Web Sheriff Abuses DMCA In Weak Attempt To Hide Info Under UK High Court Injunction, Fails Miserably
from the hopefully-clients-are-only-paying-for-successful-takedown-requests dept
Last week, Twitter engaged in some dubious behavior on behalf of a few super-secret someones who'd rather the press didn't discuss their sexual activity. Twitter was apparently firing off "letters of warning" to users who had dared break an injunction issued by the UK Supreme Court forbidding anyone in the media from discussing a threesome involving a prominent British celebrity.
There was very little legal force behind the "warning letters" (despite threats from local authorities) and Twitter users were under no obligation to comply with the company's request. The fact that Twitter even bothered to issue these highlights the utter futility of injunctions/super-injunctions of this variety, which are really just a way for British citizens of a certain level of importance to control local media. It doesn't really matter if the UK's highest court upholds a super-injunction if it has no way of enforcing it beyond its super-limited purview.
That doesn't mean the lawyers who have obtained these injunctions on behalf of their clients aren't trying. While doing a bit of research for an unrelated story, I stumbled across Web Sheriff's utter failure to talk Google into delisting URLs by waving this injunction around in a threatening manner.
The copyright owner is (apparently): APPELLANT (COMPLAINANT’S IDENTITY PROTECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL RULING / ORDER)
Whatever these clients are paying Web Sheriff, it's far too much. Web Sheriff has issued 12 requests targeting 447 URLs. And so far, all 447 URLs are still live.
Contained in these takedown notices is an awe-inspiring wall of text -- something that might impress the average DMCA notice recipient. But Google? Not so much. Here's just a very small portion of it:
Then, of course, there are the URLs targeted for delisting, which -- thanks to Web Sheriff's failed injunction-quoting requests -- are all basically injunction spoilers.
Included in the failed notices are some seriously dubious requests, like Web Sheriff demanding an entire post at the Onion's AV Club be taken down because of a single comment and what appears to be Web Sheriff's own attempted Zendesk request for removal of content from Reddit.
Thanks to Web Sheriff's efforts to force the rest of the world to comply with UK law and its ridiculously unenforceable injunctions, more people are now aware of who's being "protected" by the ruling and where to find more details.
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: celebrity threesome, copyright, dmca, free speech, injunction, super injunction, uk
Companies: google, web sheriff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Web Sherriff & DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Web Sherriff & DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Who's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: TMC on May 24th, 2016 @ 8:54am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Elton John, David Furnish hoping to keep sex tale off Web
Or you know, don't. Spoiler alert: It's chock-full of superfluous amounts of "so what" - SHOCKER!!! Gay superstars have gay extramarital sex with natural lube!
...eyes roll followed closely by snoring. Why they even bothered to suppress it is beyond me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, just let this crap die already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people who give a fuck in the first place need lives. The "news" publications who publish the trash need to do their fucking jobs and focus on shit that actually matters. And Elton John and his husband need to be realistic about what their continued footstomping is doing - keeping this idiotic shit in the "news."
Seriously. Fuck everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I really care about David Furnish and his threesome.
My real question is about the validity of the claimed copyright in the legal notice. It's not going to qualify as a strictly functional legal document. Presumably it qualifies as a work of fiction. Or performance art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That copyright notice? The notice that implies that you shouldn't publish their takedown notice because they've copyrighted it?
Or are you talking about the vague handwaving they do, saying "it violates some laws somewhere, about something" including copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/168535/APPELLANT-COMPLAI NANT%E2%80%99S-IDENTITY-PROTECTED-BY-COURT-OF-APPEAL-R/
It looks like two links were removed and those actually are not listed in the report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We got a couple of these. I personally felt we shouldn't have even entertained the possibility of taking anything down, but our policies are dumb in several places.
However, it was interesting to see WebSheriff squirm when we replied and told them we weren't taking anything down unless they could identify what we were supposed to remove and provide a copy of the court order requiring its removal.
It went back and forth for a while with WebSheriff basically saying repeatedly, "There's stuff on that link that a court order says to remove - and we can't give you the order or tell you what to remove because the order won't let us."
