9 ms·

Protecting My Copyright

76 points by peetahb 14y ago

wpietri 14y ago
Wow. That is quite a story. I hope he doesn't actually file suit against her. Partly because she's so obviously nuts that I'd feel a little bad. And partly because it's a bad idea to get involved in a court case with a crazy person. You may win in the end, but your lawyer can rack up some big bills keeping up with a manic loon.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Also I would be surprised if oyu could get significant damages from such an individual.... Being awarded them, sure, but collecting them?
- unreal37 14y ago
  Worse if the crazy person is themselves an attorney. She can just file crazy motions all day long and it won't cost her anything. I think GoDaddy is to blame in this. Taking multiple sites down for one DMCA take down request. And the blogger too seems too happy about taking sites down as he does. He should work harder (at least for GoDaddy sites) to contact the sites directly and get a license fee. Diplomacy before nuclear war.
  - dsl 14y ago
    The state bar association will make quick work of her. Real pro lawyers hire other impartial lawyers to represent them in lawsuits.
    - tylermenezes 14y ago
      Impartial lawyers? How can you be impartial if you're representing your client?
      - jvc26 14y ago
        I assume he means 3rd party/independent lawyers (i.e. not yourself).
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Having had one of my photos stolen, I can understand entirely why he doesn't bother trying to contact site owners first. It is very hard to find a mailbox that connects to the actual responsible person. And then they may just ignore you. Hosting companies at least answer the phone. I agree that GoDaddy is the problem here. When people pick hosting companies, they should think a little about how well they'll be treated when something goes wrong. Because something always goes wrong eventually.
- prawn 14y ago
  Definitely not worth it. I'd be worrying about potential physical contact, phone calls, etc. Seen and heard it before personally. Best bet in most cases is to take care of things and get out of there, minimise ongoing contact (stay terse on the phone, don't respond to emotional appeals coming by email) and stay level-headed.
pdonis 14y ago
I've seen other indications that GoDaddy is a bit heavy-handed, to put it mildly, in responding to DMCA takedown notices. This confirms it. Assuming that the notice was worded properly, they should only have taken down the one specific site that infringed, not all the sites belonging to the same person.
- peetahb 14y ago
  Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Hell, her business page on Facebook still uses it as its cover photo. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing/345405795498111 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - pdonis 14y ago
    > Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Ah, didn't catch that.
    - peetahb 14y ago
      A lot of people fail to understand what's legally protected by fair use.
      - pdonis 14y ago
        Are you implying that the use in question was fair use (i.e., that the OP should not have sent the DMCA takedown notice for this use)?
        sbronstein 14y ago
        No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.
dangrossman 14y ago
Yeah, people like that exist. I've run into a few that blew up exactly like this, throwing everything they can at me in an endless tirade of e-mails for days, including the nonsense legal threats, and "think of the children" guilt tripping. It takes very little to set them off -- something as simple as a declined credit card for an advertising purchase has led to multiple accusations of "denying my child food in violation of federal child protection laws". One guy CC'd every e-mail to every United States senator and the FBI. I just send a polite reply and try to ignore the follow-ups... communicating after there's nothing more to say on the real issue just spurs them on.
- incongruity 14y ago
  I'm no mental health professional, but I play one on the internet – and that woman sounds like a straight up example of borderline personality disorder with a dash of narcism thrown in. It's awesome how the internet shortens the distance between you and crazy – reach out and touch someone, indeed.
tomflack 14y ago
> The most interesting actions come from GoDaddy. If you file a complaint with GoDaddy and they find your complaint has merit, they will completely disable the site until the matter is resolved. What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?
- entropy_ 14y ago
  I'm no expert but I think the owner of the site in question can file a counter-notice and then GoDaddy has to put the site back up.
  - tomflack 14y ago
    A counter notice would imply some kind of dispute, in which case the matter is definitely not resolved, possibly headed for the courtroom. It does seem rather heavy for Godaddy to disable the entire site, instead of just the infringing content.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  DMCA requires the site/material be down for 10 days. The takedown may be appealed by the recipient. 17 USC 512(g)(2)(C) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
nostromo 14y ago
What I learned from this story: Godaddy will take down your site, without contacting you first, because they get a copyright infringement claim from some random dude on the internet.
- ot86 14y ago
  I used to work at the abuse department for a large web host. In these cases, we would contact the site owner and provide them with a set amount of days to either remove the material, contact the complainant, or explain the usage of the material. If they did not reply or attempt to contact the complainant, we would suspend their hosting. The only time we would suspend a site immediately would be for malware, phishing or child pornography.
- rmc 14y ago
  Yes, that's the DMCA, isn't it?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    No, the DMCA only forces them to take down the infringing content, i.e., the image.
    - eli 14y ago
      DMCA doesn't force them to do anything, it just says that if you play by these rules then you, as the host, can't also be held liable for damages.
- 13rules 14y ago
