Disney Sending Out DMCA Notices Over Pictures Fans Took Of Their Legally Purchased Star Wars Toy
from the the-dark-side dept
We see abuse in the way some companies and people use the DMCA takedown process all the time. Those stories typically range from anywhere between mildly frustrating to truly infuriating. But to really abuse the DMCA process in the most heartless, idiotic, disingenuous and fan-hating manner, we of course must bow before the masters over at Disney.
All of this started not that long ago, in a Walmart not particularly far away, when someone with a Facebook Star Wars fan group walked into a store and legally purchased a Star Wars figurine and then uploaded a photo of it to the Facebook group. Turns out the figurine contains a sort of spoiler within it or something. As such, plenty of other websites, such as Star Wars Unity, linked to it, embedded the photo of the figure, and discussed its implications. You know, like Star Wars fans do on all kinds of sites all the time. Well, that's when the DMCA notices began rolling in and the images started coming down.
This morning I woke up to numerous DMCA takedown notices on the @starwarsunity Twitter account, the Facebook account, the Google+ Page, and my personal Twitter for posting the image of an action figure that was legally purchased at Walmart. My webhost also received a takedown email from them with a threat of a lawsuit of the image wasn’t removed. I of course removed the image because I can’t afford to be sued by a toy company who likes to bully Star Wars fans.Except, of course, the figurine wasn't "unreleased," it was very much released at a Walmart where it was legally purchased. If the Walmart made a mistake in putting it out on the shelves too early, that doesn't suddenly make it copyright infringement for someone who bought it in good faith to take a picture of it. And, taking a step back, even if the figurine had not been released by the Walmart, how is taking a picture of it copyright infringement? It isn't, by any sane reading of copyright law. Because it was a picture of a Star Wars toy made by Hasbro, most people logically assumed the takedowns were coming from the toy company.
The exact wording of the “infringement” is:
“Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens”
This wasn’t a figure that was stolen off the back of a truck or stolen out from behind closed doors at Hasbro. It was legally purchased in a store by a fan and they posted a picture of their purchase on the internet. But because Hasbro is terrified of pissing off Disney and losing the Star Wars license early, they’re threatening and bullying fans online with legal action for sharing pictures of their purchases. Due to this I urge all Star Wars fans to avoid Hasbro product and not purchase any of their Star Wars releases. Until Hasbro grows a brain and stops bullying fans online, they do not deserve any of our money.Except it doesn't appear that this was Hasbro at all. Turns out the DMCA notices are coming from Irdeto, an anti-piracy outfit we've discussed before, and are being sent on behalf of Lucasfilm, which is, of course, Disney. And those DMCA notices are going out not only to the original uploader of the picture, but even to those using the picture in a discussion or news capacity, and even those retweeting the picture.
So, let's recap. Hasbro made a toy that was released by a Walmart and bought legally by a fan, who uploaded a photo of the toy. Disney/Lucasfilm, which does not have a copyright on that photo, is having a third party, Irdeto, send out DMCA notices for the uploading of a picture, or a retweeting/reposting of the picture, which is not copyright infringement. And this gross abuse of the DMCA process is being done simply to stifle the speech of Star Wars fans and save them from a spoiler that apparently is coming from the depiction of this toy.
If that isn't the kind of DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment, nothing is.
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, dmca, fans, figurine, star wars, takedown
Companies: disney, hasbro, irdeto, lucasfilm, walmart
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
Uh, since when is there a punishment for DMCA abuse, let alone for Disney? I mean, sure it's in the letter of the law. But that's like suing a king over rape of a commoner based on common law. In the Middle Ages.
Yes, those are the words of the law. But you cannot interpret them like that in court. Not against Disney sued by some peon.
That's just against the natural order of the classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
Yes, there was rhetoric in there, but I think there's more literal truth than rhetoric:
The MafiAA have been beating the crap out of everyone (see Wordpress's Rogue's Gallery for instance, or what Google has to put up with) in their witch hunting attempts to protect their Imaginary Property. Courts so far have cared very little about their excesses. They appear so far to just wave them away with "boys will be boys" and "good faith exception", because copyright. Bad DMCA takedowns are perjury, but you wouldn't know that by watching court decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if they did
No fine for DMCA abuse will be large enough to not be considered a 'cost of doing business'.
No prosecutor will put their re-election in jeopardy.
No CEO will be willing to take the market hit that doing battle with Disney will cost.
Any attempt to flood the Interwebs with millions of images at a rate far greater than any bot can issue takedowns, will be met with those takedowns inevitably arriving and ISP's will dirty their underwear in the process of tripping over each other to implement those takedowns.
Theater goers will be asked if they have been to Walmart recently, and will be denied entrance for yes responses (them told to come back in a few months after all the spoilers have been spoiled).
Man, Disney sure buys good laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if they did
Say you've got two companies. Company A sends out 100 requests, and every last one of them is legitimate, but those requests cost $1,000 total. Company B on the other hand sends out 200 requests, but only 100 of them are accurate, however they only charge $500 for their services.