From the news coverage I knew what was going on... but really, how far do they expect to get with, "We have a court order, we swear!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh oh I know!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Right. We don't really care about celebrity gossip. We do care about censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait - no, not *that* Whatever!
If you care about censorship, why not name and shame those who are pushing and funding the censorship, namely Elton & company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not entirely true :)
The names are not in the article text, but they can be seen in the last image (the one with a bunch of links). Some of the data (names) has leaked into the metadata (URLs) ;]
[ 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 ]
Web Sheriff notices
This client is location in the US.
How does this apply to them?
Cc: websheriff@websheriff.com
STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
ATTENTION ADDRESSEES ONLY
COPYRIGHT COMMUNICATION
& WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Save as to Costs)
Dear Team,
Further to our relevant notification and subsequent clarification re’ the above – both of which are set-out in the thread below for your ease of reference – we would again confirm and clarify as follows :-
1. We trust that we have made our client’s / principal’s legal position perfectly clear – in short, our client / principal – and, of course, our client’s / principal’s family – is fully and reasonably entitled to basic levels of personal privacy … .. as is anyone / any individual or family.
2. The above, fundamental principal is, of course, also backed-up in this instance by both the Judgment and the Injunction (as defined in our previous correspondence), plus Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects all citizens of the European Union / treaty signatory countries from gross invasions of their private lives (again such as in this instance).
3. Again irrespective of the relevant laws in the United States or elsewhere, if the published content complained of is accessible in the United Kingdom – and which it clearly is in this case – then this again constitutes a clear and unambiguous violation of the Injunction and amounts to a contempt-of-court.
4. We would add that, in certain circles, much ‘noise’ is being made about this matter as being a battle for freedom-of-speech – whereas, in actual fact, it is nothing of the sort … .. this is not a matter of national security or high political intrigue and where there is a corresponding ‘right’ to know … .. instead, it is simply a matter where the right-to-privacy prevails – as, of course, is recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights, ergo all countries of the European Union and for the benefit of their citizens.
5. Once again, we would further highlight the fact that, in its judgment of 19th May 2016 (which can be accessed via the link below), the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom upheld the Injunction and, as such, its terms / restrictions very much remain in place / effect : -
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0080-judgment.pdf
In all of the circumstances, therefore, we would reiterate our reasonable request that you now either remove the invasive and infringing content in question, or otherwise geo-block such content from all European Union countries, failing which you shall leave our client / principal – and our client’s / principal’s family – with no reasonable alternative other than to implement suitable, direct, enforcement action against you. Naturally, we trust that this shall not prove to be necessary.
We again hope / trust that the above clarifies the position for you – and many thanks, in advance, for respecting the rights of all concerned..
As you shall again fully appreciate, this e-mail – containing, as it does, a position that is potentially prejudicial to the full extent of our client’s / principal’s open, formal position and claims (and those of our client’s / principal’s family) for, inter alia, disclosure, injunctive relief, damages and costs – is written on a without prejudice basis (save as to legal costs) and, as such, all of our said client’s / principal’s accumulated, worldwide rights and civil, regulatory, consumer protection, child protection and criminal remedies (and, again, those of our client’s / principal’s family) remain reserved in full.
Regards,
WEB SHERIFF®
WEB SHERIFF® – Creative Protection™
Incorporating Entertainment Law Associates™
London Office : Argentum, Queen Caroline Street, London W6 9DX
Los Angeles Office : 2500 Broadway, Santa Monica, California CA 90404
New York Office : Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10118
Tel : +44(0)208-323 8013 (UK) / +1-424-238 4551 (LA) / +1-212-601 2723 (NY)
Fax : +44(0)208-323 8080 (UK) / +1-434-238 4301 (LA) / +1-212-601 2601 (NY)
E-Mail : websheriff@websheriff.com
Web Sheriff Ltd Co. No. 4093131 Reg'd in England & Wales.
Reg'd Office : Aurum, High Street, Pewsey, Wilts SN9 5AF
Disclaimer :
This e-mail is the copyright of Web Sheriff®.
The contents of this e-mail are strictly private and confidential, are for the
attention of the addressee(s) only and may also qualify for legal privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Web Sheriff notices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]