  What I learned from reading her blog post (http://chicksandpolitics.com/jayleecheapshots/ http://chicksandpolitics.com/jayleecheapshots/) -- Candice Schwager is batsh*t insane!!!
  - 13rules 14y ago
    This has been posted to Slashdot too (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-threatened-with-legal-action-after-asserting-his-copyright http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-...) ... Candice, welcome to the Streisand effect!!
timtadh 14y ago
As other people have said, the real story here is how badly GoDaddy handles DMCA requests. Taking down a site for a single image is like using a bazooka on an ant. Yes it will stop the infringement, however it will probably damage some surrounding property. While that does not necessarily excuse the personal attacks the woman in the story may have made I think it offers perspective for all website operators. "Horror" stories of people sites being taken down (much like her's) have been on HN in the past with great sympathy shown and in this case I do feel sympathetic towards her cause (despite her reaction). I guess the lesson is talk to your registrar and hosting providers about their DCMA process before it bites you.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  What should GoDaddy be doing instead? If they want the safe harbor protection from the DMCA so that they're not liable for the infringement, they are required to remove the content. There need be no direct mapping between the website URL reported in the complaint and any specific file they can identify on a server's file system; it might be dynamically generated, served by a CMS doing URL rewriting, coming from a database, etc. So their choices are: 1) Invade your privacy, directly access your private source code and databases, and deduce how to remove the content, potentially destroying your data in the process over what might be a false claim... all of which is completely non-scalable to the millions of customers they have. 2) Edit their web server configuration to not serve that URL, and reboot the service, hundreds of times a day while this server is handling requests for thousands of websites. 3) Click the suspend site button and your site goes back online as fast as you can remove the infringing work, or file a counter-notice.
  - drostie 14y ago
    As low as my opinions of GoDaddy have fallen, the more I think about it, the more I think that Candice was probably trying to cut costs and inadvertently tied GoDaddy's arms behind its back. The GoDaddy "Deluxe 4GH" plan costs $6/month and could easily hold 14 web sites, and one feature they offer at this stage is "Multiple Web Sites: Unlimited". At first it sounded like GoDaddy had simply rerouted all of her domain names to null addresses, when they could have just rerouted one of them. But no, they were providing the hosting service. If she put fourteen businesses on one account to amortise the cost among them, then she is responsible for linking them together, not GoDaddy. Presumably GoDaddy would have just shut down one hosting account -- the one that held the infringing content -- but the problem is that she only had the one hosting account. This is why I try to keep abstraction layers. The people I research with don't hang out with my Ultimate (as in frisbee) friends or my web development colleagues; the Ultimate folks are the only ones I'm letting friend me on Facebook, and I make it a point not to preach my religion to any of the above. Spolsky is correct that all abstraction layers are leaky, and these are too -- my professor has met my father for example, and the folks at work know that I say something quietly before lunch every day -- but there is a great value in compartmentalising. Robert Frost's neighbour confidently asserts, "good fences make good neighbours" -- I guess it's more that good neighbours respect the fences and use them to lower your own mental stress and drama. Candice could have used a good fence between her charity and her infringing account.
baldheretic 14y ago
To be clear, I took no joy in shutting her site down. GoDaddy is a bit heavy handed in their response and I have learned a lesson here. The main point is that she used the image without permission and her site went down because of it. To turn around and accuse me of being a part of a diabolical conspiracy was out of left field. She should have contacted GoDaddy and worked it out. I did my part by rescinding my DMCA when I realized the impact it was having and offered her my willingness to resolve this one on one.
- peetahb 14y ago
  I did my part by rescinding my DMCA when I realized the impact it was having and offered her my willingness to resolve this one on one. And I applaud you for that.
- tomflack 14y ago
  She's still using the image on the business' Facebook page. Are you going to tackle that one too or is the burn not worth it at this point?
  - daemon13 14y ago
    I wonder whether DMCA stuff is applicable for Facebook also and if anyone had real experience in that?
    - tomflack 14y ago
      It is and it was mentioned in the article we're discussing. "Facebook, for example, would remove the image in a matter of hours."
  - baldheretic 14y ago
    I have contacted Facebook about that image, but I suspect they are too busy rolling in their new found wealth to give it much attention.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
DigitalSea 14y ago
All she had to do was take down the image, it's not like it was beneficial to her charitable business to have the image on the site in the first place. Being someone that gives out legal advice, you'd think she would know better. Glad it worked out in the end, sheesh I would be way less patient if I had to go through this hassle just to get an image removed. I thoroughly enjoyed reading, great story.
DanBC 14y ago
Is she a lawyer? She claims to be a lawyer. In the UK it is not legal to claim to be a solicitor if you are not one. Isn't it the same in the US?
- fruchtose 14y ago
  It is very much illegal to impersonate a lawyer. Being a member of the bar means state regulation, and it is very much an institution.
  - meepmorp 14y ago
