Tag Archive for: bogus

Sons Of Confederate Veterans Sued Over Bogus DMCA Takedown

/in

As you’ll recall, earlier this month we wrote about this bizarre situation in North Carolina, in which the University of North Carolina agreed to give a bunch of racists $ 2.5 million to settle a lawsuit before the lawsuit had even been filed. The details of the story came out due to some inquisitive digging by North Carolina lawyer Greg Doucette. And, in response to him publishing the details, including a “victory” letter sent by the head of the North Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans (in which it is admitted that they obviously had no legal standing to sue), Doucette’s Dropbox account was blocked thanks to a bogus DMCA letter from the group. Doucette retained lawyer Marc Randazza, who sent the Sons a letter demanding they use the $ 2.5 million to fund scholarships for African American UNC students or face a lawsuit for the bogus takedown. That letter argued that the bogus DMCA notice violated Section 512(f) of the DMCA, which (in theory) is supposed to stop abusive takedowns by punishing “misrepresentations” in takedown notices.

As I noted at the time, Section 512(f) of the DMCA is effectively dead, as courts rarely enforce anything about it and, at best, have said that those issuing a DMCA notice simply only need to consider fair use and if they, in their minds, think it’s not, can still send the takedown. However, Randazza and Doucette have decided to move forward anyway and have sued the NC Sons of Confederate Veterans, along with its leader Kevin Stone, and Dropbox (who blocked Doucette’s account). As is fairly typical of a Randazza filing, it’s an entertaining read:

Some claim that memorials like these are there to celebrate “southern heritage” rather than as memorials to the subjugation of African Americans.

When Silent Sam was unveiled in 1913, KKK supporter Julian Carr announced that the Confederate soldiers it honored had saved “the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South,” and told the following story:

“One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shotgun under my head.”

With a metaphorical flamethrower taken to this myth of “southern pride,” student protesters tore the statue down on Monday, August 20, 2018. The University of North Carolina did not restore the statue to its former “glory.”

On November 27, 2019, the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a lawsuit against UNC for its failure to return Silent Sam to his location, despite lacking standing (and knowing it) to bring such a suit. Despite the fact that the NCSCV lacked standing, seven minutes after the suit was filed, a state court judge approved a settlement between the parties.

The lawsuit has been filed not in North Carolina, but in Norther California (the other NC). The reasoning here is that because this lawsuit is over a DMCA takedown notice to Dropbox and Dropbox terms require users to consent to Northern California jurisdiction:

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because a) in using Dropbox, they consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in the state and Federal courts in San Francisco, California; and b) the sending of the takedown notice at issue constitutes sufficient minimum contacts under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and U.S. Const., Amdt. XIV, where Defendants purposefully directed their acts toward California, committing an intentional act, expressly aimed at California, causing Plaintiffs harm in California as they have been deprived of the full use of their California-based Dropbox account.

This also appears to be the sole reason that Dropbox is listed as a defendant in the case. The complaint notes that it is not asking for any money from Dropbox, just to have Doucette’s account restored:

Dropbox is named as a defendant herein only to achieve complete relief; Plaintiffs seek no damages against Dropbox.

Well, these are the stated reasons for filing in California. I am assuming that the actual reason for suing in Northern California is that probably the only two successful 512(f) lawsuits both came in the Northern District of California and the 9th Circuit has probably the most caselaw on such claims — but that includes an appellate ruling that the “good faith” requirement is subjective. That is, if the takedown notice filer believes in their minds that the DMCA notice was legit, that’s enough. Of course, one other possible reason for filing in Northern California rather than North Carolina? Folks in California might not be quite as sympathetic to the Confederacy as folks in North Carolina.

As much as I’d like to see better rulings on 512(f) (or for Congress to fix it so that it has some teeth), I find it unlikely that this case will get very far — and, frankly, the California filing feels a bit like jurisdiction shopping. It’s not totally egregious as such (Dropbox is here in northern California and there are legit arguments for why the recipient of the takedown may be the proper party for determining jurisdiction), but… it’s still a stretch. The declaratory judgment for non-infringement seem like much stronger claims, though they won’t generate monetary returns.

