Bernie Sanders' Campaign DMCAs Wikimedia For Hosting His Logos
from the wrong-on-so-many-levels dept
What is it with political campaigns issuing totally bogus takedown notices? It happens all too frequently, especially with presidential campaigns. But the latest example may be the stupidest one we've seen to date. The folks at the Lumen Database (formerly Chilling Effects) alert us to the ridiculous news that Bernie Sanders' campain issued a bogus DMCA notice to the Wikimedia Foundation, because Wikimedia Commons has hosted some Sanders' logos.You can read the full takedown letter here, sent by a redacted lawyer at Garvey Schubert Barer, a firm that claims to have expertise in intellectual property law. If that's true, they sure don't show it in this letter. First of all, they're sending a DMCA notice, which only applies to copyright, but posting campaign logos is hardly copyright infringement. When you're talking about logos, at best you're talking trademark, but that's not an issue here either. Whether it's trademark or copyright, Wikimedia hosting campaign logos is clearly fair use. If they're really arguing copyright, then it's an easy fair use call. If it's trademark, there's no "use in commerce" on the Wikimedia side, and no likelihood of confusion. Either one is simply stupid to argue.
Separately, these are campaign logos which are advertising for the campaign. What kind of clueless lawyer thinks the right move is to demand such things get taken down?
And, then of course, there's the inevitable backlash over this. Presidential campaigns trying to censor people -- or worse, a site like Wikipedia -- is always going to backfire. It makes the campaign look thin-skinned, foolish and short-sighted.
I'm guessing that if this makes enough news, the Sanders campaign will back down on this, and say it was an overzealous lawyer or some other such thing, but there's no reason such takedowns should ever be sent in the first place.
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: bernie sanders, copyright, dmca, takedown, trademark, wikipedia
Companies: wikimedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If only the DMCA had teeth for both sides & lawyers could be fined for sending idiotic letters then perhaps things would improve. There isn't anything remotely questionable about this being a bogus computer generated match not reviewed by humans.
Guess it is time to start a list of stupid lawfirms & publicize they don't know the law. Sad that the only way to fight back against this is to either take it, wait to be sued, & pray the Judge makes them cover your costs or to hope publicity wakes up a senior partner to remind the staff that actually knowing the law is a requirement for the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intellectual property
“ The capitalist system affects to have great regard and reward for intellect, and the capitalists give themselves full credit for having superior brains. . . . ”
——Eugene V. Debs, Canton, Ohion, June 16, 1918
[ link to this | view in thread ]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Fair_use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
50 Cent...
http://www.businessinsider.com/curtis-jackson-aka-50-cent-sues-garvey-schubert-barer-2015-10
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thats why no one respects it. Oh and for completeness... not just what you wanted to cherry pick:
"Fair use" allowed on some Wikimedia projects
You may, however, submit such images to your local wiki, if it allows fair use. Note that files uploaded to a local wiki can be used only locally at that wiki.
Some, but by no means all, local WMF wikis allow the uploading of certain non-free material under very limited conditions, provided they have adopted what the WMF calls an Exemption Doctrine Policy. You can check whether your local wiki has adopted such a policy here.
The Dutch Wikipedia, for example, does not allow the uploading of non-free content. The English Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow fair use materials subject to its strict non-free content policy, which requires the uploader to provide a detailed fair use rationale. The restrictions on Fair Use placed on editors by Wikimedia policies and guidelines, are stricter than those imposed by the laws of the United States.
If your local wiki does not allow the uploading of fair use material (and some, such as Spanish Wikipedia do not allow local uploading at all, making use only of media on Commons), then on that wiki there is no way of accessing any non-free or fair use file except through an external link (as hotlinking is disabled on Wikimedia wikis). If you are unable to persuade your local wiki community to adopt an Exemption Doctrine Policy then there is no option but to try to find replacement files that are free.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
stupid should hurt
There is nothing in the DMCA that makes them hurt when they abuse it.
If the firm was dumb enough to take this to court a Judge MIGHT (because Judges are odd) sanction them for filing a frivolous case.
Not only should the firm get spanked by the press & public but the client needs a spanking as well. If they want to attract clients who want to do frivolous things, one needs to make it hurt enough that they stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Everybody else is extremely scary/crazy/evil if you look at any amount of footage of them. American political season is great in that it makes African politics seem much more bearable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why would you be surprised that Sanders would use any weapons he has to shut up some horrid corporation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It's also exactly why it's idiotic to believe that Google et al. can just come up with a system that automatically protects copyright. If the status of a file can change depending on who's using it, where it's used, the context of the use and offline agreements between parties, it's impossible for an algorithm to determine copyright status correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Campaign promises
http://3ifbylies.com/2016/01/11/whats-in-this-water-fountain-coke-or-lies/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No you can Bar Grieve them. Take this statement You do not have to be a client to file a grievance. Anyone can report allegations of professional misconduct or problems with a lawyer.
Thin the herd - bar grieve a lawyer today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about a socialist lawyer?
I guess everything should be free except what is Bernie's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "What kind of clueless lawyer"
What kind of clueless journalist doesn't understand that not all content that associates itself with a brand is complimentary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On DMCA site
Note: although the DMCA is part of US Copyright law, a DMCA Takedown does not require the content to be copyrighted in order to process the takedown OR for the request to have the content taken down acted upon by the website owner or ISP.
In other words,the fact the content is yours, or in the case of a photo or video the subject is you, can be sufficient enough to request a takedown.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On DMCA site
If that isn't a clear sign that the system is broken, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Citizens United IS absolutely awful, in basically every way. Corporations are not people, and should not have a "voice", vote, or any other rights of a citizen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
In your opinion, that decision is just wrong, wrong, WRONG.
