Disney Sending Out DMCA Notices Over Pictures Fans Took Of Their Legally Purchased Star Wars Toy

from the the-dark-side dept

Thu, Dec 10th 2015 10:40am — Timothy Geigner

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.

The exact wording of the “infringement” is:

“Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens”

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.

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

73 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

David, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:01am

DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
If that isn't the kind of DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment, nothing is.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:07am

One of the MAFIAA's hitmen strikes again, it seems. Disney loses more of its magic and I have less desire to see anything with their brand on it the more this kind of stuff happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:07am

Even if they did
No one will be arrested.

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 thread ]
David, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:08am

Re: DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
I think that was just a rhetorical way of saying that virtually nothing is abuse resulting in punishment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:13am

Nice example of the Streisand effect at work. I'd largely avoided all news of the next Star Wars movie. Partly not being that excited about it, and partly a desire to avoid spoilers. However reading that DMCA takedowns were being issued to censor pictures of a Star Wars toy due to it containing spoilers made me curious enough to spend the five or so minutes needed to seek out the pictures - spoilers be damned - just to see what the fuck had their panties in such a twist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sunhawk, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:15am

Actually... I wonder if they're going by the train of logic that says: "The figurine is intellectual property, and thus a photograph of it is a derivative work"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:19am

Re:
As did I... and now I know precisely which movie I won't be going to see when it hits theaters :P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:24am

Re:
But why would Disney have a claim to the copyright on a figurine that Hasbro produced?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:24am

Re:
Supposedly the image on the card behind the figurine is what they're claiming as infringement...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Danny (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:27am

Not a huge fan
Since this commenting system doesn't permit me to insert images, I made my political and satirical response my profile image.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:45am

Waiting for the new Disney inspired SW character
Waiting for the new Disney inspired Star Wars character: a robot that looks like it's dressed in an expensive suit, only talks legalese, and is named R2FU.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:49am

If it's illegal to snap a picture of a Disney movie screen, then why would it not be equally illegal to snap a picture of a Disney toy?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:53am

Re: Re:
Shh! You'll spoil another brainless rant with facts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nate (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 11:55am

The same thing apparently happened a couple weeks ago with a Star Wars kid's book which was shipped to a bookstore early and then bought by an employee. He posted images to Imgur which were later removed.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re:
...But why would Disney have a claim to the copyright on a figurine that Hasbro produced?...

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 thread ]
kallethen, 10 Dec 2015 @ 12:30pm

The real stupidity
The real tragedy in this is that if Disney stopped to really think about it, they'd realize that they are basically trying to kill off some free advertising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 12:32pm

but
where's the picture?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryunosuke, 10 Dec 2015 @ 1:00pm

To the Movie Studio/Toy Studio execs (Hasbro)
You REALLY REALLY need to curb who you source your copyright enforcement to. This is making YOU look bad, thus it's gonna affect YOUR bottom line when YOU are pissing on all the fans, even though you aren't.

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 thread ]
Ryunosuke, 10 Dec 2015 @ 1:05pm

a side note that just occured to me
TO all the lawyers (particularly constitutional lawyers) Could the DMCA be construed as a 1st amendment violation? That whole bit about "The govt shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.." bit. The reason I ask, is that the DMCA is a govt law, and it IS abridging our freedom of speech".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NeghVar (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 1:20pm

Ebay
Sue all the people selling Disney toys on eBay. They are posting photos of the toys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
sam1am (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 1:24pm

So they're claiming copyright on an information card that appears behind the figurine. Hmm... I don't think I could buy a book, photo the pages, and put it online. Probably not a magazine article. Probably not a framed photo that someone else took. Where do you draw the line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 10 Dec 2015 @ 1:52pm

Re: Re: Re:
Most picture have clothing in them, I don't see clothing manufactures going after people taking pictures.

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 thread ]
David, 10 Dec 2015 @ 2:08pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most picture have clothing in them, I don't see clothing manufactures going after people taking pictures.

Most pictures have back drops, aside from gov restricted areas, I don't see land owners going after people.

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.

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?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 2:16pm

Re: but
TorrentFreak has it. Here: https://torrentfreak.com/lucasfilm-uses-dmca-to-kill-star-wars-toy-picture-151210/

Scroll all the way to the bottom and click the "here" link.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 10 Dec 2015 @ 3:10pm

"It isn't, by any sane reading of copyright law."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 4:06pm

'If that isn't the kind of DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment, nothing is'

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 thread ]
connermac725 (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 4:15pm

My interest just dropped
I feel a little LESS inclined to go see it in theaters now
way to go Disney
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J.R, 10 Dec 2015 @ 4:31pm

It's the Golden Rule
Dizzy has the gold so they get to make up the rules, and the lackeys, lickspittles, and sycophants of the legal system (judges included) bust their collective asses to appease the Lords of the Magick Kingdumb of Dizzy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 4:36pm

Re: My interest just dropped
I was kinda thinking the same thing. If I go I might like it and want to express such thoughts. But I don't like being sued or paying for over priced movie tickets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nomad of Norad, 10 Dec 2015 @ 5:50pm

