FA+
Shop
DMCA Overreach
9 years ago
General
First and foremost, a disclaimer of sorts: due to law, I am obligated to take action on content when reported under the DMCA. I may not always agree with it, but by law we have to process the submissions and take action. There are many parts of being an admin I'm not always happy with, but most of the rules and polices the site has is to protect the overall greater whole of the community.
That said: I am against aggressive overreach and abuse of the DMCA system. And i have no problem calling out those who abuse the legal system for their own personal gain, and will do so now:
Fur Affinity was recently contacted by Surelock, a group who represents the Paddington Company and Studio Canal. They had requested Fur Affinity remove /all/ content featuring the character from the site. Read: ALL CONTENT. Not just adult art, but *ALL* content of Paddington across the board. As in: Paddington is not a character who can be drawn in fan art, can not be drawn out of respect, can must be untouched. Period. End of story.
I understand companies often have a precarious stance when it comes to protecting their intellectual property. Fanart, for many, can be both a blessing and curse. Some companies have outright learned to embrace the fandoms, most notably Hasbro and the Bronies.
But Surelock, in my view, vastly overstepped the limits of what is acceptable.
I told them send a DMCA which contained links to the images, as per compliance with the law.
As part of the DMCA, the company requested removal of submissions which used the word "Paddington" but otherwise had no relationship to the character (one such image was a babyfur wearing a diaper, and "paddington" was wordplay on the "padding" of diaper, no relation to the character or the IP). They demanded removal of submissions of people's characters dressed up in Paddington-style clothes (art of "cosplay", wherein the clothing worn wasn't even a 1:1 match for what Paddington wore). In others, Surelock/Studio Canal demanded we remove people's content of people who were, quite literally, simply standing in front of the movie poster who were in line to see the film. Photos of people in public spaces with "Paddington" posters in the background.
Apparently, Surelock/Studio Canal does not even want Furries to be seen in any relationship to this film.
To me, that's unacceptable. Purely unacceptable.
I get that a company would want to remove the pornographic element from a character such as Paddington from the Internet. I get that. But to outright go "Nope, you can't even show a picture of you standing in line at the movies where a Paddington poster is seen in the background" is, well, it's fucking ridiculous.
As you might imagine, I doubt Surelock and Studio Canal are going after Twitter and Imgur, demanding they remove photos of people standing in front of movie posters, people who enjoyed the movie or perhaps have a Paddington stuffed bear they took a photo of. Again, I get them wanting to distance themselves from porn, but Surelock and Studio Canal took the route of "Scorched Earth".
While I doubt anyone from the studios will read my words: I respect you decision to want to distance yourselves from the pornographic elements, but to outright blanket bomb regular images, fans and artists who are drawing proper fanart of a character they do love is tasteless a movie as the work you claim to despise.
PS: Yes, I've already had threats that if I don't comply and bend over backwards for them they're going to take this to the top of IMVU and try to get me fired. To that I say: I do not care. I will comply with the law because I am legally obligated to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call overreach and outright blanket censorship. Really? Is a photo of a furry standing in line at a movie theater, standing in front of Paddington movie poster, really hurting you as a company?
PSS: You should check out all the pics of us and Zootopia. We're freakin' fabulous.
That said: I am against aggressive overreach and abuse of the DMCA system. And i have no problem calling out those who abuse the legal system for their own personal gain, and will do so now:
Fur Affinity was recently contacted by Surelock, a group who represents the Paddington Company and Studio Canal. They had requested Fur Affinity remove /all/ content featuring the character from the site. Read: ALL CONTENT. Not just adult art, but *ALL* content of Paddington across the board. As in: Paddington is not a character who can be drawn in fan art, can not be drawn out of respect, can must be untouched. Period. End of story.
I understand companies often have a precarious stance when it comes to protecting their intellectual property. Fanart, for many, can be both a blessing and curse. Some companies have outright learned to embrace the fandoms, most notably Hasbro and the Bronies.
But Surelock, in my view, vastly overstepped the limits of what is acceptable.
I told them send a DMCA which contained links to the images, as per compliance with the law.