In your opinion, a corporation has no rights that society is bound to respect.
Right?
So what's the problem with forcing Wikimedia corporation to shut up?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I object to is the corporations ability to buy ANY representatives vote. Corporations cannot vote and therefore should have limits in how they might impact the voting process. They should have no right to buy laws.
Maybe the line should be 'money is not speech', which could be enacted by the government paying for all elections and ensuring equal distribution of advertising ability (the airwaves are ours, no need to pay to use them) and limiting or forbidding political advertising outside of that distribution. There are ways to do this if one looks for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Transcript of Oral Argument, March 9, 2009 You're saying that if that 500-page book that Chief Justice Roberts asked about—if that book is not financed under your system, then the government could ban it? What if someone else, not affiliated with any campaign, wrote the book? It could be banned? Burned?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The year is '09, not the day of the month. But it was indeed March.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The corporations don't have a vote. The people that work there to, but the corporations do not. Therefore the corporations are not represented by members of any legislature.
So, tell us, just why should they have a voice in what our representative do or do not do? Free speech?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes or no?
I myself will say that people do have the fundamental right to organize and work together. In fact, I will tell you that idea is foundational to collective self-government.
When you attack the people's right to organize for political purposes—you are demanding a tyrannical king to go around shutting people up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How would you go about it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dude wants to ride Coat Tails...
I was never going to work. The logos are beyond public use, they're Sanders logos, and I'm of the feeling that he doesn't find that kind of t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ behavior the least bit attractive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Be of undoubted faith that the moral arc of the universe bends through a maze of short and twisty passages, all alike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I reject your premise that all passages are alike and/or that faith is necessary. I prefer fact based conclusions (even when facts can change with new information) and leave faith to those who cannot square the universe in any other way. Things can change, but that change is much more difficult when hobbled by interpretations of rules intended to make change easy, actually make change harder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
All indications are... They've hired a legal firm to do all the legal stuff. They do it. The idea that the legal firm is micromanaged to the level of every action, it's way out there.
You manage the shop. You manage legal stuff. You manage...
Could easily have been a person at the 'shop', calling the legal team and saying 'they're using our button designs'. Even you can't really imply it's a decison 'the sanders campaign' made knowingly and purposefully... As you even admit, it would make no logical sense for the 'campaign'to make an idiotic decision like that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't blame them
Specifically Wikipedia is notorious for maintaining bad information if they don't like the accurate data. Families and Estates complain all the time about going in to correct information, with data and sources, only to have Wikipedia monitors or admin or whatever, go in and replace it with their own, inaccurate info. It happens all the time. So not only do I think it's a good move, I hope it's a trend.
I have not seen the page, and I have no idea whether any of it is accurate or not, it might be good info for all I know, but I have heard of, and have been on the bad end of Wikipedia using their site to smear people, or seemingly purposely mislead people.
Most people tend to believe things they see on their TV or in a source they think is going to be accurate. So just to be on the safe side, making sure you are not associated with bad info is a good idea. I applaud this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A DMCA notice requires the signer to swear under penalty of perjury that the allegedly offending material is breaching some copyright.
I find it hard to believe that an intellectual property lawyer could argue ignorance of the statutes such that:
1) they do not know the difference between copyright and trademark;
2) that they do not know that DMCA notices apply to copyrights only (and hence not trademarks);
3) that the allegedly infringing material is a copyright and not a trademark.
I think committing perjury is exactly the sort of thing that the Bar Grieve process was put in place for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe this site itself has covered some instances where the courts have declared that fair use must be considered in the DMCA process.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that part has a perjury penalty.
Charlie, Bob's lawyer, sends a letter to YouTube's designated agent (registered with the Copyright Office) including:
contact information
the name of the song that was copied
the address of the copied song
a statement that he has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
a statement that the information in the notification is accurate
a statement that, under penalty of perjury, Charlie is authorized to act for the copyright holder
his signature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Take_d own_and_put_back_provisions
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dumb dumb dumb.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dumb dumb dumb.
That is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But let me go back to start even earlier, in 1620, with the somewhat apocryphal landing at Plymouth Rock: The Mayflower Compact asserted here in North America our common right to self-charter a political body.
By 1765, when the First Congress of the American Colonies (the “Stamp Act Congress”) assembled in New York, back in London, the Lords of Trade (“Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations”) were alarmed, writing:
But long years before our Stamp Act Congress organized itself to draft its Declaration of Rights and Grievances, it had been already been declared by the 1689 English Bill of Rights: Passing down through the centuries, to our modern republic, today, where our theory of goverment vests ultimate sovereignty in the people themselves, it must be understood that our right of assembly is more than mere right of disorganized rabble: A lawless mob, disregarding all rule, is indeed a dangerous beast. The right to assemble is the right to peaceful and necessarily organized assembly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On a deeper note, if we are to consider the passage of Mayflower across the Atlantic—and the political event that transpired while laying off shore in Provincetown Harbor, then too we must also consider the arrival of White Lion to the shores of Virginia at Jamestown the year before. The middle passage indeed holds great suffering.
On Dr King's holiday, last Monday, I found occasion to re-read his Letter From A Birmingham Jail.
Given the nature of our communications here, I am unsure whether any of you are still reading, or whether you all have moved on to the latest topics and trendiest amusements. It seems to me that if any of you are still monitoring this thread, then we may now be in something of the nature of a rather silent meeting. If so, then much blame, of course, must be laid upon the tardiness of my responses. I assure you though, that my delay is not due to neglect, but flows from the care and contemplation with which I am treating this whole matter.
It remains my firm desire to pursuade here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]