In the meantime, the situation with UNC and the statue itself is far from over. Outcry and protests over the sketchy deal has resulted in at least one UNC funder pulling a $ 1.5 million grant to the University. And it doesn’t sound like the outcry and protests are calming down. Separately, a group of UNC students have moved to intervene in the original case (the one that was filed and settled in mere minutes) trying to have the settlement tossed and then the case dismissed entirely.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

The Curious Case Of The Bogus CC License On A 3D Scan Of A 3000-Year-Old Bust Of Nefertiti

/in

Techdirt has written a number of stories about museums and art galleries claiming copyright on images of public domain works. That’s really not on for institutions that are supposedly dedicated to spreading appreciation of the masterpieces they hold. The latest example of this unfortunate habit is a complex and fascinating tale involving the famous bust of Nefertiti, found a century ago, currently displayed in Berlin’s Staatliche Museen.

A rather improbable story that people had managed surreptitiously to scan the bust at high resolution piqued the interest of the artist Cosmo Wenman. It seemed likely that the 3D scan files involved had been produced by the museum itself, so Wenman decided to use German freedom of information laws to request them officially. As his long and fascinating post on the 3D Nefertiti saga explains, the German museum was singularly unhelpful:

it acknowledged the existence of the Nefertiti scan and acknowledged that the organization was required by law to give me access to it. But it also declared that directly giving me copies of the scan data would threaten its commercial interests. The Egyptian Museum sells expensive Nefertiti replicas in its gift shop, and it implied that it needs to protect that revenue to finance its ongoing digitization efforts.

In museum-world parlance, this argument against open access is known as “the gift shop defense.”

In the end, it turned out that the money generated by using the scans to make replicas was pretty minimal. Reflecting the weakness of “the gift shop defense”, the museum sent Wenman a copy of the scans, but with a twist:

To mark their territory, [the German body overseeing museums] had inartfully carved a copyright claim directly into the flat underside of the 3D model. And without explanation, it had included a Creative Commons “CC BY-NC-SA” license.

A good analysis of the situation by Michael Weinberg points out why this is bogus:

Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses. That means that if you violate the terms of the license, you may be liable for copyright infringement. It also means that if the file being licensed is not protected by copyright, nothing happens if you violate the license. If there is not a copyright protecting the scan a user does not need permission from a ‘rightsholder’ to use it because that rightsholder does not exist.

The central issue is whether a high-resolution 3D scan of an object unequivocally in the public domain, is also in the public domain. An earlier article by Weinberg explains that in the US it seems clear that producing an accurate scan of a public domain object is also in the public domain. It’s slightly less clear-cut in the EU, but even there 3D scans are unlikely to be protected. Moreover, one of the few good things in the generally awful EU Copyright Directive is explicit confirmation that material resulting from reproducing art that is in the public domain is also in the public domain, “unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation”. An accurate 3D scan does not fall into that category — something that EU Member States could and should make clear when they implement the Copyright Directive in their national legislation. Weinberg also raises the issue of “moral rights” — things like a right of attribution and a right of integrity:

While removing attribution or intentionally modifying the work to remove the fake [CC] license might create problems if the Staatliche Museen was the ‘creator of the work’ for copyright purposes, that is not the case here. The Staatliche Museen did not create any work that is recognized under US (and soon EU) copyright law. That means that there is nothing for the moral rights to attach to.

A post on the Creative Commons blog points out the use of bogus CC licenses causes collateral damage beyond simply misleading people about what they can and cannot do with material that is in the public domain:

Creative Commons licenses are tools to allow users to better understand what permissions are being granted to the public by the creator of the original work. When a CC license is misapplied, the ability of CC licenses to be a standard signal for communicating copyright permissions is undermined. Mislabelling works creates confusion among re-users of works and limits the rights of the public to benefit from the global commons.