As part of the DMCA, the company requested removal of submissions which used the word "Paddington" but otherwise had no relationship to the character (one such image was a babyfur wearing a diaper, and "paddington" was wordplay on the "padding" of diaper, no relation to the character or the IP). They demanded removal of submissions of people's characters dressed up in Paddington-style clothes (art of "cosplay", wherein the clothing worn wasn't even a 1:1 match for what Paddington wore). In others, Surelock/Studio Canal demanded we remove people's content of people who were, quite literally, simply standing in front of the movie poster who were in line to see the film. Photos of people in public spaces with "Paddington" posters in the background.
Apparently, Surelock/Studio Canal does not even want Furries to be seen in any relationship to this film.
To me, that's unacceptable. Purely unacceptable.
I get that a company would want to remove the pornographic element from a character such as Paddington from the Internet. I get that. But to outright go "Nope, you can't even show a picture of you standing in line at the movies where a Paddington poster is seen in the background" is, well, it's fucking ridiculous.
As you might imagine, I doubt Surelock and Studio Canal are going after Twitter and Imgur, demanding they remove photos of people standing in front of movie posters, people who enjoyed the movie or perhaps have a Paddington stuffed bear they took a photo of. Again, I get them wanting to distance themselves from porn, but Surelock and Studio Canal took the route of "Scorched Earth".
While I doubt anyone from the studios will read my words: I respect you decision to want to distance yourselves from the pornographic elements, but to outright blanket bomb regular images, fans and artists who are drawing proper fanart of a character they do love is tasteless a movie as the work you claim to despise.
PS: Yes, I've already had threats that if I don't comply and bend over backwards for them they're going to take this to the top of IMVU and try to get me fired. To that I say: I do not care. I will comply with the law because I am legally obligated to do so, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to call overreach and outright blanket censorship. Really? Is a photo of a furry standing in line at a movie theater, standing in front of Paddington movie poster, really hurting you as a company?
PSS: You should check out all the pics of us and Zootopia. We're freakin' fabulous.
a pointless endeavor. trying to make furries stop producing and/or posting art depicting any animal character (anthro or otherwise) will most likely result in the opposite effect. need we all be reminded what happened with tony the tiger not so long ago... >_>
I still feel sorry for whoever manages Tony's Twitter account having to put up with that crap.
In this case however, the company mentioned in Neer's journal is completely out of line with how they are handling the use of their character.
I don't even think they realize how far this community extends. I am in full agreement with Neer on this.
Someone should grab all the paddington bear images from FA and upload them to imgur, anonymously.
Do people in the US even know who Paddington Bear is? It always seemed like a very British thing to me, an old British thing.
I know they did a movie a couple of years ago but did it gain much traction anywhere?
A sequel is due next year, if everyone starts drawing Paddington fan art, adult or not, it might just end up as promotion for it =p
I am a US citizen and always have been.
A lot of us grew up with him.
Or are you at least legally allowed to tell them "sure, I'll remove them...after you send me a source link to every single one you want removed"?
Oh, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell that to Weasyl!!!!
Oh, and I have not read a journal from you than I have agreed with more!
DMCA and Copyright claims are very rampant and abused everywhere these days, that there is even false DMCA and Copyright claims people do to ruin things for other people. Some of which are abused through automation systems for people who have no claims or rights to something someone else uploaded. It's really annoying having to deal with these, and it's difficult knowing the fakes who have no rights to something.
Some evidence of the shenanigans they're pulling.
By rights though anything that a person has in their homes that are shown in photos or videos should be considered in the public domain since the original owners no longer has ownership of that item of product that has been sold to that particular individual customer. it's not like that once a customer buys a custom made furniture from say like IKEA for example and 3 months later they decide to show up on your doorstep and demand it back once the customer has paid for it and has pretty much bought ownership of that piece of furniture. It would be a bad business model, and ruin their reputation. Does that make sense?
are they planning to do the same to Deviant art? because...they are a "few" of him prancing around with his jam in there.
and with his outfit...you can't confuse him at all.
just when i go to fan based stories at times i end up finding some on the listings.
am not going to say they "tickle my fancy" but they DO EXIST lol
Zootopia must've made an absolute bomb off of furries seeing it (often multiple times) at cinemas and buying it on varies formats...
To request any pornographic material relating to Paddington be removed would be ridiculous enough (and this from someone with no interest in seeing it), but anything and everything? Nah. Crazy talk.
So i hope it all blew by ok.
J.P. Morgan the banker guy said:
"Most think of lawyers as those who limit what you can and cannot do.
