News Agency Seems To Think It Can Copyright The Hells Angels Logo

from the copyrfraud dept

Fri, Oct 28th 2011 5:31pm — Mike Masnick

We've been seeing various news agencies try to claim copyright on any images they post lately, and Christian Tremblay points us to yet another such case. This one comes on a French Canadian story from Canoe.ca. Honestly, the story itself is meaningless here, but what caught Tremblay's attention was that the image at the top, of the Hells Angels' logo, appears to have a © notice claiming that the logo's copyright is held by the news agency Agence QMI:

That, of course, is a form of copyfraud, but since no one ever seems to get accused of such things, and the courts don't seem to care, news agencies and others can get away with such false copyright claims.

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: copyfraud, copyright, hell's angels
Companies: agence qmi

94 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

A Dan (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:42pm

I'm inclined to believe this is just stupidity and not maliciousness. Of course, I'll be happy to take back my assessment if they start suing people or submitting takedowns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:45pm

Gangs don't take it very well when non members throw up their gang sign or claim that which belongs to them. Heck, gangs have shot people who have dressed up as Santa Clause for wearing the wrong colors. Gangs are very territorial. I don't think any News Agency wants to mess with the Hells Angels and claim their logo. It's not a wise move.

Well, humans are generally very territorial, much worse than animals. Imagine if a stranger suddenly walked into your house without your permission. Heck, we don't even let insects in our house without killing them and spraying them, yet alone random animals that don't belong to us even into our back yard or streets even. Well, in other countries dogs are allowed to wander the streets, but not here in America. Americans are even more territorial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:45pm

Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
and not Ctrl-V: � Agence QMI

Either that or it's a copyright mark for the STORY, not the graphic. Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:47pm
  
  Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
  Whoops, make that: "And now Ctrl-V"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:04pm
  
  Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
  You really are dumb.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
    @Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 6:04pm
    
    You really are dumb.
    -------------------
    
    Here's yet another case where Mike writes "appears" because he's not certain, then after I take opposing reasonable view of the matter, some AC attacks me with a one liner. This is why I despise his fanboy-trolls, just mindless negativism.
    
    IF, AC, you're disputing my take on it, well, Monsieur "Paul Renault" at #6 has the same opinion as I do.
    
    It's up to Mike to make a COMPELLING CASE before he writes. If he has nothing more than opinion over a matter that isn't important even if true, then he shouldn't post.
    
    By the way, I've reviewed my proposed rules to prevent trivial idiots like AC here from trolling the site with childish contradictions, and gathered them into one post at:
    http://techdirt.com/articles/20100412/1526158979.shtml
    
    Maybe, Mike, if you made the changes that I propose -- such as deleting one-liners by ACs -- then you might stop your slow slide into crapdom. I've been noticing that even minor esoteric stories on other sites draw more comments and better debating than here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
      "over a matter that isn't important even if true, then he shouldn't post."
      
      Even if a matter isn't important, why shouldn't he post it if he wishes? People post about non-important matters on their social networks all the time. The news media constantly covers non-important matters about celebrities. Why must something be important to be posted? Heck, most of what you post is non-important. and if you find the discussions on this blog to be non-important, why are you here? Apparently his post was important enough for you to respond to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
        and, btw, it's funny how blue criticizes Mike's writing when Blue uses words like non-important (when unimportant is the better word. I was just using non-important to use Blue's own words).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
        @ Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 6:31pm
        
        and, btw, it's funny how blue criticizes Mike's writing when Blue uses words like non-important (when unimportant is the better word. I was just using non-important to use Blue's own words).
        
        --------------
        
        Is that you, "Dark Helmet", famiiarly addressing me as "Blue"? But it fits with the ramble over word usage. Are you drunk? Use Find on the first instance of "non-important" on this page: you /should/ discover that it's in your own post, but in your condition, I don't know whether you will.
        
        Since an AC attacking me for what he wrote is good illustration of the forum quality, think I'm going on to next story, new one up...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
        @ Anonymous Coward, Oct 28th, 2011 @ 6:29pm
        
        Apparently his post was important enough for you to respond to.
        
        ---------------
        
        To respond with jeering. Mike pretends to be a serious Ivy League educated "economist". Here he's got at most, "appears" to be copyfraud. I've stated my reasons for doubt and even posted the very ambiguities. The copyright circle isn't connect to the image, let alone IN, and the site varies in its practice, some images have no such labels near.
        