It is doubly reprehensible that supposed guardians of culture should not only be asserting intellectual monopoly rights they don’t have over materials in their collections, but that they should be undermining one of the most important tools available for promoting the sharing of culture — the carefully-calibrated range of Creative Commons licenses.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Utter Bullshit: Reporter Maria Ressa Arrested Over Bogus Charges For Her Critical Reporting

/in

We’ve written about reporter Maria Ressa, who started the successful news site The Rappler in the Philippines. Ressa, herself, is a force of nature, who has upset a lot of people with her incredibly detailed and thorough reporting. Last year, we wrote about how the Duterte government was trying to intimidate and silence her with bogus charges, claiming that because she had accepted grant money from US foundations, she was engaged in tax evasion.

Today things ramped up quite a bit with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) (the Filipino equivalent of the FBI) coming to arrest Ressa at her offices, claiming that she violated a “cyberlibel” law. Incredibly, the article that the government claims is libelous… was written four months before the law they claim it violated actually became law.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recommended the filing in court of cyber libel charges against Ressa and former Rappler researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr over a story published in May 2012 – or 4 months before the law that they allegedly violated was enacted.

The case, filed by the DOJ, stemmed from a complaint by businessman Wilfredo Keng, who was identified in a Rappler article as the owner of the SUV that then-chief justice Renato Corona had used during the impeachment trial.

Keng complained not about his alleged ownership of the vehicle, but about the backgrounder on him as having alleged links to illegal drugs and human trafficking, based on intelligence reports.

When the officers came to arrest Ressa at her office, some of her colleagues tried to film the situation on their mobile phones, and the NBI agents tried to get them to stop:

In response to this Rappler has said it will not give in to the intimidation:

“We are not intimidated. No amount of legal cases, black propaganda, and lies can silence Filipino journalists who continue to hold the line. These legal acrobatics show how far the government will go to silence journalists, including the pettiness of forcing me to spend the night in jail.”

The statement further lays out why the charges are clearly bogus and trumped up:

A complaint was filed by businessman Wilfredo Keng 5 years after a story was published on May 29, 2012, or months before the cybercrime law was enacted. Our story said former chief justice Renato Corona used a vehicle registered under the name of Mr Keng, who, based on intelligence reports and previously published stories, had alleged links to illegal drugs and human trafficking. We called Mr Keng and got his side before the story was published.

The filing of the case is preposterous and baseless. No less than NBI Cybercrime Division chief Manuel Eduarte closed an investigation in February 2018 after finding no basis to proceed, given that the one-year prescriptive period had lapsed. Eight days later, however, the NBI revived the case, and filed it with the Department of Justice on the basis of a theory they call “continuous publication.”

This is a dangerous precedent that puts anyone – not just the media – who publishes anything online perennially in danger of being charged with libel. It can be an effective tool of harassment and intimidation to silence critical reporting on the part of the media. No one is safe.

This is why in the US (and other countries) we have what’s known as the single publication rule, in that the date of original publication is the date at which any statute of limitations clock starts ticking (mostly). Yet, it appears the Philippines is arguing for no single publication rule and that “continuous publication” means liability can last forever. Furthermore, even if this was libelous (which sounds questionable), shouldn’t libel be a civil matter between two private parties, rather than involving the criminal justice system?

And, of course, remember, that the Philippines’ Constitution has a close analogue of the 1st Amendment in the US (there it’s their Section 4):

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

That would certainly suggest that the law being used to arrest Ressa is unconstitutional. Various journalism organizations are already condemning this arrest as a clear attempt at silencing Ressa and Rappler in their critical reporting of the Duterte government:

“The Philippine government’s legal harassment of Rappler and Ressa has now reached a critical and alarming juncture,” said Shawn Crispin, CPJ’s senior Southeast Asia representative. “We call on Filipino authorities to immediately release Ressa, drop this spurious cyber libel charge, and cease and desist this campaign of intimidation aimed at silencing Rappler.”

