Axl Rose DMCAs Unflattering Photo For Which He Doesn't Hold The Copyright

from the by-any-other-name dept

Tue, Jun 7th 2016 11:39am — Timothy Geigner

Show of hands: who remembers Axl Rose? Last we here at Techdirt checked in on him, Rose was busy suing video games and hassling music bloggers over album leaks. The younger among you may chiefly be familiar with his Axl-ness via a somewhat popular string of internet memes centered on some rather unflattering pictures of the musician taken from a concert in 2010.

There are, like, tons of these. And, as you can surely understand, Rose isn't pleased that these memes are going around. Hell, we all have photos taken of us that we probably don't find flattering, and Father Time ends up foisting pounds and wrinkles on all of us that we'd rather not have. What most of us don't do, however, is cook up a copyright claim on a photograph we didn't take and try to get Google to remove every use of the picture from the internet. Rose has done that. And you'll never guess who he employed to help him do so!

“Copyright image of Axl Rose. Please be advised that no permission has been granted to publish the copyright image so we cannot direct you to an authorized example of it,” the notices sent by Web Sheriff on behalf of the singer read.

Hi there, Web Sheriff! In between money-laundering, abusing human rights, and generally breaking roughly all the laws over here at Techdirt, we had just enough time to notice you have a strange view on how copyright law works! This comes as only a mild shock to us, given how confused you folks appear to be on all the other laws you routinely talk about, but let's give this a go, shall we?

The DMCA notices all revolve around photos taken in 2010 at a concert. Those photos were taken by Boris Minkevich and published by the Winnipeg Free Press.

TorrentFreak tracked down the photographer who captured this moment to see if he was aware of these takedown efforts. We eventually found Boris Minkevich at the Winnipeg Free Press where his fine work is published in all its glory. During our initial discussions a few things became clear. Firstly, Minkevich definitely took the photo. Second, Minkevich had no idea that Rose was trying to “cleanse the web” of his photo. Perhaps the first reaction here is that Rose has no right to take down Minkevich’s photo. Since Minkevich was the one who took it, he must own the copyright, right? Web Sheriff doesn’t seem to think so.

“We can gladly confirm that all official / accredited photographers at [Axl Rose] shows sign-off on ‘Photography Permission’ contracts / ‘Photographic Release’ agreements which A. specify and limit the manner in which the photos can be exploited and B. transfer copyright ownership in such photos to AR’s relevant service company,” the company told TF in a statement.

Now, TorrentFreak reached out to Minkevich, who had no idea this takedown blitz was underway. He confirmed that some concerts do indeed make photographers sign these types of agreements, but couldn't recall if this concert included one or not. Web Sheriff, who certainly should be able to produce the agreement, having taken the lead on the copyright claims, isn't doing so. When asked, Web Sheriff's response was instead to insist that even if the photographer had not signed an agreement -- leading me to believe he probably didn't --, that Rose would still be able to claim ownership over the photo.

“[If a photographer] was there and taking shots without permission or authority, then other considerations / factors would come-into-play as to what such individuals can and cannot do in terms of attempting to commercially exploit the resultant images of someone else’s show,” TF was informed.

I would politely ask Web Sheriff what the sweet child of mine it is talking about here. Unless the photographer transferred copyright of the photo over to Axl Rose, the photographer retains copyright ownership over it. One would think that if any transfer had actually taken place, Web Sheriff would simply produce it, but it hasn't. If no transfer ever occurred, Web Sheriff is simply wrong in claiming copyright over the image. Indeed, Minkevich even mentioned to TorrentFreak that the photos are infringing, but that they are infringing on his and/or the Winnipeg Free Press' copyrights. And even that may not be true, given the room that Fair Use carves for using copyright images.

And the best part of this is that Axl Rose employed Web Sheriff to do all of this to keep the unflattering images out of the public sphere. How is that working out for him?

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: axl rose, boris minkevich, copyright, fair use, memes, streisand effect, takedowns
Companies: web sheriff

51 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 11:54am

Maybe I am weird,but seeing that photo makes me want to listen to his music not drive me away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blaine (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:00pm

I miss Chris Farley :'(
Wow, if it wasn't for Web Sherrif confirming the picture is actually Axl Rose, I would have thought it was Chris Farley doing an Axl Rose impersonation.

Thank you Web Sherrif for verifying the authenticity of the picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zarvus (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:04pm

This kind of makes me want to listen to the song AND eat a pie.

He should do a cross-promotional campaign with Marie Callander's and commercialize this. You know, cause then he'd get free pies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:08pm

So?
It seems quite plausible to me that we are talking about unauthorized photographs that were not publishable due to violating venue rules and/or personality rights.

Rose being able to have them taken down is not really all that much out of line. And he's using the simplest and easiest available tool with least repercussions for that, a DMCA.

That's pretty much a no-brainer. It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

On the overall scale of seriousness this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations.

In other words, this is how the laws are intended to be applied according to their most important corporate sponsors.