    But on the other hand, that's likely only ever applied in instances where a person offersactual legal services to others without being admitted to the bar. Having worked service jobs in the past, I know that the population of the area where I worked was at least 70% lawyers, judging by the number of people who'd threaten to sue me/the business/the owners/unrelated parties when they didn't get what they wanted.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  No results searching "Candice Schwager" at the Texas Bar: http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/Search_form_client_main.cfm http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawye...
  - peetahb 14y ago
    She goes by a different name: "Candice Lee Leonard"
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      Interesting. Her LinkedIn page was under Candice Schwager.
- notspanishflu 14y ago
  Maybe I'm misreading it but I can't find her claiming she's a lawyer. I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
I've just been reading "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and it's interesting how things change when you mentally substitute "protecting my copyright" with "exercising my monopoly". It completely changes the dynamic of who is acting and who is reacting.
- gee_totes 14y ago
  While those terms are interchangeable, I don't think they are equivalent. The OP doesn't have a monopoly over the Houston skyline, and anyone is welcome to set up a camera in the same spot and take an identical photo and use it for their website. Is this the link to the book mentioned? http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
  - ZeroGravitas 14y ago
    He's not got a monopoly on all pictures like that but he has a monopoly right on that particular image he took, lasting for 70 years beyond the date of his death, or else he wouldn't be able to send out DMCA takedowns for it and otherwise control the manner in which it is duplicated and used. (I just googled to check the length and found this heartbreaking message on one of those cheesy Q&A sites: My grandmother has a senior picture of my mom from 1969 and I wanted a copy of it. Is the copyright for that picture up? If not is there a way for me to get a copy of it?) And that is the book, though note it's a slightly out of date version. The final version is here: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... It's not a great work by any means, but it's a good overview of the craziness of copyrights and patents when viewed from the perpective of economics.
  - cma 14y ago
    Not true everywhere: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyr...
slowpoke 14y ago
This is ridiculous, and I don't mean the response of that site owner. While yes, that woman is at least slightly nuts, the problem in the first place was "oh the horror, people are using my image, let's throw around DMCA takedowns". Yes, it's not nice to not give attribution, but I don't see a fundamental problem here. What was the loss involved? Nothing. People liked the image, so they used it. Where's there any theft? Nobody stole anything. Just another example of why the DMCA is a very bad law and needs to go away. Ideally along with copyright as a whole.
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  It's not obviously ridiculous to expect people to license photos they use.
- etfb 14y ago
  I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you lack empathy and experience. If you like, send me a copy of every piece of creative work you've ever produced -- songs, poems, articles, computer programs, graphics, whatever -- and I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution. If you can tell me you're OK with that, I'll modify my opinion: rather than saying you lack empathy, I'll say you have a very different worldview than anyone I know, and I'll acknowledge that, under your worldview, your opinion is entirely consistent and reasonable.
  - slowpoke 14y ago
    >I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that. My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large. On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws. So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
d_t_w 14y ago
Copyright infringement isn't theft you huge douche.
- etfb 14y ago
  Agreed - and I usually don't agree with people who express strong opinions regarding copyright in internet fora. But just because it's not theft doesn't mean it's not wrong. The accusation is hyperbole, not error.
Proleps 14y ago
Is it possible to own the copyright of a photograph of a city? You own none of the buildings in the photo.
- cdeonier 14y ago
  People are copyrighting the composition of the photograph, not necessarily the subject of it.
- bigiain 14y ago
  The original photographer has no ability to stop you going to the same spot and taking your own photograph.* But just 'cause you could-but-haven't done that, doesn;t mean you can use his without his permission. (* although they might be able to make some claim you've copied his composition if their photograph has some remarkable enough artistic input beyond "just a picture of a city")
jorgeleo 14y ago
I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it? I can understand that someone might react against seeing their work all over the Internet used for free, and use the DMCA to prevent that. I can also understand a generous reaction, and feeling flatter instead. While I don't agree with Ms. Borderline, I do think that if I am going to react handing take down notices, providing a way to buy the image up front it is a fair preventive measure. After all, the internet is like a world wide getto street, and it would be naive to leave my precious jacket out night after night and be surpriced that someone finally run away with it. Attaching a price sign to it at least, and some people might respect it, while others will actually consider buying it as initial offer as oppose to a legal threat.
- bigiain 14y ago
  "I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?" It doesn't work that way. Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234". The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)
  - jorgeleo 14y ago
    In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is. I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive. You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way. I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly. Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers. One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.
chmike 14y ago
What is not explain in the post is how do we prove to be the author of a photo ?