Take a wild guess which one most companies will hire.
Given there's no penalty whatsoever for bogus claims, it makes perfect sense that if you're looking to hire someone to send out DMCA claims on your behalf you're going to go with the cheapest option, because it doesn't matter how accurate they are, all that matters is sending out the most claims for the least amount of money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hasbro will have a license from Lucasfilm/Disney to even produce the figurine; otherwise that would be a clear copyright issue. The license agreement will include provisions for copyright enforcement; usually such agreements puts the enforcement responsibility with the copyright owner, Lucasfilm/Disney in this case. Lucasfilm/Disney would have to assign legal rights to Hasbro for any copyright enforcement as part of the licensing agreement or else any claim by Hasbro would have no legal standing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most pictures have back drops, aside from gov restricted areas, I don't see land owners going after people.
The list goes on. How can they possibly have any standing at all? If they do, can in turn anyone with a picture of anything that they didn't manufacture get sued?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are not looking close enough. For example, you need to license images of nighttime Paris with the company responsible for the Eiffel Tower lighting.
I'm not bullshitting you. And i'm pretty sure you'll find the same with branded clothes.
Even if you show a picture of something entirely manufactured by yourself, you'll get sued for child porn.
Give up. You are owned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't see clothing manufactures going after people taking pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The actual DMCA headline
It seams Hollywood "facts" is like Hollywood "accounting", somewhat disconnected from reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You have a source for that or are you just making stuff up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's part of why this stuff desperately needs to be fixed, especially since it's the same organisations involved on both sides on many occasions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a huge fan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a huge fan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waiting for the new Disney inspired SW character
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In dealing with photography by the public, does copyrighted art in a 2-D medium get a higher level of legal protection than 3-D medium?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Presumably, by buying a ticket you're agreeing to defacto rules with the venue, which likely includes no photography. it may not be on the ticket, but there's usually some blurb on the website. You're a captive audience at the time in a place where this can be enforced.
But, to the best of my knowledge, no such licences exist when buying a toy. In fact, can you imagine the mess if it did? People could be sued for having toys in the same photos as their kids, eBay could be attacked because people take photos of the product they're selling, etc. it's not unlikely given the current idiot mindset, but there's a limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can film the movie ... RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, it's dumb but I don't make the rules, only try to interpret the broken mindset behind them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
did not buy a ticket
nor received a "free" ticket...
then?
the only thing they can do is to kick me out RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even so, you'd still be breaking some kind of licence the moment you shared whatever photo you took, unless you're an authorised party to the original copyright. Even if you managed to take it without violating such a licence.
Anyway, the specifics are a little pointless at the juncture. It was asked why it would be illegal to take a photo of a screen but not a toy, and that's the answer no matter how deep you want to go to find a specific rare exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're taking as a given that that's illegal but that's not obvious. Basically one frame from a movie could easily be de minimis or fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy was too intimidated by Disney's legal threats to talk about it, but I think from the way the images were pulled from Imgur suggests the use of bogus DMCA notices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but
Scroll all the way to the bottom and click the "here" link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but
I will paste this together with a unreleased iphone
on every social media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the Movie Studio/Toy Studio execs (Hasbro)
As a side note, copyright SERIOUSLY needs looked at when the 1st amendment is being pissed on to such an extent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a side note that just occured to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a side note that just occured to me
That means that the DMCA and DoJ are lousy at doing their respective purported jobs. Lousy job performance is not illegal, but both should get a performance review, a serious warning, and get fired if they don't improve.
That this doesn't happen reeks of intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
Now where Have I seen that or closely similar phrases before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
Define "third party content". Define "speech". Then, you can have fun defining all sorts of legitimate speech where third party content is desirable or even necessary to use in many situations. That's the reason for fair use and other protections that allow limited use of third party content without prior specified consent.
"So I don't see the DMCA being contrary to the 1st Amendment. The current execution of the DMCA paints quite a different picture."
Well, here's the problem - the DMCA as it stands allows, or even encourages, the bad execution. So, in its current form, it is indeed contrary to the spirit of free speech.
"That this doesn't happen reeks of intent."
Indeed. The DMCA contains clauses that allow for punishment in the case of abuse. This is rarely, if ever, applied. Even when innocent people have their free speech rights violated, which is why it's regularly abused. This is either through negligence or intent, or possibly both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
In much the same way, people who have a satellite dish in their backyard and watch pay-channels for free are breaking the law, despite that they're doing it completely within their own property, and for personal use only. Fortunately, such conduct in most any country outside the USA is perfectly legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a side note that just occured to me
That argument has been made in an academic setting:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577785
I do not believe it's ever been tested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a side note that just occured to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
Allowed, yes. Required, no. We could dump copyright altogether and do no harm to anyone's Constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no longer such a thing as a sane reading of copyright law.