It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darth Catbus, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:21pm

We all eventually become...
...our parents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:29pm

Re: We all eventually become...
No excuse for swallowing them whole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mcinsand, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:32pm

Jack Handy's quote on Pie Heaven
“When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it's not, mmmmmmmm, boy.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:33pm

Web Sheriff might become the perfect test case
What better test case than Web Sheriff to get some kind of restraint on abusive DMCA takedowns. Could it possibly even lead to actual legislation to fix it?

Maybe Web Sheriff needs to go up against Google or Facebook in a real court battle where the DMCA takedown has no actual copyright issue AT ALL. Where no copyright can be produced. Where no specific copyright can be shown to actually be infringed. Extra credit: where Web Sheriff is not the copyright holder's authorized agent (assuming that an actual copyright were in play here).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:35pm

Re:
Maybe I'm weird, but I just had lunch and that picture is imperiling my ability to hang on to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mcinsand, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:36pm

successful effort to disappear a photo?
I've seen multiple articles on Rose's effort to make this photo go away. Mr. Rose, you have just entered... the Streisand Zone!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
justok (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:39pm

I
I shot the web sherif, but I didn't shoot the DCMA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Other Guy (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:45pm

If a monkey takes a photo of Axl Rose, who owns the copyright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 12:59pm

And the New Reigning Champion For...
Streisand Effect of 2016 [to date] is Axl Rose!

Oh, and as for Web Sheriff...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160606/02071834632/web-sheriff-accuses-us-breaking-bas ically-every-possible-law-pointing-out-that-abusing-dmca-takedowns.shtml#c150

...we're gonna need a bigger bucket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:02pm

Oh I know this guy, he's from Guilty Gear, one of my mains.

Whoah, where did you goooo, oh Axl?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oblate (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:11pm

Mashup?
That picture makes me hope someone produces a mashup of Axl songs and Don McLean's song American Pie.

Sorry Axl, no gravy on this one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:26pm

Re: I miss Chris Farley :'(
At first I thought it was some meme about heavy girls and pies that I did not understand.

But your right, its just Axle Rose who apparently ate too many pies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:28pm

Thanks Web Sheriff!
Thanks Web Sheriff! I would have never seen this hilarious meme had it not been for your futile efforts to censor the Internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 1:38pm

More like XL Rose
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:27pm

Please Please for the love of god correct your spelling.

>>> Sheriff
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:35pm

Re: So?
It seems quite plausible to me that we are talking about unauthorized photographs that were not publishable due to violating venue rules and/or personality rights.

1. No.
2. You don't get to claim copyright if you don't have the copyright. End of story.
3. Even if they had violated the venue's rules, the ONLY remedy is that the venue could then refuse future service, not get the posts removed.
4. If there was a publicity rights claim, that still doesn't make it okay to lie about the copyright.

Rose being able to have them taken down is not really all that much out of line.

Please look up prior restraint. Thanks.

And he's using the simplest and easiest available tool with least repercussions for that, a DMCA.

You mean misusing or abusing a tool for censorship without having a legitimatet claim. That's not okay.

That's pretty much a no-brainer

Abusing the law for censorship is a "no brainer"?

It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

So you admit that there's no real punishment for abusing the DMCA to censor content you have no right to censor?

In other words, this is how the laws are intended to be applied according to their most important corporate sponsors.

Huh?

It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.

I disagree and I run this place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:58pm

Re: Re:
I had the same reaction and my children always say I'm weird.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 2:58pm

Re:
PETA (at least, I'm sure they'd think so.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ryuugami, 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:01pm

Re: Re: So?
Mike, you might want to check your sarcasm detector, I think you're overreacting to this one. It seems to me that the original post is a cynical, sarcastic assessment of the situation as it is, not something the poster agrees with.

At least, that's the impression I got from overall tone, especially the parts about laws working as intended by their corporate sponsors and "this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations".

He's saying it's perjury, but the courts are not enforcing it, which is exactly the problem with DMCA. I believe you've pointed it out yourself a few times :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Atkray (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:04pm

Re: So?
There are people who think the easiest tool for settling a disagreement is a knife or a revolver.

Just because something is easy doesn't mean it is acceptable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beltorak (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:27pm

Re: Re: So?
Wait, you're replying to this guy, does that mean he's serious? I thought it was satire. Seriously. I LOLed almost all the way through it. I mean,

> On the overall scale of seriousness this kind of perjury registers rather low, almost as low as perjury before Congress by government officials while covering up systematic constitutional violations.

Well, maybe that part wasn't facetious. That one seems dead on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 3:44pm

Did you ever imagine you'd be missing the relevant discussions on who owns a monkey selfie? I sure didn't!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 4:14pm

Beyoncé’s lawyers tried to do the same thing with unflattering photos of her.

I feel confident in saying the same results they achieved—none whatsoever—will be the endgame of this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TMC, 7 Jun 2016 @ 4:28pm

Just imagine how many dogs the Web Sheriff employees could buy with Axel Rose money.

Remember that guy that had heard somewhere that Web Sheriff employees can only achieve sexual release upon bashing a dog's head in? Yeah, I still don't believe that, and neither should you.