76 points by peetahb 14y ago

Wow. That is quite a story. I hope he doesn't actually file suit against her. Partly because she's so obviously nuts that I'd feel a little bad. And partly because it's a bad idea to get involved in a court case with a crazy person. You may win in the end, but your lawyer can rack up some big bills keeping up with a manic loon.

einhverfr 14y ago
Also I would be surprised if oyu could get significant damages from such an individual.... Being awarded them, sure, but collecting them?
unreal37 14y ago
Worse if the crazy person is themselves an attorney. She can just file crazy motions all day long and it won't cost her anything. I think GoDaddy is to blame in this. Taking multiple sites down for one DMCA take down request. And the blogger too seems too happy about taking sites down as he does. He should work harder (at least for GoDaddy sites) to contact the sites directly and get a license fee. Diplomacy before nuclear war.
- dsl 14y ago
  The state bar association will make quick work of her. Real pro lawyers hire other impartial lawyers to represent them in lawsuits.
  - tylermenezes 14y ago
    Impartial lawyers? How can you be impartial if you're representing your client?
    - jvc26 14y ago
      I assume he means 3rd party/independent lawyers (i.e. not yourself).
- wpietri 14y ago
  Having had one of my photos stolen, I can understand entirely why he doesn't bother trying to contact site owners first. It is very hard to find a mailbox that connects to the actual responsible person. And then they may just ignore you. Hosting companies at least answer the phone. I agree that GoDaddy is the problem here. When people pick hosting companies, they should think a little about how well they'll be treated when something goes wrong. Because something always goes wrong eventually.
prawn 14y ago
Definitely not worth it. I'd be worrying about potential physical contact, phone calls, etc. Seen and heard it before personally. Best bet in most cases is to take care of things and get out of there, minimise ongoing contact (stay terse on the phone, don't respond to emotional appeals coming by email) and stay level-headed.

pdonis 14y ago

I've seen other indications that GoDaddy is a bit heavy-handed, to put it mildly, in responding to DMCA takedown notices. This confirms it. Assuming that the notice was worded properly, they should only have taken down the one specific site that infringed, not all the sites belonging to the same person.

peetahb 14y ago
Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Hell, her business page on Facebook still uses it as its cover photo. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing/345405795498111 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Schwager-Consulting-Marketing...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pdonis 14y ago
  > Apparently many of her sites used that specific photo. Ah, didn't catch that.
  - peetahb 14y ago
    A lot of people fail to understand what's legally protected by fair use.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      Are you implying that the use in question was fair use (i.e., that the OP should not have sent the DMCA takedown notice for this use)?
      - sbronstein 14y ago
        No, she claims she is covered under fair use because she doesn't make any money from it, blah blah blah.

dangrossman 14y ago

Yeah, people like that exist. I've run into a few that blew up exactly like this, throwing everything they can at me in an endless tirade of e-mails for days, including the nonsense legal threats, and "think of the children" guilt tripping. It takes very little to set them off -- something as simple as a declined credit card for an advertising purchase has led to multiple accusations of "denying my child food in violation of federal child protection laws". One guy CC'd every e-mail to every United States senator and the FBI. I just send a polite reply and try to ignore the follow-ups... communicating after there's nothing more to say on the real issue just spurs them on.