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

Parody Washington Post Leads To Bogus Legal Threat, And A Reminder Of An Old Internet Lawsuit

/in

As you might have heard, the famed pranksters The Yes Men were recently involved in something of a parody news story. They printed up and handed out a ton of parody Washington Posts, dated May 1, 2019 (note: a date a few months in the future) with a cover story claiming to be about President Trump being removed from office. People who got their hands on the printed edition said that they looked pretty similar to an actual Washington Post. The pranksters didn’t just print out newspapers, they also set up a website at my-washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post itself was not amused and appears to have sent an incredibly stupid cease-and-desist letter from a publication that should know better.

Actually, let’s be clear: the Washington Post does know better. As Public Citizen lawyer Paul Levy notes in a post we’ll talk more about down below, the Washington Post’s double standard shines through based on its reporting on other parodies in comparison:

By an amazing coincidence, on the same morning that the Post parody was distributed, the Post ran this story about a Facebook page spoofing the Maryland state government.  The story made clear that the reporter found the whole thing very amusing.  The Post’s coverage of the parody aimed at itself showed no such sense of humor.  “We will not tolerate others misrepresenting themselves as The Washington Post, and we are deeply concerned about the confusion it causes among readers,” Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti said. “We are seeking to halt further improper use of our trademarks.”

While the Washington Post’s cease-and-desist claims that it “recognizes there are important First Amendment protections for parody and satire,” the rest of the letter appears to forget that. Thankfully, the Yes Men have EFF representing them, leading to quite a response letter written by EFF legal director, Corynne McSherry.

We are frankly disappointed that the Washington Post has chosen to take this approach. Given the content of the site and the physical paper, and the ample publicity the spoof has generated, it is difficult to imagine that any member of the public would be confused. Moreover, given the Washington Post’s long history of defending free speech and fair use, we had hoped that your paper would recognize the spoof site is entirely legal critical speech.

But there’s something else here that goes unmentioned by either the Washington Post or EFF in its response. And it’s that (1) the very same URL that the Post is complaining about was once subject to a different trademark lawsuit (2) the Washington Post told a court that it was absolutely critical that said domain be handed over to it (3) which happened… and most importantly (4) the Washington Post did literally nothing with the domain and allowed it to expire, after which it sat unused for years.

This brings us back to the post that eagle-eyed internet lawyer Paul Levy wrote, highlighting that this domain was actually at the heart of a key trademark/domain name dispute from the early 2000s.

In the case of Coca-Cola Company, et al. v. William S. Purdy Sr., et al. in the 8th Circuit, there was a dispute between a few different companies — including the Washington Post and Coca Cola among others — who were angry at anti-abortion activist William Purdy, who had registered a bunch of domains that included the trademarked names of these companies, which he then used to push his activist message. One of the domains on the list? Yup: my-washingtonpost.com. As the 8th Circuit explains, at one point Purdy even set up a… parody Washington Post site at that domain:

For several days in early July 2002 Purdy linked the domain names my-washingtonpost.com and drinkcoke.org to a website displaying what appeared to be a front page originating from washingtonpost.com. The page with this format featured the headline “The Washington Post proclaims ‘Abortion is Murder’ ” and contained graphic images of aborted fetuses next to Coca-Cola’s trademark and the words “Things Don’t Always Go Better With Coke. Abortion is Murder-‘The Real Thing.’ ”  (“It’s the Real Thing” is a registered trademark of the Coca-Cola Company.)   Sometime after this litigation began, Purdy also linked many of the domain names to his own websites which contained references to a claim that plaintiffs supported abortion, graphic photos of aborted fetuses, and links to abortionismurder.com.

Counsel for the Washington Post entities sent a cease and desist letter to Purdy on July 8, 2002, and it persuaded his Internet service provider (ISP) to stop hosting the website at my-washingtonpost.com. Counsel for McDonald’s and Pepsi contacted Purdy and his domain name registrars with similar requests around this time.   During a telephone conversation with counsel for the Post entities on July 8, Purdy acknowledged that he had published a counterfeit front page at my-washingtonpost.com and claimed that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.   The record indicates that Purdy offered to comply with the request of the Post entities if they would publish something written by him on the Washington Post editorial page, but they declined.4  A few days later Purdy reactivated my-washingtonpost.com with a new ISP and published another counterfeit washingtonpost.com front page with antiabortion headlines and graphic content.   He also registered washingtonpost.cc and washingtonpost.ws, linked them to abortionismurder.com, and began using the email address dontkillyourbaby@ washingtonpost.cc.