Thing is...
Thing is... it isn't going to remain like this forever. People are getting fed up with this sort of abuse of copyright law, with the giant corporations getting away scott free with trampling all over common people's legally provided rights. Right now, they get away with it because of corruption at the top in our government... but there is reform coming, driven by grass roots organizations like Wolf PAC and Represent.Us, and it is only a matter of time before the tide turns and these sorts of shenanigans wind up with people in deep trouble, possibly even in jail, over big corporations' abuse of copyright law. One outcome of this I'd like to see is that once a wrongful DMCA takedown such as this one is discovered, that the content becomes legally protected against ANY further action on the part of the party issuing the takedown request. That is to say, the material would now be EXEMPT from any request that it be pulled down, and if the party issuing the takedown persists it might actually result in JAIL TIME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2015 @ 6:11pm

"I of course removed the image because I can’t afford to be sued by a toy company"

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 thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 10 Dec 2015 @ 6:47pm

Re: I don't see clothing manufactures going after people taking pictures.
Oh yeah?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 7:38pm

Re:
Of but the law very much matters, that's what they use to threaten people with. What doesn't matter is whether or not you're actually breaking the law, because the vast majority of people are dead broke long before it ever reaches the point where that is determined, and both sides know it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tqk (profile), 10 Dec 2015 @ 8:08pm

Re: Re: DMCA abuse that results in some kind of punishment?
I think that was just a rhetorical way of saying that virtually nothing is abuse resulting in punishment.

Yes, there was rhetoric in there, but I think there's more literal truth than rhetoric:
Yes, those are the words of the law. But you cannot interpret them like that in court. Not against Disney sued by some peon.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:00am

Re:
They might be, but that flies in the face of the similar claims being made against people in other cases where the subject is public domain but the photographer claims their copyright status trumps that of the subject. They can't have it both ways.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:05am

Re:
"If it's illegal to snap a picture of a Disney movie screen, then why would it not be equally illegal to snap a picture of a Disney toy?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:52am

Re: Re:
so If I do not buy a ticket...
I can film the movie ... RIGHT?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:54am

Re: Re: but
thank you,
I will paste this together with a unreleased iphone
on every social media
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:56am

is not the hero of the movie a scared "safe zone" university kid?

please correct me if I am wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:00am

Re: a side note that just occured to me
You can make your own speech without using third-party content. That's the underpinning of copyright itself and the DMCA does not touch it. It's just an enforcement mechanism. So I don't see the DMCA being contrary to the 1st Amendment. The current execution of the DMCA paints quite a different picture.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:22am

Re: Re: Re:
That depends on the licencing involved. You'd likely still be infringing by taking a photo of a pirate or unreleased copy, if you're an employee of the cinema you'd be bound by your employment contract and if you're a guest that would probably count as a free ticket under the same T&Cs. there's always going to be a clause that "protects" them at your expense.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:28am

Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
You can make your own speech without using third-party content.

Now where Have I seen that or closely similar phrases before?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:34am

Re: a side note that just occured to me
TO all the lawyers (particularly constitutional lawyers) Could the DMCA be construed as a 1st amendment violation? That whole bit about "The govt shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.." bit. The reason I ask, is that the DMCA is a govt law, and it IS abridging our freedom of speech".

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
"You can make your own speech without using third-party content"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 2:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
so IF I am not an epmloyee
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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 2:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Presumably so, although I'd like to know under which circumstances you would have gained entrance to the screening without buying a ticket, being gifted a ticket or being an employee of the theatre. If you're an employee of the studio or the original copyright holder, you can't violate the licence because you're authorised, but other than that I can't think of many exception.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 5:01am

Re: Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
Drive-in movie theaters are indeed rare these days, but considering that their giant screens are often visible to the public, and the movie's audio is transmitted over AM/FM radio, it would not be hard for a bystander to record a film this way. But the fact that a hollywood film was recorded by someone from a public road or sidewalk (or perhaps even their own bedroom window) does not necessarily make the sharing of that recording over the internet any less illegal.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 5:11am

Re: Not a huge fan
Be very careful what you say in public. DePaul kicked out Norman Finkelstein for expressing his opinion. Your time will eventually come too, and when it does, it will be too late to repent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Locutus (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 5:21am

Whaddaya expect?
What will it take for the masses to realize that Disney is nothing but a bunch of abusive, angry Nazi bastards? I never fail to marvel (pun intended) at how many Amerikans bow down to worship everything Disney, all the while pouring buckets of dollars down the Maus' throat with great glee. Hell, there's even a dating site now, for Disney disciples! And on the inner-business side, just ask former longtime, productive employees of ABC and Marvel what it was like to suddenly become "cast members", informed by stiff-white-shirted corporate 22 year old boys that they were now considered on the same level as those picking up cigarette butts at Disneyland for $8 an hour. Disney truly embodies everything that is wrong with capitalism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 6:16am

