Disney So Desperate To Stop Leaks It Subpoenas ImageShack Over Single Blurry Still Image Of New Star Wars
from the and-creates-a-streisand-effect dept
Yes, of course, Disney is trying to keep the lid on the new Star Wars film and is extra careful to try to stop any leaks coming out about the new film, but this seems like a pretty expensive and silly way of doing things. The company's expensive lawyers at Latham & Watkins have sought a subpoena to serve on ImageShack because someone -- a user with the name "Darth_Simi" posted what appears to be a single blurry cropped still image from the film (shown here as a thumbnail):Second, if Disney really wanted to stop such things, going to court seems like a fairly dumb way to do so. As the Hollywood Reporter story above notes, the image only had about 6,000 views when its story on this image went live. By the time I saw it, the number of views of the image had doubled, and it wasn't that long after the story had gone up. Disney clearly isn't using copyright law to stop this particular use, but rather as a separate tool to try to track down a leaker.
Third, it's hard to see how this effort could possibly be worth the money that Disney is paying its expensive lawyers for. Preparing the filing and going to court isn't cheap. And all over what, exactly? A tiny fair use, blurry, cropped frame from a movie that is only likely to get fans more excited to see the actual film?
Oh, and just to make this clear, we believe that our use of the thumbnail above is fair use for the same reasons that the original posting on ImageShack was fair use, and we'll add that, in this case, it's more so because we're commenting on the image itself in a press report -- and the image is newsworthy because of Disney's lawyers' own actions.
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: copyright, darth simi, dmca, fair use, leaks, star wars, still, subpoena
Companies: disney, latham and watkins
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Micky Mouse Anihillation Squad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a name for what happens when the Streisand effect causes the item in question to become fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disney Magic ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Streisand Effect* strikes again.
*(C)2010, Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intended consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, now that it's out there, they can't do much to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without knowing who the leak came from and where they got the image, you cannot possibly know if they violated an NDA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thus the hedge "likely".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The NDA is an agreement between Disney and possibly the person who uploaded it to ImageShack. ImageShack is not under the NDA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...by Disney's internal systems, not via abuse of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disney gets more stupid by the minute, though this action should surprise no one considering the inhuman corporation also went after a day care for its unauthorized painting.
Unfortunately, the public just gave this corporation billions in profit for a movie called Frozen, so there's no such thing as "expensive" lawyers for this inhuman corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyer cost is not a concern for Disney
:-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not about copyright
Is this fair use? Sure, but who's going to upload an image now and risk Disney's lawyers coming after them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So different...
I mean, Weird Al wrote a whole song about the Phantom Menace before the movie ever came out just by what he read on the internet. And it was 99% accurate.
Lucas made a billion dollars understanding that this kind of thing is just fandom.
The takedown definitely makes me less excited to see the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So different...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It seems only natural and prudent that the company investigate if the still is taken from a purloined copy of the film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Investigate, yes. Abuse the DMCA to issue a bogus subpoena? No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Fixed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Fixed
You mean like the tangible medium of expression you're staring at?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have no interest in more Star Wars but I know a week won't go by for the next year that I won't see a Star Wars reference somewhere (the next 5 years? The rest of my life?) This week it's on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Negative Publicity
Anything that creates a buzz. . . good, bad, or indifferent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Negative Publicity
I think the Catholic church (and many others) would disagree with that ridiculous platitude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure its wasted money
I REALLY hate to say this, because it makes it feel more likely, but if news outlets keep talking about the 'streisand effect', some companies are going to realize that publicity is just a lawsuit away....
Reveal a leaker >and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure its wasted money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are invoking the copyright and DMCA for an improper purpose -- tracking down leaks and/or enforcing a NDA, rather than enforcing their right to make commercial copies of the entire work. They come right out and admit that they primarily want to identify the person, and taking down the content is strictly incidental.
They presumably are doing that to avoid the issue of fair use. This image may well be fair use -- the point is at least arguable. Normally an anonymous commentator may retain their anonymity through a judicial decision on that point (although they may lose it while determining damages, years later).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Works are automatically copyrighted in the US. Registration affects what damages can be sought, but not whether a suit can be brought in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am the person Disney is seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am the person Disney is seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was curious and wanted to see for myself what all the fuss was about, but being a 'banned' film in the US, obtaining it requires breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better update the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]