I think of them as telling me HOW to do what i want to do."
The difference between the powerless and powerful, is using them as a strategic, proactive agents, rather than limiting agents.
it would really help to know some crafty slick lawyer buddies of your own if you can.
Nothing pisses me off more than arbitrariness.
With StudioCanal and Surelock, on the other paw, I'm getting the idea that somebody in one or both of these companies hates the idea that the Furry Fandom exists, hence why they aren't targeting websites that don't specifically cater for Furries. They haven't gone after Twitter or Facebook, have they? And they have not just crossed the line - they might as well have drag raced past it. Do they seriously think they can achieve anything positive from this? Do they not remember what happened when Barbra Streisand tried to have the images of her mansion censored? :p
This is pointless. It's a clear abuse of the DMCA laws, and goes far beyond what this law is designed to do. I think, given what I know about it, that if these companies took you to court, it would be an easy victory for you. The judge would probably laugh them out of the room! It really is like placing a bottle of vodka in front of an alcoholic and telling them not to drink it.
I'll leave this as evidence as to what they're DMCAing. Apparently, fair use is a violation of their trademark.
They've made a very big mistake.
Copyright gets abused way too much these days as a means of censorship. I really hope this doesn't come down to a case of lawyers being required, though. I think attorney fees can be awarded if you can prove they knew they were making a false copyright claim (which I'd think would be easy to do, since the only thinkable basis of claiming copyright of a cartoon bear regarding a photograph is due to the presence of the movie poster).
Still, if it comes to it, I'd be willing to support a Go Fund Me campaign to cover costs and if attorney fees are awarded back, I'd consider putting that money back into the site to be a worthwhile endeavor.
Once thing we can do is educate people on counter-DMCAs, and give people the tools to fight back. Not everyone will, but once the DMCA is countered it then goes back to Surelock and Studio Canal who have to legally prove it's a violation of DMCA.
Granted, we're complying with the law at this point, and will be working towards figuring out what the next steps are. They can DMCA us, but they can't gag me, and I'm not going to sit by let users be screwed over in such a manner.
https://youtu.be/aB2yqeD0Nus
https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/statu.....52577883328514
I mean, if you had even so much as bothered to read what I wrote -- taken any time at all -- you'd have seen that I agreed with them regarding character art, but they were overstepping boundaries by saying people couldn't have a photo with anything Paddington-related in it, even in the background, such as in the following example:
https://twitter.com/Dragoneer/statu.....52577883328514
But I'd thought I'd made that very clear in my post.
And yes, I'm being difficult, because the DMCA system is oft abused. I'm fine with DMCAs that are within legal reason, but not those that abuse the system (such as DMCAing an image because of something that falls under appropriate guidelines of the Fair Use act or even the laws protecting photography in public spaces).
That's why 'Neer is posting this, not because of fan-art or the like that was taken down and which they have every right to require be removed individually, but because they're filing claims on content they patently cannot have any possible copyright claim over but due to the wording of the DMCA law 'Neer still has to take the content down for now.
Way to go.
Freedom of expression.
That said fan art is in a grey area legally because it could be constituted as parody or satire. That's why DMCA was meant to be filed on a case by case basis. By mass-DMCA'ing they're abusing trademark/copyright law.
It's not going to happen, and you know it.
I really think this has nothing to do with furries or porn, but rather they want to make a super easy case to present their rights to owning their product.
And the DMCA they're (ab)using here has nothing at all to do with trademark or trademark defense, it is a copyright law. Using it provides no 'protection' in the trademark sense, they are asserting copyright ownership of any images they request to be taken down in this case which is entirely separate.
Or for that matter just how close to the original name and look can a parody get before it falls under their right to file a DMCA against it for removal?
BTW...thanks so much for having our backs on this. It's good to know we can depend on you! >:3
Did you ever get approached by Nintendo about Pokemon? They've been hitting Tumblr with Pokemon porn [Since Pokemon GO's release I believe] and getting users banned over having drawn it/posted on their accounts. I've been curious on how far they've been taking that and if they've approached you or not. [Or if they just gave up.]
Nintendo has also gone after people for posting Let's Plays on YouTube, so... you never really know with them. It's like at one moment they love their fanbase and the next are trying to set them on fire.