incongruity 14y ago
I'm no mental health professional, but I play one on the internet – and that woman sounds like a straight up example of borderline personality disorder with a dash of narcism thrown in. It's awesome how the internet shortens the distance between you and crazy – reach out and touch someone, indeed.

tomflack 14y ago

> The most interesting actions come from GoDaddy. If you file a complaint with GoDaddy and they find your complaint has merit, they will completely disable the site until the matter is resolved. What happens if I forget about the issue and never tell GoDaddy the matter is resolved? Is the site permanently down?

entropy_ 14y ago
I'm no expert but I think the owner of the site in question can file a counter-notice and then GoDaddy has to put the site back up.
- tomflack 14y ago
  A counter notice would imply some kind of dispute, in which case the matter is definitely not resolved, possibly headed for the courtroom. It does seem rather heavy for Godaddy to disable the entire site, instead of just the infringing content.
dredmorbius 14y ago
DMCA requires the site/material be down for 10 days. The takedown may be appealed by the recipient. 17 USC 512(g)(2)(C) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

nostromo 14y ago

What I learned from this story: Godaddy will take down your site, without contacting you first, because they get a copyright infringement claim from some random dude on the internet.

ot86 14y ago
I used to work at the abuse department for a large web host. In these cases, we would contact the site owner and provide them with a set amount of days to either remove the material, contact the complainant, or explain the usage of the material. If they did not reply or attempt to contact the complainant, we would suspend their hosting. The only time we would suspend a site immediately would be for malware, phishing or child pornography.
rmc 14y ago
Yes, that's the DMCA, isn't it?
- icebraining 14y ago
  No, the DMCA only forces them to take down the infringing content, i.e., the image.
  - eli 14y ago
    DMCA doesn't force them to do anything, it just says that if you play by these rules then you, as the host, can't also be held liable for damages.
13rules 14y ago
What I learned from reading her blog post (http://chicksandpolitics.com/jayleecheapshots/ http://chicksandpolitics.com/jayleecheapshots/) -- Candice Schwager is batsh*t insane!!!
- 13rules 14y ago
  This has been posted to Slashdot too (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-threatened-with-legal-action-after-asserting-his-copyright http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/25/1744246/photographer-...) ... Candice, welcome to the Streisand effect!!

timtadh 14y ago

As other people have said, the real story here is how badly GoDaddy handles DMCA requests. Taking down a site for a single image is like using a bazooka on an ant. Yes it will stop the infringement, however it will probably damage some surrounding property. While that does not necessarily excuse the personal attacks the woman in the story may have made I think it offers perspective for all website operators. "Horror" stories of people sites being taken down (much like her's) have been on HN in the past with great sympathy shown and in this case I do feel sympathetic towards her cause (despite her reaction). I guess the lesson is talk to your registrar and hosting providers about their DCMA process before it bites you.

dangrossman 14y ago
What should GoDaddy be doing instead? If they want the safe harbor protection from the DMCA so that they're not liable for the infringement, they are required to remove the content. There need be no direct mapping between the website URL reported in the complaint and any specific file they can identify on a server's file system; it might be dynamically generated, served by a CMS doing URL rewriting, coming from a database, etc. So their choices are: 1) Invade your privacy, directly access your private source code and databases, and deduce how to remove the content, potentially destroying your data in the process over what might be a false claim... all of which is completely non-scalable to the millions of customers they have. 2) Edit their web server configuration to not serve that URL, and reboot the service, hundreds of times a day while this server is handling requests for thousands of websites. 3) Click the suspend site button and your site goes back online as fast as you can remove the infringing work, or file a counter-notice.
- drostie 14y ago
  As low as my opinions of GoDaddy have fallen, the more I think about it, the more I think that Candice was probably trying to cut costs and inadvertently tied GoDaddy's arms behind its back. The GoDaddy "Deluxe 4GH" plan costs $6/month and could easily hold 14 web sites, and one feature they offer at this stage is "Multiple Web Sites: Unlimited". At first it sounded like GoDaddy had simply rerouted all of her domain names to null addresses, when they could have just rerouted one of them. But no, they were providing the hosting service. If she put fourteen businesses on one account to amortise the cost among them, then she is responsible for linking them together, not GoDaddy. Presumably GoDaddy would have just shut down one hosting account -- the one that held the infringing content -- but the problem is that she only had the one hosting account. This is why I try to keep abstraction layers. The people I research with don't hang out with my Ultimate (as in frisbee) friends or my web development colleagues; the Ultimate folks are the only ones I'm letting friend me on Facebook, and I make it a point not to preach my religion to any of the above. Spolsky is correct that all abstraction layers are leaky, and these are too -- my professor has met my father for example, and the folks at work know that I say something quietly before lunch every day -- but there is a great value in compartmentalising. Robert Frost's neighbour confidently asserts, "good fences make good neighbours" -- I guess it's more that good neighbours respect the fences and use them to lower your own mental stress and drama. Candice could have used a good fence between her charity and her infringing account.

