Consider Fair Use Before Sending DMCA Takedown Notice
This post is based on a recent federal appellate case, Lenz v. Universal Music. That case held that one must consider fair use as a possible defense for an online service provider before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
DMCA Background
I provided an overview of the DMCA in Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Quoting a portion of that post: (more…)
DMCA Takedown: How Soon is “Expeditiously”?
A client’s former employee / co-founder departed to form a competing business. Violating the client’s copyrights, he posted dozens of the client’s images on his website and blog. I sent takedown notices to the website’s and the blog’s service providers (see “Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]”). I wondered how expeditiously the service providers would respond.
17 USC Section 512(c)(1)(C) provides a “safe harbor” incentive for service providers to remove, or disable access to, infringing works expeditiously. Unfortunately, “expeditiously” is not defined (see “Defining Expeditious: Uncharted Territory of the DMCA Safe Harbor Provision“).
If You Provide a DMCA Takedown Notice, Provide It Properly
In Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) I described the six elements that a copyright owner must include in a DMCA takedown notice sent to a service provider that is hosting infringing content. Perfect 10 v. Google shows that a DMCA takedown notice will not be effective if it lacks the required information.
Perfect 10, which creates and sells photos of nude models, brought suit against Google, alleging, among other things, copyright infringement based on caching and hosting of photos.
What is a DMCA Counter Notification?
Screen shot from YouTube counter notification tutorial
In Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), I discussed DMCA provisions pertaining to takedown notices. This post discusses how an online service provider should respond to a takedown notice and the role of the counter notification.
17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(1)(C) states that for a provider to be protected by the DMCA, it must respond to a valid takedown notice by “respond[ing] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing….” (more…)
Fraudulent Takedown Notice Leads to $25,000 Judgment
Earlier this month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the author of a fraudulent takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to pay more than $25,000.
U.K. Student Journalist Oliver Hotham has a blog on WordPress.com, which is operated by San Francisco-based Automattic Inc. (more…)
Ralph Lauren’s Abuse of DMCA Backfires
This Ralph Lauren ad 
has been making the rounds of the Internet and television, recently. The reason: Photo retouching to the point of absurdity, producing a supermodel (Filippa Hamilton) who looks more like a Bratz doll than a human being.
I am not raising this issue to jump into the debate about skinny models and self-esteem of girls and women, which is being addressed at length elsewhere. (Disclosure: I have a wife and two daughters.) I am more interested in a huge legal and business mistake that Ralph Lauren made.
As soon as criticisms appeared online, Ralph Lauren lawyers issued takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (See Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.)
Terms of Use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
Recently, several clients with existing websites asked me to review their online Terms of Use (“TOU”). While the TOU were respectable, there were areas where each could be improved. Interestingly, the area where all of the clients had made mistakes was with regard to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”). A summary of the DMCA is available from the U.S. Copyright Office. (more…)
Autodesk Wins: Software License Restrictions Trump “First Sale” Doctrine
Update: On September 10, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in Vernor v. Autodesk) reversed the District Count decision discussed below. Supporting software licensors’ reasonable business expectations, the Court held “that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions.” [Emphasis added.] Accordingly, Vernor, as a licensee, was not protected by the first sale doctrine when he sold copies of Autodesk’s software.
* * *
In Vernor v. Autodesk, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington told Autodesk that despite the restrictions in its license agreement, Autodesk could not preclude its customer from selling AutoCAD software to a third party.