And I have a journal on here talking about the movie because it was the first movie my youngest daughter ever saw.
She lived it, was deeply enthralled, and once it was done was jumping in excitement realizing that her cousin who was with her was wearing a coat nearly identical to Paddington (asking her if she had sandwiches in her pockets).
So if I had posted images of that, of such a sweet moment with my child, in front of the poster, they would DMCA me too?
I grew up with my own stuffed Paddington, read the boss, then passed that off my kids.
But if they are going to do this, simply because I am a fur, watch me spread the boycott of their company worth the rage of a mother.
Wonder how fast they would last now that I can spin it there are against little ones just because they have a mother who wears ears and tails, so they don't want to be woodside with them...
I know that's rage, but I am engaged.
The answer, at least if you posted it on Fur Affinity, would be "yes".
To quote their initial letter:
"Please remove these images and all occurrences of the word "Paddington" with immediate effect.
We confirm on behalf of our client that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the Works complained of and our client believes that the contents of this letter are accurate. We confirm that, under penalty of perjury, we are authorised to act on behalf of our client in relation to this matter."
Thus, according to Surelock and their client (the folks behind Paddington Bear) there would be no legal basis for you to share images of your child watching and enjoying Paddington on this site. At all. If a person is being DMCA'd because he had a Paddington poster on his wall then your daughter hugging a Paddington plush would in no way be any more or less sacred to them.
And that's why I decided to post this journal, because I feel what they're doing is abuse of the system. But I will comply with them legally because I have to.
I mean, check that wording. "All occurrences of the word 'Paddington'". They don't even want us saying the word.
Because I own the books and can talk about my possessions.
And if I plan a trip to go to the ACTUAL Paddington station, I will...
So their hate of furries is ridiculous.
Hate on the porn all you want, I am cool with that like you are, because let's face it... it is a children's thing.
So I totally get wanting no association with porn.
But furry does not equal porn.
Of course they prefer to win but as long as they discourage people from using SC's IP they've done their job.
They are supposed to be handling legal misuse of the character, not sell out the company and Paddington as horrible things altogether.
So, it can come back to bite them in the ass....
And I am already writing to SC about this, would call but not worth the international fees.
Jokes aside, Kinda reminds me of Candy crush, trying to copyright the word "Saga"
>InB4 Strisand effect
That said...this is still blatant DMCA abuse.
The DMCA in a nutshell is simply a tool people can use to demand a take down of digital copies of works and allows for the host of the site to be sued instead of the actual infringer. This has emboldened these groups and give them a more scary face than they actually have. Plus if you were directly threatened to be fired that is suspicious because DMCA requests do not include personal threats of working to get you fired but instead are intended to provide notice if action isn't taken then they will proceed with a lawsuit. Arbitrary enforcement is also generally frowned upon by the fourt.
When it comes to parody songs, it has been fought all the way to the Supreme Court, which has sided with the parody artist, so most music companies don't bother chasing after parody artists anymore, because they know they will lose.
Artwork, however, is a different matter. Drawing of a copyrighted character is, technically, a violation of copyright, just as singing a cover song would be, since you are not making a critique of the work (such as using the character in an editorial cartoon, for example). Most companies don't care if you draw their characters, provided you don't go around selling the work.
These guys, on the other hand, are apparently forbidding even the mention of the name, taking pictures in front of displays that are obviously there for you to take pictures in front of (which is why I have a real beef with Weasyl's policy of not allowing such pictures to be used as background for artwork. Come on, that's what it's there for!!) and are doing it ONLY on FA. That's just plain wrong.
Do not let anyone say to you "prove to me you are the owner of the copyright". You do not have to when filing a DMCA, but if you are not the actual copyright owner or have permission to work for the company who or person who owns the copyright you can be held liable in court for sending a fake DMCA.
http://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Creating-a-.....-using-DMCAcom
This is a common practice. Most corporations hire legal representation and make contracts with them that allow said legal representation to do things like file DMCA requests or send out Cease & Desist's.
Do not let anyone say to you "prove to me you are the owner of the copyright". You do not have to when filing a DMCA, but if you are not the actual copyright owner or have permission to work for the company who or person who owns the copyright you can be held liable in court for sending a fake DMCA.
http://www.dmca.com/FAQ/Creating-a-.....-using-DMCAcom
But Dragoneer would say he didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo&t=3s
What that means is, you can defend your use of it in court, but unfortunately, FA is not obligated to defend it for you, any more than they are obligated to remove something that is clearly NOT covered by their copyright claim.