baldheretic 14y ago

To be clear, I took no joy in shutting her site down. GoDaddy is a bit heavy handed in their response and I have learned a lesson here. The main point is that she used the image without permission and her site went down because of it. To turn around and accuse me of being a part of a diabolical conspiracy was out of left field. She should have contacted GoDaddy and worked it out. I did my part by rescinding my DMCA when I realized the impact it was having and offered her my willingness to resolve this one on one.

peetahb 14y ago
I did my part by rescinding my DMCA when I realized the impact it was having and offered her my willingness to resolve this one on one. And I applaud you for that.
tomflack 14y ago
She's still using the image on the business' Facebook page. Are you going to tackle that one too or is the burn not worth it at this point?
- daemon13 14y ago
  I wonder whether DMCA stuff is applicable for Facebook also and if anyone had real experience in that?
  - tomflack 14y ago
    It is and it was mentioned in the article we're discussing. "Facebook, for example, would remove the image in a matter of hours."
- baldheretic 14y ago
  I have contacted Facebook about that image, but I suspect they are too busy rolling in their new found wealth to give it much attention.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

DigitalSea 14y ago

All she had to do was take down the image, it's not like it was beneficial to her charitable business to have the image on the site in the first place. Being someone that gives out legal advice, you'd think she would know better. Glad it worked out in the end, sheesh I would be way less patient if I had to go through this hassle just to get an image removed. I thoroughly enjoyed reading, great story.

DanBC 14y ago

Is she a lawyer? She claims to be a lawyer. In the UK it is not legal to claim to be a solicitor if you are not one. Isn't it the same in the US?

fruchtose 14y ago
It is very much illegal to impersonate a lawyer. Being a member of the bar means state regulation, and it is very much an institution.
- meepmorp 14y ago
  But on the other hand, that's likely only ever applied in instances where a person offersactual legal services to others without being admitted to the bar. Having worked service jobs in the past, I know that the population of the area where I worked was at least 70% lawyers, judging by the number of people who'd threaten to sue me/the business/the owners/unrelated parties when they didn't get what they wanted.
dredmorbius 14y ago
No results searching "Candice Schwager" at the Texas Bar: http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawyer&template=/Customsource/MemberDirectory/Search_form_client_main.cfm http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Find_A_Lawye...
- peetahb 14y ago
  She goes by a different name: "Candice Lee Leonard"
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    Interesting. Her LinkedIn page was under Candice Schwager.
notspanishflu 14y ago
Maybe I'm misreading it but I can't find her claiming she's a lawyer. I've found the bit claiming she's the President of an organization called 'Attorneys for Special Needs Children' and in her G+ page she says 'I studied in South Texas College of Law' but she isn't claiming she's finished the studies or that she has got any title, certification, or the bar card.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

I've just been reading "Against Intellectual Monopoly" and it's interesting how things change when you mentally substitute "protecting my copyright" with "exercising my monopoly". It completely changes the dynamic of who is acting and who is reacting.

gee_totes 14y ago
While those terms are interchangeable, I don't think they are equivalent. The OP doesn't have a monopoly over the Houston skyline, and anyone is welcome to set up a camera in the same spot and take an identical photo and use it for their website. Is this the link to the book mentioned? http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  He's not got a monopoly on all pictures like that but he has a monopoly right on that particular image he took, lasting for 70 years beyond the date of his death, or else he wouldn't be able to send out DMCA takedowns for it and otherwise control the manner in which it is duplicated and used. (I just googled to check the length and found this heartbreaking message on one of those cheesy Q&A sites: My grandmother has a senior picture of my mom from 1969 and I wanted a copy of it. Is the copyright for that picture up? If not is there a way for me to get a copy of it?) And that is the book, though note it's a slightly out of date version. The final version is here: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... It's not a great work by any means, but it's a good overview of the craziness of copyrights and patents when viewed from the perpective of economics.
- cma 14y ago
  Not true everywhere: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyr...