        And then fanboy-trolls come out and clutter the site with off-topic defense.
        
        So, AC, come down on the topic question: copyfraud or not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
        Mike pretends to be a serious Ivy League educated "economist".
        
        No he doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
      I like to argue because that's what i do. I don't care if it's out of the blue. I just like to argue because that's what I do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
      STFU, you maundering twit! It's amazing that one of your neighbors hasn't beaten your sorry ass into a coma yet. Then again, maybe they did, and your mindless drivel spewing is the outcome. GTFOH, moron!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michael, 30 Oct 2011 @ 5:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
      What about those of us who only come here to see the hilarious indignation of those who are "attacked" (lol) by one liners?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
      it's clearly for the image. the image has borders above and below it and the copyright is found within those borders.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- athe, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:50pm
  
  Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
  Considering where the copyright mark sits in relation to the story, specifically, it lies with the image (try highlighting the image and mark, it's nice and neatly justified), I'd consider it fair enough to believe that the mark just may be applied to the image.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - athe, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
    Evidence of this: Another article - this one doesn't have any image, and also no copyright mark in view.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: Here it is, Mike, evidence of copyfraud! I was able to Ctrl-C it,
  The notice from the original article on fr.canoe.ca is CLEARLY tagged to the image. But you're never one to let silly things such as facts get in the way of a good rant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:48pm

The Angels have lawyers.
And they are on point about this sort of thing. Hell's Angels has a long history of enforcing their copyright. They do it legally, but after getting a legal notice on Hell's Angels letterhead, only the boldest and most reckless fail to apologize and make the necessary correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Renault (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:56pm

Not copyfraud...
Some of us can read "French Canadian". And French. (Hmm, does that make me tri-lingual?)

I looked at the page, right-clicked on the image, and DIDN'T see the copyright notice on the image, just the trademark logo/notice("MC" - Marque de commerce).

I also looked at other stories on the website: all of them have the same-ish copyright notices: "� Agence QMI / Archives", "�Agence QMI/ Jean-Fran�ois Desgagnes", "� Agence QMI", "� AFP / YOUTUBE", and "�AFP/ Dimitar Dilkoff".

To me, it all looks OK. Copyright correctly attributed to respective parties, from the half-dozen I looked at.

No story here, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- out_of_the_blue, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:27pm
  
  Re: Not copyfraud... @ "Paul Renault": Think "MC" on the graphic
  is part of it and means Motorcycle Club...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Paul Renault (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:32am
    
    Re: Re: Not copyfraud... @ "Paul Renault": Think "MC" on the graphic
    In Canada, in French (I'm not sure about France), "MC" means 'marque de commerce'. It's how you say 'trademark' in French.
    
    (MC) = (TM) Clear enough?
    
    It's just the same as if the NYT had an article about french (sorry, "american") fries and there was a picture of a bottle of ketchup and the bottle's label had (TM) next to the word "Heinz". In this case, the NYT wouldn't be claiming copyright of the bottle label, no?
    
    Yeesh!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jesse Townley (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 9:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not copyfraud... @ "Paul Renault": Think "MC" on the graphic
      If you're talking about the image above, the MC is definitely part of the Hell's Angels logo.
      
      One obvious proof of this is that the font is the same as "Hell's Angels." Why would an organization alter their trademark notice to match the font of an outside logo?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Doe, 31 Oct 2011 @ 4:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not copyfraud... @ "Paul Renault": Think "MC" on the graphic
        As a motorcycle rider, I concur that the MC means motorcycle club. This is the mark that 1%'ers use like the Hells Angels. If you are not a 1%'er, then you use RC for Riding Club. You better not get caught with MC and a territory patch in a MC territory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:16am
  
  Re: Not copyfraud...
  I looked at the page, right-clicked on the image, and DIDN'T see the copyright notice on the image, just the trademark logo/notice("MC" - Marque de commerce).
  