Copyright has become little more than a cult now, and like most cults the adherents of whatever philosophy or ideological belief a cult represents cannot be dealt with in a rational or reasonable manners in regards to those beliefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and exactly who is going to do the punishing? it sure as hell wont be the friends in Congress! in fact they will probably change the law so that those who have done no wrong, will end up being penalised!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My interest just dropped
way to go Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My interest just dropped
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the Golden Rule
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thing is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the biggest weapon in copyright law. Even if the person did everything right they can't defend themselves and have to act as if they are guilty.
The law doesn't matter at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please correct me if I am wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whaddaya expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more copyrights for anyone ever. All the existing copyrights: null and void retroactive to the beginning of time. If it exists it's public domain.
Disney (and all the other fear mongers) can feel free to shout about the end of creativity and how they're going to shut down and go out of business. If that actually happens, they will be replaced.
Copyright is not being used for its legitimate purpose, so let's get rid of it and see what happens. It really can't be worse that what we currently have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A decade ago, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith was available on Bittorrent even before it's first showing in theaters. Those kind of surprise pre-release leaks are much rarer these days, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because you bought it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deal accepted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deal accepted
You'll also save a lot of money by never buying anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3D printers
Even better, I would love to see someone release 3D printer plans for the toy. That would serve Hasbro and Disney right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the Internet Archive
2 hrs ·
Have we known this figure was coming? I just found her at Walmart - no other new figures... Justin
Star Wars Action News's photo.
Facebook.com
Star Wars Action News's photo.
Facebook.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20151208214034/https://www.facebook.com/SWActionNews/p osts/10153388820497153
Update: Disney Threatening Fans With Lawsuits for Legally Buying Star Wars Figures
December 11, 2015
UPDATE 2:
Our pals over at Yakface determined the origin of these takedowns is Disney/Lucasfilm and not Hasbro.
http://yakfaceforums.com/main/2015/12/09/disney-lucasfilm-threatens-legal-action-over-rey-fig ure-leak/
UPDATE:
SWAN (who originate the image) has had their Facebook hit with a DMCA takedown:
“(NOTE: These pictures were removed from the post. Facebook notified us they deleted the photos after someone reported them for copyright infringement.
Those photos have gone viral–they’re out there. But they aren’t here. And we will not be posting them again as we consider Hasbro a valuable partner in our coverage of Star Wars toys. –Arnie )”
I also posted a takedown a Twitter user received here.
Yesterday Star Wars Action News on Facebook went into their local Walmart and legally purchased a new Star Wars figure featuring Rey in her Resistance Base outfit. The image is still up on Facebook and you can view it right here.
This morning I woke up to numerous DMCA takedown notices on the @starwarsunity Twitter account, the Facebook account, the Google+ Page, and my personal Twitter for posting the image of an action figure that was legally purchased at Walmart. My webhost also received a takedown email from them with a threat of a lawsuit of the image wasn’t removed. I of course removed the image because I can’t afford to be sued by a toy company who likes to bully Star Wars fans.
The exact wording of the “infringement” is:
“Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens”
It’s not unreleased if you can walk into Walmart and buy the damn toy!
This wasn’t a figure that was stolen off the back of a truck or stolen out from behind closed doors at Hasbro. It was legally purchased in a store by a fan and they posted a picture of their purchase on the internet. But because Hasbro is terrified of pissing off Disney and losing the Star Wars license early, they’re threatening and bullying fans online with legal action for sharing pictures of their purchases.
Due to this I urge all Star Wars fans to avoid Hasbro product and not purchase any of their Star Wars releases. Until Hasbro grows a brain and stops bullying fans online, they do not deserve any of our money.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151211125540/http://starwarsunity.net/2015/12/hasbro-threatening -fans-with-lawsuits-for-buying-star-wars-figures/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is It a Copyright Violation?
Not what is claimed in the bogus DMCA notices, but still there may be infringement. The fact that the above-cited case is a plausible reading of the law does suggest that the law, or the courts interpreting it, or both, have suffered from some severe brain damage.
Such a reading of copyright law does warn us about all those pictures of items for sale on various web sites. If that were the only problem, we might hand-wave it. You can eliminate the various internet classified sale sites and much of life would continue.
But if we consider the right to publicly display a work, it does not stop at classified advertising sites. That star wars fan could get tired of the toy. If he puts it on a table in front of his house as part of a yard sale, he may be publicly displaying it, contrary to the form of 17 U.S.C. 106(5). Such public display is for monetary gain, which will weigh against fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
and in this case too, but replacing 'poster' with 'toy.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
/poe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
Even if I was to accept what you said as non-poe (which I'm sure is exactly how Disney and crazy-poster-lady actually think), my counter-argument would be that in the absence of a EULA, my purchase of the poster/toy granted me an implied license to do stuff like hang the poster in public, post a photo of the toy, make a video of the toy engaging in lewd activity in front of the poster, etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
walmartone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Wars figurines display in public
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Star Wars figurines display in public
Any feedback is appreciated.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]