Flickr Finally Realizes That Not All DMCA Takedowns Are Legit

from the about-freaking-time dept

Wed, Jun 13th 2012 10:54am — Mike Masnick

A few months ago, we noted how in certain cases Flickr would completely delete images (and comments) when it received a DMCA takedown notice. That meant that even if the takedown was bogus -- as so many are -- after you contested the takedown and could put back the image, you probably lost everything else on that page. That's kind of ridiculous. As Jake Rome alerts us, Yahoo (owner of Flickr) finally realized that perhaps it should change its policy and, instead, put the targeted image in limbo to allow the uploader to contest the takedown:

We want to let you know that we have implemented a global change in the standard takedown process that will benefit the whole Flickr community going forward.

When a photo is removed from the site based on a notice of alleged copyright infringement, we will temporarily show a placeholder and the member will have an opportunity to respond before the image is made unavailable.

If the alleged copyright infringement is found to be fraudulent, the image in question will be restored, and the photopage will look like before.

It's really quite amazing that it took this long for Flickr to realize this was needed.

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, dmca, takedown
Companies: flickr, yahoo

18 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2012 @ 10:59am

Megaupload
Isn't this exactly what Megaupload was doing? What's the point of the DMCA counternotification if you delete the file completely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2012 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re: Megaupload
  Generally, if you have the content to upload today, you have it to upload tomorrow. I doubt that a free file sharing site is your only storage location for your valuable files.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 6:23pm
    
    Re: Re: Megaupload
    Unless your other backup fails and the DoJ steals your other backup.
    Just ask Kyle Goodwin.
    Just ask soldiers who were trading pictures and videos with family using the site.
    
    People assumed, maybe incorrectly, that their files were safe going across Mega... and they were until the DoJ went crazy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 13 Jun 2012 @ 11:03am

They knew it, it took this long to provide a fix
I am sure they knew this long ago, it just took them this long to provide a fix. They probably had other, more interesting features to build, test and deploy that this one took a back burner. You have to wonder what got delayed to put in this fix? I guess copyright, in this case, isn't helping progress the useful arts but hindering it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 11:12am

FTFY
If the alleged copyright infringement is found to be fraudulent, the image in question will be restored, the photopage will look like before, but nothing will happen to the accuser and they will be able to continue their fraud as long as they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re: FTFY
  If Flickr really wanted to "benefit the whole Flickr community" they would add the words "...and the false DMCA claim will be reported to the relevant authorities" to the end of their statement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ophelia Millais (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 4:55pm
    
    Re: Re: FTFY
    The authorities? There's no legal remedy for DMCA takedown notices that are made "in good faith" but that turn out to be false. There are no "authorities" to report them to. It's not a criminal matter. Now, if you think you could convince a court that the accuser knew the claim was false at the outset, you could sue them, but since you probably weren't financially harmed by the takedown, all you'd get is attorney's fees, if you win. If you lose, you pay their fees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 6:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: FTFY
      I know it's wishful thinking, but it'd be nice if there was some form of meaningful threat Flickr (and others could make) against false DMCA claims, even if it's just publishing the notices.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: FTFY
        How about: Your next 'genuine' DMCA letter gets thrown straight in the bin?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2012 @ 11:20am

"If the alleged copyright infringement is found to be fraudulent [...]"

Shouldn't that be "if the alleged copyright infringement claim is fraudulent"?

After all, if the infringement itself is fraudulent, wouldn't that justify them taking it down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jakerome (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 11:40am

Baby steps to the door, baby steps to the door...
Definitely good news, even if 5 years overdue (c.v. Michael Crook v. Thomas Hawk). It is good for Yahoo!/Flickr to acknowledge their mistake & correct it. Makes me more confident that my photos won't be arbitrarily deleted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 12:35pm

This is why we desperately need SOPA / ACTA / etc
If companies like Flickr can unilaterally undermine Hollywood's ability to arbitrarily have your content permanently deleted upon mere accusation, then what recourse does Hollywood have other than police state measures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tommy, 13 Jun 2012 @ 2:32pm

It's about time that they pulled their heads out of their arses! I deleted my Flicker account as a result of what happened, and wrote them an e-mail to them stating why.I went elsewhere with my photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 13 Jun 2012 @ 6:38pm

What's really amazing
is that they decided to do this in any case! As someone once said, "better late than never"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dominic Sayers (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 4:10am

This just affects non-US users of Flickr
For US users, Flickr has always restored the picture as it was.

This crazy policy has only affected non-US users. It was first raised 3 years ago, but Flickr refused to change their policy until a well-known journalist and a celeb got involved and started creating bad publicity for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:48am

"Not all DMCA takedowns are legit"? What kind of FUD is this shit? You think rightsholders don't have enough hoops to jump through already? You filthy pirates don't even have any hoops to jump through; you either show up and pay up, or you're guilty and you pay up.

If I had my way I'd sic John Steele over all of you so hard you'd beg for SOPA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2012 @ 11:40am

Man when I was in real estate I had several blogs and started using flicker to post images I created. I also took pictures of homes and for seo purposes only tagged them etc. Absolutely nothing was for sale on flickr for obvious reasons. Then one day my blogs are completely ruined. they deleted my entire account for violating tos. Only a tiny fraction even slightly did so nor did they give me a chance to remove the offending pictures. Meanwhile there are hundreds if not thousands of photographers who use the site who can indirectly sell photos using that site...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 14 Jun 2012 @ 6:19pm

The cost of doing the "right thing" is now less than the damage being done to them.

When they threaten to sue you out of business for not jumping fast or soon enough, look at the Google lawsuits, you do the quickest fastest route. When that route starts costing you more business, you look at what the law actually says and modify your practices to follow those.

Yahoo! is sorta circling the drain, so keeping Flickr going is an effort they need to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]