  The copyright notice is right below the image, just like the Techdirt post shows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tm, 28 Oct 2011 @ 5:59pm

Tattoo's of the Hell's Angels logo are "removed" from non-members. I wonder what will happen to these fools?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:03pm
  
  Re:
  Have you seen the South Park episode where they practically make fun of the Hell's Angels (though they don't call them out by name)? Now every time I hear someone revving up their motorcycle, I almost laugh.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:48pm

image has no copyright when viewed
if you go to the story, and right click on the image, and select "view image". There is no copyright. On most every image that has a claimed copyright, that mark is part of the image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- iamtheky (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 6:58pm
  
  Re: image has no copyright when viewed
  wait, i cant read french, so may not have been on the same site. And they were third party marks like shutterstock, it doesnt look like canoe marks any of theirs. But they have credited/copyrighted the photo and the article in that space on many articles, still leaning me towards: that mark is standard and not intended for the picture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:00pm

Good grief, Mike. Your desperation to find any story, from anywhere in the world, where you can say anything negative about copyright has reached all new lows. You truly look like a foaming-at-the-mouth idiot by whining about some possibly fraudulent copyright notice on some image on some French Canadian website.

If you really want to be taken seriously, then stop with the petulant, idiotic articles like this. God, you're an insufferable fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:08pm
  
  Re:
  Takes one to know one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:18pm
  
  Re:
  Good IP maximist parody. Marked as funny.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:23pm
  
  Re:
  "about some possibly fraudulent copyright notice"
  
  I'll address this in case it's not parody, though I think it probably is.
  
  Why is it that copyfraud too often goes unpunished (plus the punishment for fraudulently claiming privileges over public domain works are relatively low, not referring to the above work), but the legal penalties for infringement are insanely high? Why is it that the moment someone potentially infringes, even if it's just a minor infringement and is possibly fair use, corporations are quick to file DMCA takedowns and often demand settlement fees or threaten to sue, yet this sort of fraud is perfectly OK and not even worth mentioning? Mike and others should ignore copyfraud and abuses of our IP system, but infringement is not OK.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ... and infringement ought not be ignored. Sorry, the IP maximist position is ludicrous, assuming the post being replied to is not a parody (but even if it is a parody, it's a darn accurate parody that's hard to distinguish from the actual pro-IP position).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyfraud is a a loaded term, especially when you look at the page and site as a whole, rather than looking at the screen capture Mike presents.
    
    If anything, it would appear that Mike is being somewhat fraudulent in his presentation, considering the copyright notice is NOT part of the image, rather something that is added in the HTML. It should be noted that the top and bottom lines are also not part of the image, just part of the page presentation that Mike is trying to use to make this look like a copyright tag on the image.
    
    Further, where is the fraud here? Since the copyright notice is not on the image, but added in the html by the posting site, it could be a generic tag used when blank for this source, example. There is no indication (none at all) that QMI intentionally claimed copyright on the Hells Angels logo.
    
    So to use a term like copyfraud is seemingly rather dishonest, and the presentation on Techdirt made intentionally or accidentally misleading.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Copyfraud is a a loaded term"
      
      Calling infringement theft is a loaded term.
      
      "especially when you look at the page and site as a whole"
      
      That never stopped IP maximists from criticizing Google and proclaiming how much they allegedly benefit from infringement.
      
      "considering the copyright notice is NOT part of the image"
      
      Someone else responded to that here. I clicked the image and copied and pasted it into MsPaint, the notice is indeed part of the image. Why must you lie?
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111026/02180816516/news-agency-seems-to-think-it-can-copy right-hells-angels-logo.shtml#c550
      
      Again, IP maximists make a huge deal out of infringement and piracy, even if accidental the penalties can still be huge, yet copy fraud is no big deal.
      
      "Further, where is the fraud here?"
      
      The public is being misled to believe something that's not true.
      
      "There is no indication (none at all) that QMI intentionally claimed copyright on the Hells Angels logo."
      
      There is indication, they put a copy protection notice on it. On the other hand, there is absolutely no indication that they didn't intentionally claim protections.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (or, at least, the notice expresses a message that's not true).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The notice expresses a message that's not true in such a manner that asserts its truthfulness (ie: it's not a parody, it's not a different company, asserting itself as a separate entity from another company, that has a name that maybe remotely similar to the name of another company). If someone violated a trademark or an IP privilege to that extent, even if it's a minor harmless violation that's hardly even a violation, IP maximist organizations would be all over it with legal threats and DMCA takedowns and our legal system will do virtually nothing to deter them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To clarify, the claim that there is no indication (none at all) is false. I just don't think there is enough indication to reasonably conclude intent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, the last addendum was meant for another post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There is indication, they put a copy protection notice on it. On the other hand, there is absolutely no indication that they didn't intentionally claim protections."
        