The lower court had ruled against Purdy, saying that he was violating the law with his cybersquatting, and Purdy (somewhat gleefully, apparently) decided to thumb his nose at the court and kept on registering similar domains for similar purposes — leading the court to issue an injunction barring him from even registering such domains. Levy and Public Citizen — back in 2003 — had sought to file an amicus brief in the case, saying that while the court was right to reject Purdy’s use of these sites in these cases, the injunction barring him from registering similar domains went too far (since it was conceivable that he might set up sites that were legitimately about those companies, rather than designed to fool people). The court refused to accept that brief.

However, as Levy noted, during the course of the case, the Washington Post had argued that it was quite important that it gain control over Purdy’s my-washingtonpost.com:

The Post (and the other companies), claiming that ownership of my-washingtonpost.com was vital to its business, obtained preliminary and later permanent injunctive relief, persuading the federal court in Minnesota, and then the Eighth Circuit, that Purdy’s having offered to trade the removal of his web site for free op-ed space in the Post to express his anti-choice messages made his a sort of commercial use that was, therefore, subject to Lanham Act and ACPA proscription.

Indeed, the district court ordered that Purdy turn over the domain name my-washingtonpost.com to the Washington Post — though it looks like Purdy tried to ignore this. Looking over historical whois records, it appears that the domain, after originally being registered in 2002, changed hands on January 2, 2003. Based on the timeline laid out by the Appeals Court (and the fact that there was a contempt hearing a few weeks after this), it may be that the Washington Post used the initial court order to get the domain registrar to transfer it (rather than have Purdy willingly hand it over). From the appeals court ruling:

The plaintiffs also moved on October 1 for an order to show cause why Purdy should not be held in contempt for violating the earlier preliminary injunction.   The district court appointed a public defender to represent Purdy for purposes of the contempt motion, and a hearing was held on it in January 2003.   The court found that Purdy still had not brought himself into compliance with its injunction and issued an order on January 28, 2003 finding him in contempt.   The court listed more than 60 domain names that it found he had registered and/or used in violation of its original injunction.5  It again ordered Purdy immediately to cease using the listed domain names and to transfer the names to the rightful owners within three days.   Purdy was also ordered to pay plaintiffs $ 500 per day from the date of the order until he complied and to pay their fees, costs, and expenses.

The next week a status conference was held to assess Purdy’s compliance with the January 28 contempt order.   At that time Purdy was still using many domain names that had been specifically found to violate the court’s injunctions.   Although the plaintiffs had succeeded in forcing the transfer of many domain names registered in the United States, some registered in France had apparently not been transferred and were still linked to content of his choice.

So that suggests that the January 3, 2002 transfer of the domain was from Purdy to the Washington Post (though, not done willingly by Purdy, despite the court order). Looking at the Internet Archive, it is clear that the Washington Post did literally nothing with this domain once it had it in its possession. And, again, looking at the historical record, the Washington Post appears to have let the registration on this domain lapse on August 1, 2006, at which point its DNS pointed to “expireddomainservices.com” which is likely a service to scoop up expired domain names to see if someone wants to pay up to get them back. On January 1, 2007, all domain name servers were removed from the domain… until January 13 of this year, when the domain was registered once again and put to use for this particular parody.

So, perhaps the Washington Post’s claims back in the day about how important it was that this domain be handed over to it for its own use were not entirely truthful at the time. Shocking.

It certainly would be interesting from the standpoint of an observer, if there were a second legal fight over a parody Washington Post news story using the exact same domain. Of course, this time around, the Washington Post would likely need to explain why (among other problems with its claims), after apparently owning that particular domain for nearly four years, it let it go.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.