
And an Irish one. And an Italian one. etc. etc. Maybe these are just domain names, but Google has a big big office in Dublin, and that's in the EU.
Next, YouTube owners Google route most of their profits through Irish subsideries to avail of lower tax, so whether the content is in the EU or not doesn't matter, 'cos their money is.
So yes, I'll bet you my last euro that YouTube, Google, Yahoo etc. etc. are very worried about EU legislation.
Lastly, above and beyond the where, why and whatnots, anyone who thinks a company is NOT going to take down a photo of a (presumably underage) girl kissing a (presumably under-age) boy at a school party if the girl in question complains, had better have their head examined. Can you imagine the tabloid headlines??
"Girl bullied in school due to [insert company name here] publicity"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
The issue is not whether or not they WOULD take the image down, its whether or not they MUST take the image down. I still see no evidence that shows they MUST take it down (except some dubious EU claim about a very vague statement referencing "family privacy"?) so the "advisors" statement of such is just incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
> anyone else, thinks that they don't have
> to take into account EU law. It only matters
> if the EU or the individual countries think
> that they do.
Baloney.
I live in the USA. If I put up a web site today with swastikas and other Nazi symbols on it, the police in Germany and France can't force me to take it down because such things are illegal in Germany and France. Nor can they (validly) sue me over it.
If a person or business doesn't have a physical presence or office in that country, then the person or business is only bound by laws of the country in which they reside.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
Unfortunately for the web site owner he made the mistake of visiting Denmark where the police arrested him, and turned him over to German authors. He is now serving a very long term in a German prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
"A divided U.S. court decided Yahoo is liable for a fine levied in France for Yahoo's failure to keep Nazi memorabilia off its Web pages." (InformationWeek, Jan 13 2006)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same law everywhere
There certainly is a growing trend in America - and I suspect abroad, as well - of people who think they have an inalienable right to get their way all the time. If ten million people want something that 11 million people don't want, it isn't going to happen and those 10 million people need to just accept it. Unfortunately the trend in adults is to kick and scream like children until they get their way.
More to the point of this article, the internet challenges our traditional ethical and legal standards in a way which was perhaps anticipated but definitely not fully understood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same law everywhere
Mainly with Americans.
(and just for the record, I am one and I'm embarrassed almost every time I see stories like this)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same law everywhere
What is newsworthy to a 15 year old writing a blog is not necessarily going to be pertinent to a 42 year old who may never visit such a site. But does that make it any less newsworthy in the context of the author's life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not obligated, but...
On another note, if the picture was taken without her permission, there may be an illegal privacy violation on the part of the poster. She should not be going after the service provider, but she may actually have legal rights against the poster, just not those that the columnist suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not quite correct
short and long answer: public photo = public presence. Don't like photos there, don't go there. Otherwise, if you're in a photo, too bad.
People don't seem to get that about their rights/lack of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: not quite correct
Also, if she wasn't in a public place (perhaps a peeping tom), then it would be something that is illegal in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: not quite correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Filming while on private property follows many restrictions. The owner of the property is permitted to film their own property. However, they must receive permission from others on the property to be allowed to film that person."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Photography
> many restrictions. The owner of the property
> is permitted to film their own property.
> However, they must receive permission from
> others on the property to be allowed to film
> that person."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
Such blankets statements of law are next to useless because every jurisdiction has differences and often outright contradictions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Photography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
It has recently come to my attention that a Mr "makes sense to me!" has been posting defamatory thoughts in the comment sections of your website.
I am writing to request that you remove the offending comments forewith as I happen to take them rather personally. i am a big fan of the Techdirt website and i will not "stand idly by" and let a crass young man such as "makes sense to me!" come in a ruin my experience.
I know that you do not recieve any funding directly from me and that i have no input into your business, but as a busy body of the highest stature i will take it extremely personally if you do not comply with my request.
If the comment is not removed by the end of the day (02.09.2008) i will be forced to write to your ISP and have your site removed from internet explorer.
Yours sincerely,
Angry Mob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
Thank goodness I use Firefox. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes sense to me! by Anonymous Coward - Sep 3rd, 2008 @ 6:08am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pictures of people are a bit different than blog entries.
Turns out this wasn't a good decision, as the offended quickly contacted the family lawyer who sent a letter stating since the subject was under 18 and did not give consent, the image was to be removed or legal consequences would ensue.
This is where I got involved and it seems the law is iffy when it comes to pictures posted of those who don't want them. After consulting with several lawyers, I got several different responses (including one stating the under 18 law doesn't pertain unless the subject is nude, which she wasn't).
For the most part, I do agree if your image is plastered all over the web and you don't like it, you've just got to deal with it (it'll only last 15 minutes until the next image takes to these attention-deficit web surfers).
I'm curious to know if there is some protection of people's images on a legal standpoint, regardless of age. Anyone know?
It never hurts to ask the image be removed (without threat of legal recourse) and one will just have to deal if the answer returned is "No".
Mike, care to take down the useless ads on Techdirt? They offend me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pictures of people are a bit different than blog entries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the deal
If she didn't want people knowing she kissed "the lad", she shouldn't have kissed him in front of her high school, especially not if someone was waving a camera around.
The word "duh" comes to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honest to god, you're talking about a woman who wrote a full-page obituary when her dog died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have a new kid and you post a baby picture online of your kid because he/she is so beautiful and such.
I come along and say, "Hey.. I think that's the most ugly baby I've ever seen" and I email your provider saying that the picture is of my kid and I want it taken down.
Put yourself in the shoes of the provider. Is it easier to leave the picture up or take the time to verify that the picture is actually yours?