        Wow. You are saying that the HTML that another site generated somehow indicated that QMI committed "copyfraud"?
        
        I shake my head.
        
        Please look at the original image:
        
        http://fr.canoe.ca/archives/infos/societe/media/2011/10/20111024-195152-g.jpg
        
        Please tell me where on this image you see a copyright notice.
        
        when you are done figuring out that you fucked up, you can apologize, and I might even accept it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So they took the original image and added their own copy protection notice to it.
        
        I don't think it was intentional, I just pointed out that there is indication to suggest that it was intentional and that there is no indication to suggest otherwise. I'm just pointing out that claiming that no indication exists is false. However, I do not think there is enough indication to reasonably conclude it was intentional, just enough to slightly suggest it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To clarify, the claim that there is no indication (none at all) is false. I just don't think there is enough indication to reasonably conclude intent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, the last addendum was meant for another post.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Err, N/m, that addendum was to the correct post, I got the wrong post AGAIN!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is rich coming from someone who would have anybody else called a thief and a liar and want easy tools to make everybody else guilty/responsible independent of intent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So a website that streams pirated content from a third party that they don't control is innocent right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, I see what you mean now. Apparently, Mike's image that I clicked on as posted on the blog was a screen shot posted elsewhere. If I go to the original link, the original image does not have the notice embedded in the image, it is being added by the scripting. So it looks like you are correct, that provides even less indication that this was intentional.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Err ... meant that to be a response to the AC with a brownish square box that posted on Oct 29th, 2011 @ 3:37pm.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 8:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thank you. It's all in the presentation, Mike put up an image which is a screen shot, but is not the actual image on the site. The copyright thing is not in the image on the original website, only here on Techdirt. Actually, in some ways, it might be that Mike is trying to create copyfraud for them!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Actually, in some ways, it might be that Mike is trying to create copyfraud for them!"
        
        Take your tin foil hat back off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So copyright infringement by an news source is ok, but if anybody else complains about they are thieves and liars right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've been defending Mike's position during most of my posts. Pay attention.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 9:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Why is it that copyfraud too often goes unpunished "
    
    Because nobody who is potentially harmed by it files suit.
    
    Saying "somebody should do something" is not very helpful, nor is claiming "courts don't seem to care." Courts can't rule on cases that aren't filed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 11:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Since only the government can sue anyone because copyfraud actually is a crime, therein lies the problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pretending that something is yours when it's really not (at least according to IP maximists), isn't that theft?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re:
  So how's your mom? Proud as hell of the little piss-pot she raised? I bet! Now, in the following order - 1. STFU 2. GTFOH 3. GFY. Think you can handle that? I knew that you could.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alias (profile), 28 Oct 2011 @ 7:22pm

H.A.s and their logo
My Dad is an ex-biker well acquainted with the H.A.s and I can tell you this: They will demand, NOT ASK, this 'copyright' being rescinded. If they don't get satisfaction, I can assure you extremely BAD THINGS will happen to QMI, its holdings, its owners and their families. They DO NOT f*ck around when it comes to their colors. People have disappeared for far less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 9:33pm

Mike, in the end it is only copyfraud if they try to enforce the rights. Otherwise, it is at best the error of an automated system that slaps a copyright notice on every image as part of it's process.

I don't see the fraud here. Who exactly is being defrauded?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:42pm
  
  Re:
  "Otherwise, it is at best the error of an automated system"
  
  Copy protection laws do not care about accidental infringement. Ignorance is no excuse to law. If someone accidentally infringed on something because of an automated system, they can still be liable.
  
  "Who exactly is being defrauded?"
  
