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

from the by-any-other-name dept

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?

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

Web Sheriff Accuses Us Of Breaking Basically Every Possible Law For Pointing Out That It's Abusing DMCA Takedowns

from the but-i-didn't-shoot-the-deputy dept

Remember Web Sheriff? That's the wacky firm that claims it will send DMCA takedowns on your behalf or protect your online reputation by taking down stuff you don't like. The company is somewhat infamous for being a joke and not doing its job particularly well. A couple of weeks ago we wrote about the company abusing the DMCA to try to get Google to delist stories relating to that "celebrity threesome" media injunction in the UK that has been making news for a few months. We highlighted just how ridiculous this was on many accounts, including using a copyright takedown notice on an issue that wasn't about copyright at all. And they even tried to take down the company's own Zendesk request to remove content from Reddit.

Well, suffice it to say that Web Sheriff was none too pleased with our article. Just a day after it went up, we received an email from "JP" at Web Sheriff (though it was "signed" by "John E. Henehan") telling us that we had basically violated all the laws with that post (shouting caps in the original):

UK CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT (CONTEMPT OF COURT NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 §1 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLE 8 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
FEDERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
EU DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
UK DATA PROTECTION ACT (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §646.9 & §653.2 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1708.7 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMMUNICATIONS ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMPUTER MISUSE ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION E-COMMERCE REGULATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME (PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING NOTICE)

– and –

NOTICE OF BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE
NOTICE OF BREACH OF WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE

Yeah, so, none of that is true. The email pretends to be a DMCA notice (among other things), but is not a valid notice in that it fails to actually name what copyright was infringed upon. Here's what it says is the "infringing materials" where you'll note despite quite a lot of SHOUTING TEXT, no actual materials are named.

5. Infringing / Violating Materials : A. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION & ALLIED REPORTING RESTRICTIONS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON, ENGLAND (AND THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH CONTRAVENES & VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE SAID INJUNCTION & REPORTING RESTRICTIONS), B. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, C. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE HUMAN RIGHTS / RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, D. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY OF THE PERTINENT SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, E. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, F. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES, G. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES, H. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, I. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, J. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED & PIRATED COPYRIGHT CONTENT / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE COMPLAINANT'S COPYRIGHT, K. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY, L. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AS APPLICABLE – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW).

The email then goes on to try to explain how we broke all these laws and basically refuses to provide any details at all. I won't go through them all (you can see the full email published below), but just for fun, here's how we've been violating human rights:

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND TREATIES THROUGH FAILURE TO ABIDE BY RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY PURSUANT TO, INTER ALIA, ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & ARTICLE 1 §1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND WAY OF THE ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUBJECTS OF SUCH INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY)

Or, my personal favorite -- money laundering:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE HANDLING AND / OR LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY)

Yes, that's right. Pointing out (accurately!) that Web Sheriff is trying to abuse the DMCA to take down material that is not subject to a copyright claim is -- in the demented views of Web Sheriff -- "money laundering."

There's also "harassment, malicious communications and cyber-stalking" where they can't even bother to name a statute:

HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE POSTING OF MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERWISE THROUGH THE PUBLICATION OF MATERIALS WITH THE INTENTION TO WILFULLY & MALICIOUSLY HARASS)

For added fun, twice in the email, the company notes that the email itself is covered by copyright, and then includes this bit of pure bullshit at the end:

This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressee(s), nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®.

Yeah, that's not how this works, though I wouldn't be surprised to see them send another email claiming otherwise.

For what it's worth, the very next day, we received another email from Web Sheriff that was basically identical, but demanding that we remove six comments on our earlier story about the UK injunction.

I do wonder if this kind of bullshit works for other people, in intimidating them to remove stuff from the internet because of the spaghetti/wall aspect of it all. But, rest assured, we're not concerned because Web Sheriff is full of shit here. We violated none of those laws, and the fact that the company is so focused on trying to censor an article that highlights its own bogus conduct should tell you a lot about what a complete joke this company is.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, censorship, copyright, dmca, injunction, uk
Companies: techdirt, web sheriff

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.

Filed Under: celebrity threesome, copyright, dmca, free speech, injunction, super injunction, uk
Companies: google, web sheriff

Band That Told Fans To Pirate Its Tracks, Now Threatening Sites Via Web Sheriff

from the mixed-messages dept

TorrentFreak has the odd story of the band Franz Ferdinand, out of Scotland, who in the past has encouraged fans to use file sharing software to get access to various songs from the band. However, a bunch of websites were surprised to receive takedown notices from Web Sheriff concerning posts linking to tracks from Franz Ferdinand's latest album. When those sites asked for clarification, rather than actually answering any of the questions raised, Web Sheriff ratcheted up the rhetoric into legal threats. Now, clearly, it's within the legal rights of a band to encourage access to some songs, but not others, but that certainly gives fans (who are trying to promote the band) an incredibly mixed message.

Filed Under: downloading, franz ferdinand, music
Companies: web sheriff