What if (because it's the "right" thing to do) you decide to take it down. You now have someone emailing you telling you to put it back up. You seriously can't win in that situation.
Ok.. Now multiply that for every YouTube video out there. See the problem?
Providers save themselves ALLOT of headache by just following the law and saying "Sorry". Either that or they have a policy to take down everything requested without checking. But the ones that really matter just say "Sorry".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Regardless, something will happen, and as usual it won't be good for the vast majority, just the small number of idiots shooting their damn fool mouths off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not at all.
"A relatively small percentage of people make a lot of noise and YouTube reacts. Then the rest of us have to start yelling. Then YouTube comes up with some hair-brained scheme to mitigate these types of situations. Then some jackass starts a company which specializes in having YouTube videos taken down/put back up. Then we lose our ability to share content so easily. Then a new variant of YouTube shows up. Repeat. Always repeat."
Exactly. Which is why I'm saying their response should be "Sorry".
"Regardless, something will happen, and as usual it won't be good for the vast majority, just the small number of idiots shooting their damn fool mouths off."
Agreed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The girl does have publicity rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The girl does have publicity rights
Since YouTube is in the US, US law matters.
You can't have Pirate Bay being outside the US and not subject to it's laws, then turn around and say that companies outside the UK ARE subject to UK laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The girl does have publicity rights
only joking... sorry Pirate Bay, didn't mean to insult you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem
US!=World.
But, considering the fact that Youtube is an American company (with UK presence), you might still be right.
Cheers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
No kidding, Sherlock.
Gee, you think maybe so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
offended
ialsojustdecidedthatidontlikespacessotakethemdowntoo
sincerelyignorantmoron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why so serious!!
Q FORTY years ago, I was in love with a boy. It was very innocent but my dad split us up because we came from different religions.
Back then you did what your parents told you. He was really hurt. But life goes on and I married, had children and was widowed five years ago.
My daughter knew I was lonely and encouraged me to go out and also introduced me to the internet.
That was how I got back in touch with my ex. The years just rolled back as we chatted online. He is divorced.
It was really good being able to talk about old times together. Unfortunately, he'd moved down south, but he still had relatives up here, so we agreed to meet the next time he came up.
But I didn't recognise him. He used to be handsome, but now he's fat, balding and has bad teeth.
I'm not saying I'm any kind of beauty, but I haven't let myself go like he has.
We had a nice afternoon, but I wasn't sorry to say goodbye to him, though I was happy to go on chatting to him online.
The problem is, he wants me to go to his for the weekend.
I like him as a pen friend, but I don't want him thinking we could ever be more than that.
But I feel guilty about the way my dad treated him and I don't want to hurt him again. What do I do?
A WHILE I'm sure you could come up with an excuse to get out of going down to see your old flame, I think it would be better, and ultimately less hurtful, to tell the truth.
Maybe, however, not the whole truth. So don't mention his weight, his lack of hair or the state of his teeth.
Simply make it clear that, while you enjoy chatting to him online, you don't want the relationship to go beyond friendship. For all you know, it's not what he's after, either.
From what you've said, he didn't try to get physical when you met, so perhaps he's also happy for the pair of you to be no more than chums.
However, if he does want more, then it's only fair to tell him there's no chance.
Once that's established, you'll both know where you stand. Then, if he's willing, you can carry on chatting just as you did previously.
As you admit, the pair of you enjoyed a nice time together, so I don't see why you can't, next time he's visiting his relatives, enjoy another outing together as old friends, but not as potential lovers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Offensive vs False and Hateful Posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait . . .
are we talking about China or the Bush Administration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Partially correct
I believe that you are only partially correct about the photo. If she is the object of the photo, and did not sign a release for the photographer to use, then she is within her right to request that the photo be removed.
If I understand things correctly the photographer owns the copyright, but must have her permission to use/display the photograph if she is the object of the photograph, and not just incidental to the photograph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Partially correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nit Picking
Definition: "Obligated - caused by law to follow a certain course"
Perhaps the columnist knew that legally they weren't required, but for other reasons they would still probably take it down.
This also depends on the picture. If it were of a minor and her embarrassment was due to her being undressed, then this would cross over from a moral obligation to a legal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nit Picking
tr.v. ob·li·gat·ed, ob·li·gat·ing, ob·li·gates
1. To bind, compel, or constrain by a social, legal, or moral tie. See Synonyms at force.
2. To cause to be grateful or indebted; oblige.
3. To commit (money, for example) in order to fulfill an obligation.
So obligate can also indicate a moral tie and it can mean the same thing as oblige. In other words, same meaning. Sorry, try again.
Or if it showed her being violently raped and murdered. But that wasn't the case either. See, we can play the "if" game all day but that won't change the facts of the case at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you talking about the person in the UK, techdirt, or both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Best I can tell, mostly from the ACLU..."
Wow! Backwards! Most ACLU lawsuits are because some book (or equivalent) was supressed by someone who was offended. The ACLU ensures the boook (or whatever) continues to be available to you and me and everyone... even if someone, somewhere is offended.
And, yes, my family has been direclty involved in an ACLU lawsuit. To restore a book to a school library. Offended a bunch 'o folks, I'm pleased to say.
We also have been known to donate offensive books to libraries. Bound properly, so they will shelve them.
Anyway, ACLU is about keeping the boundaries large enough that at least some folks ARE offended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, the photographer needs the subject's permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Actually, the photographer needs the subject's permission
I don't think anyone here is arguing otherwise, so you can put that strawman away. But just because she asks doesn't mean anyone has to comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/23/camera_analysis/
Incidentally, there is no UK law. On mainland Britain English law applies in England and Wales and in Scotland Scottish law applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]