  The public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:45pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's always no big deal when copy fraud happens. It's a result of an automated system. No one is hurt. Yet the moment someone infringes on an IP privilege, no matter how harmless, IP maximists demand DMCA takedowns and sue for insane damages. Infringement, no matter how minor and harmless, is not OK, but copy fraud is. Little to no effort should be made to deter accidental copy fraud, not even the effort required to criticize it, but huge penalties and overarching laws need to be strictly enforced to deter every harmless infringement that anyone can possibly make. How one sided our laws are.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2011 @ 11:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Someone copies a song. No one is hurt, yet that's a huge deal. Copy fraud? Who cares, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and it's also amazing how trademark violations can have huge penalties and the moment someone even remotely (or accidentally) violates a trademark, even when a moron in a hurry can easily tell the two entities apart, IP maximists are quick to support overarching trademark enforcements. They are quick to abuse trademark laws to go after parodies under the pretext that someone might be confused. Trademark law needs to be strictly and broadly enforced so that even the dumbest of the public won't get confused. A name even remotely similar to another name can confuse some members of the public. Yet copy fraud is somehow OK, despite the fact that copy fraud gives a false impression over something the offender knows is directly false (even if it was automated, the offender here knows or should know better and should take steps to avoid these mistakes). Little effort or penalties should be enforced to deter copy fraud. But many overarching laws with huge penalties should be passed and strictly enforced to deter infringement, even if accidental. Service providers and society must undergo a huge burden to deter infringement. Copy fraud, not so much.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 9:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    "If someone accidentally infringed on something because of an automated system, they can still be liable."
    
    Actually, there is a "volitional act" requirement in U.S. copyright law. Gets a little murky when applied to specific circumstances, though.
    
    But, at any rate, if you feel you've been harmed, then you should do something about it, instead of simply decrying that "something must be done."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Oct 2011 @ 11:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What lobby congress?
      They don't listen, see the Occupy Wall Street.
      
      Maybe assassinate some congressman and judges that wouldn't be that fun although it is doable, insurgents showed every one how to do it, you don't use guns you use IED's, though with a shapped charge in front it will pass through any armor.
      
      But that is only temporary relief, the problem is the system, the people inside it are inconsequential to the whole, they could die like flies and still there would be more being trained at the lower ranks that would start all over again, this is a cultural problem.
      
      What we need is to bitch about it and show how ugly it really is, it needs to be vilified, copyright needs to be flagged in public it is the tool used to oppress people and it needs to go away.
      
      People need to organize and start making their own laws, using old ones as templates, discussing them in online forums and pledging to vote for whatever gets decided, like the Tea Party did, they didn't had laws though they did had people who they put in congress, if they have wrote laws those puppets there would have something to sign for it and then it won't matter who gets in place.
      
      Also people should start doing databases of people who work for the government with detailed profiles of pre-employment and general tendencies, to see where in the government machine the weed needs to be pulled from the government grass.
      
      It will happen I'm sure of it, people don't believe they can do it just yet, but I know this will happen, I'm just sad that maybe I won't be around to see it though.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:30am
  
  Re:
  and it should also be noted that the legal penalties for copy fraud should be far greater than the penalties for infringement. Infringement shouldn't even be a crime or a tort, it should be perfectly legal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. There is something wrong with copy fraud. Fraud and misrepresentation is not acceptable. Yet our legal system is backwards because IP maximists run it and IP maximists are backwards. That's why copy protection lengths are so long.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 5:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    and I even forgot to mention collection societies that abuse our legal system to try and extort huge sums of money out of restaurants and other venues who want to host independent performers because someone might infringe. Our legal system should have no tolerance for this nonsense, the DOJ ought to severely punish this behavior for anti-trust violations and courts should promptly impose strict penalties against collection societies that attempt this if the threatened venue takes this to court, yet our legal system tolerates it enough to allow it to continue.
    
    IP maximists who commit copy fraud ought to be sued into the ground without any mercy whatsoever no matter how minor the violation. After all, IP maximists have absolutely no mercy on infringement, or even the potential of infringement, no matter how minor.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 6:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ... IP maximists and our legal system have absolutely no mercy on infringement ... *
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:19pm
  
  Re:
  The fact that you so aggressively want to enforce the laws for some but not for others is just telling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 29 Oct 2011 @ 2:32am

i wonder if QMI would change their minds/opinion if they had a visit from some of the 'Hells Angels' members? i doubt it would be a very pleasant experience!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 6:33am

Mike, I have to congratulate you on perpetrating your own little fraud here.

If you look at the page in question, you would see that the copyright notice is not part of the image. It's pretty much elementary stuff. What you did here is create a single image with the copyright in it, but which clearly doesn't represent the reality of the situation. The image on the website has no copyright notice in the image.