Say, for example, a fur wanted to use their journal for calling out a furry con in general. It would be allowed.
It's calling out individuals that is banned.
I'm sure the movie's good, I'd just rather not support a company that tries to stifle artists and creators in such a way. I get not wanting a children's character associated with pornographic material, but to just blanket ban every piece of art portraying anything to do with Paddington is just crazy.
What does that tell you?
Remember, it took a year and a half for them to announce Wreck-It Ralph 2.
You just answered my comment, let alone the fact that they acaulty listened to all of us instead of ignoring it all
I'm all for protests and understand the motivation behind things like that. I just think you end up demeaning more people who don't deserve it than you do people who do.
Frankly, I don't see enough moderate Muslims standing in the way of the radicals. Marches are not enough. Terrorists laugh at marches. We need Muslims to name the names of known terrorists and help in the fight. Entirely too few do, simply because they fear for their lives. But I don't see any other way to fight it.
Actually, many other religions picking on others...
Doesn't make a big headline over here.
And your thinking of them to name terrorists is on the thinking they know them/know who they are.
Many/most do not...
Its keep private so of course they don't know.
They cannot name people they are unaware of.
Many Muslims speak out against the radicals and do make stands against them.
Seeing as I live near one of the largest Muslim communities outside of the Middle East, I can attest to them being against the radicals and being some very sweet individuals who do NOT on daily basis associate with terrorists or those who support them.
I would also point to the numbers involved. Muslims are by FAR the most likely to be involved in terror world wide.
And very often they DO know them, but are terrified to name them.
I have to find the article, though it has been a few years... Where a a group of Christians broke into someone's house, dragged the person out, and beat them to near death and left the person for dead...
They managed to survive and get back home, but the article went on to explain that this was normal for those who weren't Christian.
And you think Christians haven't done any killing/wars in the name of their religion?
A famous one is the Holy Crusades, where they even slaughtered other Christians who didn't follow the Pope.
NO RELIGION IS PERFECT.
And for you to slander Muslims like they are the only religion that's done wrong is sickening.
There are bad people in every religion and there are good.
The bad apples do NOT dictate the entirety of the religion.
Define it, please.
Because when it comes to Muslim terrorists explosions and death always are involved.
If you want to equate painting signs and intimidation to that, you're going to have a real problem with me.
Or if you want straight from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Terrorize/Terrorizing
1
: to fill with terror or anxiety : scare
2
: to coerce by threat or violence
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic.....nary/terrorize
And you are proving your ignorance by painting only Muslims as the ones to use these tactics.
Terrible people do there things of ALL religions, races, and backgrounds
Not one person or group is exempt...
And you are set on painting Muslims as horrible people when they are far from it.
Muslim terrorism almost always involves explosions and killing. Anything else you describe by any other religion usually does NOT!!
I'm done here. I'm talking to a brick wall.
It's not "Muslim" terrorists, just terrorists.
Sorry you cannot understand that and cannot see you are labeling an entire group incorrectly with your misinformation.
But you are right, talking to a wall.
Later, wall.
He served with a ton of Muslims over there and trust me-he got a lot of info about troop movements, where survivors were when there were ambushes and where ambushes were/IED locations. He also did a lot of community outreach. He helped build schools, helped them set up infrastructure and basically got to know the people over there a lot better than most of us know them.
One of the biggest things that frustrates him after being over there for the better part of his decade in is when people say the kinds of things you say. It pisses him off when people act like Muslim's aren't doing enough to prevent terrorism when plenty have been right there in the trenches helping him, fighting against terrorism with him and dying for the cause.
Maybe instead of Muslims having to do more when plenty of them are doing more you do more to understand what most Muslims are really like and help people hate on them less. Have you even actually talked at length with someone who is Muslim? Gotten to know their family? Tried to get to know people in your local Muslim community better?
Because if you haven't you kinda should before you go acting like you know what 'most' Muslims are like or tell them just how they should go about dealing with an issue that affects them even MORE than it affects most of us in non-predominately Muslim countries.
Sonic?
I wonder when/if nintendo might get on this stupidity train.