slowpoke 14y ago

This is ridiculous, and I don't mean the response of that site owner. While yes, that woman is at least slightly nuts, the problem in the first place was "oh the horror, people are using my image, let's throw around DMCA takedowns". Yes, it's not nice to not give attribution, but I don't see a fundamental problem here. What was the loss involved? Nothing. People liked the image, so they used it. Where's there any theft? Nobody stole anything. Just another example of why the DMCA is a very bad law and needs to go away. Ideally along with copyright as a whole.

JoachimSchipper 14y ago
It's not obviously ridiculous to expect people to license photos they use.
etfb 14y ago
I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you lack empathy and experience. If you like, send me a copy of every piece of creative work you've ever produced -- songs, poems, articles, computer programs, graphics, whatever -- and I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution. If you can tell me you're OK with that, I'll modify my opinion: rather than saying you lack empathy, I'll say you have a very different worldview than anyone I know, and I'll acknowledge that, under your worldview, your opinion is entirely consistent and reasonable.
- slowpoke 14y ago
  >I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that. My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large. On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws. So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

d_t_w 14y ago

etfb 14y ago
Agreed - and I usually don't agree with people who express strong opinions regarding copyright in internet fora. But just because it's not theft doesn't mean it's not wrong. The accusation is hyperbole, not error.

Proleps 14y ago

Is it possible to own the copyright of a photograph of a city? You own none of the buildings in the photo.

cdeonier 14y ago
People are copyrighting the composition of the photograph, not necessarily the subject of it.
bigiain 14y ago
The original photographer has no ability to stop you going to the same spot and taking your own photograph.* But just 'cause you could-but-haven't done that, doesn;t mean you can use his without his permission. (* although they might be able to make some claim you've copied his composition if their photograph has some remarkable enough artistic input beyond "just a picture of a city")

jorgeleo 14y ago

I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it? I can understand that someone might react against seeing their work all over the Internet used for free, and use the DMCA to prevent that. I can also understand a generous reaction, and feeling flatter instead. While I don't agree with Ms. Borderline, I do think that if I am going to react handing take down notices, providing a way to buy the image up front it is a fair preventive measure. After all, the internet is like a world wide getto street, and it would be naive to leave my precious jacket out night after night and be surpriced that someone finally run away with it. Attaching a price sign to it at least, and some people might respect it, while others will actually consider buying it as initial offer as oppose to a legal threat.

bigiain 14y ago
"I wonder... Does the original website from which the photo was taken had: 1. A statement that the photo was not public domain? 2. A way to contact the author with the clear purpose of license it?" It doesn't work that way. Just like you don't need to put a sign on your door saying "The belongings in this house belong to me. If you want to buy them call me on 5555-1234". The _default_ is that if you dont own a photograph(/song/story/program/movie), then somebody else does - and unless they've explicitly permitted you some rights to use it, you have _no_ right to use it. (with some very specific "fair use" exceptions, which are far less well understood by just about everybody than they should be. If you're ever tempted to claim "fair use", make sure you know what it means first…)
- jorgeleo 14y ago
  In theory there is no difference betweem theory and practice, but in practice there is. I agree that in default should works the way you say, but that is theory, in practice it is not what actually happens a the OP found out. And we need to acknowledge the reality that people does not behave as theory, law, or whatever other abstract term expects (the law is so abstract that it needs a punishment machinery to be respected, it is not natural at all, and while some people will surrender their free will to goverment compliance, others will not, not even under the threat of heavy legal pain). Not realising this fact of life is naive. You can go around beating people over their head for their wrong doings (natural or artificial), and if that makes you feel better about yourself or your position then take your measuring stick and go on your merry way. I, on the other camp, rather attempt to figure out how people actually works, and make decisions accordingly. Try to understand how things work vs. Do a I say or I'll beat you up. I guess that is one of the differences between tinkers and lawyers. One book that explain tis concept better than me would be Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler.

chmike 14y ago

What is not explain in the post is how do we prove to be the author of a photo ?