Are you so desperate to find a problem that you are willing to misrepresent the facts? The image has no copyright label in the image. See:

http://fr.canoe.ca/archives/infos/societe/media/2011/10/20111024-195152-g.jpg

Absolute, total, and complete Techdirt fail. Congrats Mike, you just knocked yourself down a notch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:19am
  
  Re:
  If you look at the page in question, you would see that the copyright notice is not part of the image.
  
  So if the copyright notice is right below the image but not actually part of the image file, it's not copyfraud? Interesting, where does it say that in copyright statutes?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, you have to consider that the story came from the QMI agency (Quebecor media), and in absence of any other copyright information, the site in question (canoe) may add in a default copyright notice without considering if it is true or not. It certainly looks more like a programming issue than any bad act by QMI itself.
    
    Mike is suggesting an intentional act, where there just does not appear to be one. It isn't even clear if it is QMI or the particular site added the copyright notice.
    
    It just looks like Mike trying to create an issue where none exists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mike is suggesting an intentional act, where there just does not appear to be one.
      
      Right, when it's a media company violating copyright law, they say "oops" (if even that) and nothing else happens. Yet when a private individual violates copyright law, the oops defense never seems to hold any water.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem is that it might not even be a media company violating anything. At worst, it appears to be an automated system by the posting website (and not QMI) that is adding attribution. There is no copyright notice on the image itself.
        
        So beyond a technical glitch (system defaults to attributing copyright on this feed if there is no additional information), there isn't much going on, and certainly no malice or forethought towards committing fraud of any sort.
        
        Mike on the other hand, well... let's just say the image in this post isn't the same as the image on the site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 7:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So beyond a technical glitch (system defaults to attributing copyright on this feed if there is no additional information), there isn't much going on, and certainly no malice or forethought towards committing fraud of any sort.
        
        You may be missing my point. My point is that if "oops, it was an accident" doesn't get ordinary people off the hook for copyright infringement, why should we be ready to accept the same defense for false copyright claims?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nasch, first off, it isn't clear that QMI made any mistake, it appears to be coding of the posting website. Second, as neither QMI nor Canoe are trying to enforce copyright, what exactly is the big deal? It isn't like anyone is going here looking for Hells Angels logos, are they?
        
        "oops it's an accident" applies where there is no real misuse or abuse. Nothing was gained here.
        
        As for ordinary people, they get off the hook all the time. DMCA, their video on youtube gets taken down, and they are free to repost it without the copyright material. Nobody gets hurt. DMCA is accepting of an "oops", really.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 30 Oct 2011 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nasch, first off, it isn't clear that QMI made any mistake, it appears to be coding of the posting website.
        
        So somebody else falsely claimed QMI had copyright on the image? If so, then QMI isn't at fault but someone is.
        
        Second, as neither QMI nor Canoe are trying to enforce copyright, what exactly is the big deal?
        
        I suppose it's up to the legitimate copyright holders to decide if it's a big deal or not. Lawsuits have been filed over less.
        
        As for ordinary people, they get off the hook all the time. DMCA, their video on youtube gets taken down, and they are free to repost it without the copyright material. Nobody gets hurt. DMCA is accepting of an "oops", really.
        
        That is how the process works, but that doesn't really seem indicative of the attitude of many copyright holders who use it. It's often less of "I understand someone made a mistake, just take down the video and it's no big deal" and more "these filty pirates are ruining our business, so take down the video or we'll have to sue".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well according to you people ignorance of the law doesn't make it right does it now?
        
        Because that fraking law in congress right now doesn't care if anything is intentional or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 30 Oct 2011 @ 1:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So news sources have the benefit of the doubt from you but normal people don't right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 31 Oct 2011 @ 3:52am
  
  Re:
  Absolute, total, and complete Techdirt fail. Congrats Mike, you just knocked yourself down a notch.
  
  Heh. No, just a TAM fail. The (c) is tagged to the image. As pointed out above, stories without images don't have the same (c). That (c) is for the image. It doesn't have to be *on* the image to designate the image.
  