Re: a side note that just occured to me
Could the DMCA be construed as a 1st amendment violation? That whole bit about "The govt shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.." bit.
That argument could be used for death threats, fraud, perjury, etc. too—banning those things is a restriction on speech, and unlike almost all other countries, the USA has no exception for "reasonable" restrictions. The problem with using this argument for copyright, though, is that copyright is explicitly allowed by the constitution. So instead of declaring it a straightforward violation the court will have to balance these constitutional provisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 6:21am

Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me
I'm not able to view anything beyond the abstract. Does it mention anything about the loss of anonymity required to post a counternotice? There's strong case law supporting anonymous speech, so this might be one of the easier things to test in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 8:41am

Disney is the shittiest copyright cartel in the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JonC (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 9:12am

Here's my suggested punishment:

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 thread ]
Stephen Mohos, 11 Dec 2015 @ 11:11am

After reading this there is no way I will pay to see the upcoming Star Wars movie. if the movie is good then I will wait until it comes out on DVD and then borrow the DVD and watch it with the special features at a later time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:22pm

Just because you bought it...
doesn't mean that you can do anything with it. Each usage can require an additional usage fee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2015 @ 12:29pm

Re:
"After reading this there is no way I will pay to see the upcoming Star Wars movie. if the movie is good then I will wait until it comes out on DVD"

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 6:44pm

Re:
If it's illegal to snap a picture of a Disney movie screen, then why would it not be equally illegal to snap a picture of a Disney toy?

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 11 Dec 2015 @ 6:48pm

3D printers
Due to this I urge all Star Wars fans to avoid Hasbro product and not purchase any of their Star Wars releases.

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 thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 12 Dec 2015 @ 3:39am

Deal accepted
I'll just not buy it in the first place, that way I don't have to worry about that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 12 Dec 2015 @ 3:48am

Re: Even if they did
Exactly so, and that's why companies continue to employ other companies with laughable accuracy to do their takedown requests, because all that matters is volume, not accuracy.

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 thread ]
StreisandEffect, 12 Dec 2015 @ 7:47am

From the Internet Archive
Star Wars Action News added 2 new photos.
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 thread ]
Tanner Andrews (profile), 12 Dec 2015 @ 1:39pm

Is It a Copyright Violation?
Well, it is a picture of a p[resumably licensed toy. We need look no farther than Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (US 2d Cir., 1997) to think there may be infringement.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2015 @ 4:13pm

Re: Re: a side note that just occured to me

"is that copyright is explicitly allowed by the constitution"

Allowed, yes. Required, no. We could dump copyright altogether and do no harm to anyone's Constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Dec 2015 @ 6:15pm

Re: Deal accepted
I'll just not buy it in the first place, that way I don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

You'll also save a lot of money by never buying anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Dec 2015 @ 10:52am

Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
That case unfortunately doesn't address what should be the real question: If I bought the poster, why can't I do whatever I want with my poster (short of distributing my own copies of it, of course)?

and in this case too, but replacing 'poster' with 'toy.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 13 Dec 2015 @ 9:55pm

Re: Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
Because it's not 'your' poster/toy of course. All you bought were a limited set of rights that allow you to hang it up in a private setting(hanging it where others can see it is considered a public performance, and will require additional payments). If you desire to do anything else with it, it's up to you to contact the relevant parties and work out an agreement with them regarding your desired actions, unless you feel like breaking the law by displaying and/or using it in an unauthorized manner.

/poe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Socrates, 14 Dec 2015 @ 2:44am

The actual DMCA headline

Anonymous Coward: Supposedly the image on the card behind the figurine is what they're claiming as infringement...
Anonymous Coward: Shh! You'll spoil another brainless rant with facts.
“Description of infringement: A screen shot of an unreleased figurine for Star Wars: Force Awakens”.
It seams Hollywood "facts" is like Hollywood "accounting", somewhat disconnected from reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 4:49am

Re: Re:
"Supposedly the image on the card behind the figurine is what they're claiming as infringement..."

You have a source for that or are you just making stuff up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 14 Dec 2015 @ 7:32am

Re:
Can we make this comment First Word, please? Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Dec 2015 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Re: Is It a Copyright Violation?
I must have missed the EULA on the package then. Silly me.

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 thread ]
walmartone, 18 May 2017 @ 3:06am

walmartone
do you wanna know all about Walmart one then check out this website - https://walmartoneloginguide.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radu, 20 Mar 2018 @ 4:05am

Star Wars figurines display in public
I own a collection of 200 pieces consisting in figurines and vehicles from Star Wars Universe. They range from 1980 up to 2016 and are made by various companies. My question is it will be legal to have a small public exibit (only ~ 50 pieces at a time)? The pieces will be NOT for sale and I want to display them at some events and fares.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Radu (profile), 20 Mar 2018 @ 4:25am

Star Wars figurines display in public
I own a collection of 200 pieces consisting in figurines and vehicles from Star Wars Universe. They range from 1980 up to 2016 and are made by various companies. My question is it will be legal to have a small public exibit (only ~ 50 pieces at a time)? The pieces will be NOT for sale and I want to display them at some events and fares.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]