But if it was true, the bashed corpses of many a dog would be heaped on either side of Web Sheriff HQ. What a nasty, filthy, despicable rumor! Don't believe it! Sure, Web Sheriff is equally vile, but that doesn't mean we should believe they'd murder dogs in order to orgasm. I beseech the Internet to squelch this vicious, unfounded rumor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 5:50pm

Re: So?
It involves misuse of a tool only to be used for copyright violations, but it's easy to use under any circumstance you want to without serious danger of repercussions for the necessary perjury.

And you don't see the persistent expectation of copyright law being consistently used as a "fuck you judge, bend your ass over" card as a problem?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechDescartes (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 7:28pm

Watch Out for the Grammar Police
Hi there, Web Sheriff! In between money-laundering, abusing human rights, and generally breaking roughly all the laws over here at Techdirt, we had just enough time to notice you have a strange view on how copyright law works!
This is the first time I've seen a misplaced comma result in an admission of criminal activity. I believe Tim should have put the comma before "over here at TechDirt", not after.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 8:58pm

Poor Axl spent money to try and make sure less attention would be paid to the memes, and Web Sheriff has catapulted them to a huge topic of discussion....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechDescartes (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 8:58pm

Re: Watch Out for the Grammar Police
Ignore my comma-ent. Apparently one is required to read both the article and the linked TechDirt articles.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 9:17pm

Dear Axl:
Own it.

Publish your own memes with those pictures.

Express how the stingy ones burn.

Show that you can roll with criticism.

That is the coolest of the cool. That is engaging the public.

DMCA takedowns are a cover-up. And they stink like a cover-up. And they make you look like the kind of guy who covers things up.

Don't be that guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2016 @ 9:25pm

Re:
If a monkey takes a photo of Axl Rose...

There are some things you just can't make a monkey do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 7 Jun 2016 @ 10:04pm

Re: So?
It's a dog-bites-man story, not really newsworthy. You can have hundreds of them each day.

Thanks for your permission. It's really appreciated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 7 Jun 2016 @ 11:08pm

Re: Re: Re: So?
Wait, you're replying to this guy, does that mean he's serious? I thought it was satire. Seriously.

If it's any consolation to you, I cannot tell the difference either when reading about the U.S. political and judicial system.

Tom Lehrer stated about 50 years ago "Political satire became redundant when Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize." and things have been going downhill ever since.

I still don't see the point in describing things how we wish they should be rather than how they are. If you want things to change, the first step is to stop lying about them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 12:11am

Re:
Maybe I'm weird, but an unflattering photo of a celebrity taken years ago has no effect on my current desire to listen to any of his music one way or the other. Same would apply if photos taken on his current AC/DC tour showed him to be a fine physical specimen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 12:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Some people say this stuff to be provocative or trolls others. Some actually mean it. Unless it's made obvious, you can't distinguish the satire online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 1:20am

Re: Jack Handy's quote on Pie Heaven
Just be sure to say no to cake heaven. That one is definitely a lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 8 Jun 2016 @ 2:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So?
Unless it's made obvious, you can't distinguish the satire online.

And whose fault is that?

I feel that it is the job of the U.S. government and administration to unambiguously establish the difference between being the subject of a joke and being a joke.

They are getting paid a hell of a lot more for that than I am.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 6:45am

New publicity model Streisand Agency.
The photographer should send a thank you note to AXL Rose for paying Web Sheriff to do all this publicity for him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:17am

Re:
I feel confident in saying the same results they achieved—none whatsoever—will be the endgame of this case.

Not quite. In both cases the only reason I ever saw the photos was because of the takedown attempts, so they accomplished that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:20am

Re: Watch Out for the Grammar Police
It was a pretty confusing sentence. I didn't figure out until later that he meant Web Sheriff had accused TD of those things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:34am

As Nasty Canasta would say...
That's not an old photo. That accurately reflects his condition today. It was probably taken during his recent "Guns and Roses" tour.

THAT is the man that ate Axl Rose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wereisjessicahyde (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 8:20am

Shush....
Please don't tell Axl about the tribute band I've put together - "Buns and Doughnuts" I don't want to get into trouble with the Web Sheriff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jun 2016 @ 10:29am

Let me get this straight...
An aging rock star who is at least as famous for being a total dick as for his music is acting like a total dick when people tease him for being an aging rock star?

Sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remember Me?, 8 Jun 2016 @ 11:00am

Re: Re: So?
You disagreed with me so much on the GoldiBlox case (FAIR USE FAIR USE NEENER NEENER NEENER) and were shown so total-fucking-ly wrong that your judgment is suspect prima face. You obviously haven't changed. Still as opinionated - and arrogant - as ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David, 8 Jun 2016 @ 11:25am

Re: Re: So?
And you don't see the persistent expectation of copyright law being consistently used as a "fuck you judge, bend your ass over" card as a problem?

As long as the judges are bending over in a manner making Chinese contortionists pale with envy, who am I to criticize?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 2:59pm

Re: Re: Re: So?
No, nobody remembers you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 7:01pm

Re: Jack Handy's quote on Pie Heaven
Pie in the sky?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jun 2016 @ 9:50pm

Re: Re: Re: So?
When the term "copyright" is being used as an "Open sesame" password for plaintiffs to whatever the hell they want with the law... yeah, it's a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]