  So, you fail. Again. I've lost count of many times that makes it, but you're pushing an average of a dozen per day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2011 @ 6:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who is this TAM person? Are you suggesting that once again you are checking logs and comparing IPs and tracking users (even though you say you would not do it)?
    
    the (C) may not may not be for the image, but since it is added in HTML and not part of the image, it is not clear who actually put it there, and if there is any malicious intent. Did QMI provide it, or does the website automatically attribute to QMI anything that it gets without any specific notices on it?
    
    To take it one step further, is there a claim of copyright on the content of the image, or just on the image itself, created in photoshop? Would you not say that the image itself, while the copyright would be weak, could be copyright to QMI even if the content of the image is not?
    
    As for the "fails", Mike, just because I don't agree with you doesn't make for a "fail". On that basis, you fail in every post, because I rarely agree with you. Your post here claims copyfraud, you present an image which is NOT the image on the website (you took a screen capture, and tried to make it look like the copyright was on the image, where it was not), and you failed to consider alternate solutions that would explain how it got there. Basically, you are in such a rush to try to slam a media company, that you appear to have almost manufactured proof to try to make it look worse than it really is. That is a fail, end to end.
    
    Oh, did you learn what "the bums rush" means yet?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 6:47am

When the hells angles are beating crap out of the news agency we could get them on to a few ACs around here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atkray (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 9:11am

40 comments on a non-story "nothing to see here"

Regardless of which side you come down on it would appear that posting the story stimulated a dialogue, which I believe is one of the objectives here.

I think posting the story was a good decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  The only dialog is stimulated is one pointing out how Mike is over reaching, trying very hard to find issues where none exist. It's a head shaker, and makes you wonder how many of his other posts are based on equally lame premises.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 29 Oct 2011 @ 9:13am

A small error caused by an automated system - no harm no foul - move along, nothing to see here.

Now if there is a small portion of background music in a youtube video of your child dancing this is a really big deal, someone needs to be heavily fined and possibly put in jail for a very long time. This can not be tolerated.

And remember, we do not suffer under a two tiered system of justice in the good ol us of a, why do you hate america?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:11am
  
  Re:
  What was your child dancing to? What was in the title?
  
  Sorry, fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    "What was your child dancing to? What was in the title? Sorry, fail."
    
    No need to apologize for your ignorance. It is completely understandable that in these hectic times it has become more difficult to keep up on the news of the day. This story began in the year 2007 when a mother posted to youtube a small clip of her children dancing ... and the rest is history.
    
    But wait - there's more. Apparently this is a story that keeps on giving. You can use the search engine of your choice to find a multitude of articles for your reading pleasure. Go ahead and give it a try - I used the search terms "prince dancing baby" but I'm sure other terms will do just fine. Do tell us how it went.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 11:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Umm, you can stop talking down from on high... I know the story. I also know that the music was what the child was dancing to (it wasn't accidental background music, say the sound of a TV or a radio playing... it was the focus of the video ).
      
      Why would I want to search for a story that we are all familiar with, and has been discussed ad nauseum here by people who are unwilling to accept reality?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Takes one to know one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - abc gum, 29 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I know the story"
        
        Oh, I see. Your feigned ignorance was simply an act.
        
        "it wasn't accidental background music, say the sound of a TV or a radio playing... it was the focus of the video"
        
        The music was barely audible, the focus of the video was clearly the child dancing and the clip was very short relative to the entire length of the song.
        
        "Why would I want to search for a story that we are all familiar with"
        
        Because you seem to not be very familiar with it.
        
        "people who are unwilling to accept reality"
        
        Some people are willing to fight oppression regardless of how many times they are told to simply accept it. Welcome to the real world.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jesse Townley (profile), 29 Oct 2011 @ 10:03am

P.S.
Clicking on that link DOES show that the copyright notice is in the box with the image, SEPARATE from the actual news article.

If they aren't claiming (c) on that logo, they oughta edit their site quickly! I hear motorcycles in the distance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red, 29 Oct 2011 @ 4:29pm

I've reported this post to canoe.ca

You are falsely accusing someone of fraud. And potentially ruining their good name in good journalism.

Please report properly or don't report at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tom Gallagher, 2 Nov 2011 @ 10:02am

Hells Angels Trademarek
Logos are typically not protected by copyright. They are protected by registering as trademarks. The copyright notice to the news agency more likely applies to the news article which says something about the Hells Angels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]