Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Removal of Photo Credit Qualifies As DMCA Violation

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the ripping-off-labels dept.

The Courts 71

mattgoldey writes with this excerpt: "A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has reinstated a photographer's copyright lawsuit against a New Jersey radio station owner, after finding that a lower court came to the wrong decision on every issue in the case. Most significantly, the appeals court said that a photo credit printed in the gutter of a magazine qualifies as copyright management information (CMI) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA prohibits the unauthorized removal of encryption technology or copyright management information from copyrighted works."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good! (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547236)

I had a dickhead take one of my photos, cut off the copyright notice and try and pass it off as his own.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547306)

I love seeing like 300 watermarks on an image, i think it's hilarious!

Copyright notice != CMI (2)

Jabrwock (985861) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547308)

Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547354)

also, how is it "Digital" so that the DMCA even applies?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547438)

It's illegal if you remove it with Photoshop?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (3, Insightful)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547978)

If you use it for your own personal use (say as a background image on your computer screen), no. Though, few people are that anal to go to such lengths for such a minor thing. If you use it in any commercial way or in any manner that is shown to the public, yes. This is basic copyright 101, folks. You can't show it or make money off of it, directly or indirectly, unless you pay royalties.

This is exactly like removing the signature from a painting and passing it off as your own work. Of course they got reamed in court over it.

Lazy employee costs company millions in legal fees. News at 10...

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550996)

I remove credits from any wallpapers that I download, just because I can't stand to not have a clean looking desktop. Usually it's an easy crop, but sometimes I have to bust out Inpaint or one of the seam carving softwares.

Of course, I do try to find wallpapers that don't have credit or text on them in the first place.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551092)

That's fine. I do that too. But those DJs were using the photo to promote their own station. Remember, another magazine commissioned and paid the photographer to license the image to be used for *their* magazine. The DJs (or one of its interns) scanned the image from the magazine, removed the copyright, then the DJs invited its listeners to manipulate the image (infraction 1), and then use said image to promote their show for commercial purposes (infraction 2).

They weren't altering it to make a point, a parody, or any political statement. They were using the manipulated image for their weekly contest - that falls under commercial use in my book. They receive revenue from advertisers.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551992)

This is basic copyright 101, folks.

That's what's interesting about the story: the ruling isn't along the lines basic copyright; DMCA happened.

It's like you punch someone, and for that you get prosecuted for an EPA violation instead of battery. You were naughty and got punished, so some people will say justice is served. Other people are going to be so bewildered by the "WTF factor" that the justice issue will be overshadowed by questions about EPA-approved boxing shorts.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554732)

Wrong on a few points. Copyright doesn't mean I can't make money off a work that I don't have Copyright for. In many cases (not all, there are explicit laws preventing this universally) I can rent the Copyrighted material out.

For example, I could create a "pay-for" library. No copying takes place, and I make money "showing books to the public".

I can remove the signature from a painting, and then sell it. I can even claim I painted it; that would be plagiarism, but not a copyright violation.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36579176)

Muddy water (from your phrasing) :

If you use it in any commercial way or in any manner that is shown to the public, yes.

So, if I use your photo of ... a flange sprocket ... for my manual on generic flange-sprocketery which is most emphatically only distributed to card-carrying members of the Outer Mongolia Society of Flange Sprocketeers, who have to use their blood sample and DRM equipment to read the manual (this is definitely NOT "the public", in any way, shape or form), then my commercial use of your photo in an non-public manner is perfectly OK.

Well, that's how I parse what you wrote.

BTW, which jurisdiction are you referring to? Yours, mine, or America's?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547486)

The title of a bill has no legal force. The statute covering such attribution is Title 17, United States Code, section 1202 [copyright.gov] , which does not require that "copyright management information" be in digital form as a condition of protection.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547666)

Fine. So, does that mean scissors, erasers, or black markers are circumvention devices?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (2)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547954)

It does now

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549032)

No, because removal of CMI != circumvention.

And, this provision has only been part of the law for what, 13 years now?

HOLY IGNORANT SHIT FIT, BATMAN!

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547540)

The photo was digital. The watermark was digital. What part was analog?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (2)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547678)

The photons.
Sometimes. :P

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548200)

Nope, photons take discrete energy states when emitted (based on the potential difference between the electrons new energy level and it's energy level prior to the change). They are not analog.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549686)

Nope, photons take discrete energy states when emitted (based on the potential difference between the electrons new energy level and it's energy level prior to the change). They are not analog.

At source... maybe. But they are [wikipedia.org] the instant you what to localize them in space or time - like in using certain aperture/exposure values when shooting the photo.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

AstroMatt (1594081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552982)

They are analog, certainly. They can have any energy. Even energies of photons emitted by a laser have some small dispersion in energies.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (2, Interesting)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547698)

From the TFS: "...the appeals court said that a photo credit printed in the gutter of a magazine [emphasis mine]..." Yes, there are print magazines that are also published in electronic format, but TFS sounds like it was the print version, which TFA corroborates: "After the image appeared in the magazine, someone at WKXW scanned it without permission [emphasis mine, again]..."

The radio station published it electronically, but the original image was published on paper and scanned by the radio station.

While my sympathies are with the photographer in this instance and while I can easily see how the radio station's actions violated copyright on the image, I agree with GPP -- how, exactly, does the DIGITAL Millenium Copyright Act apply in this case? They weren't removing copyright/accreditation from an electronic format. I'm no lawyer, but it seems really asinine to apply the DMCA here. Obviously, however, the judge disagrees, and his opinion carries a lot more weight than mine.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547826)

While I agree with your point that it wasn't really digital when it is on paper, I'm pretty sure being in print doesn't evade the DMCA in regards to the CMI (which does not specify it has to be digital). It would be trivially easy to bypass the DMCA if it were, just print and scan again. You have to remember that this just the copyright information, not a copy protection technology.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551034)

It would be trivially easy to bypass the DMCA if it were, just print and scan again.

...you're still not bypassing copyright law. FIRST in the Berne convention there's a big fuzz about no longer having to print "Copyright (c) YYYY" anymore and NOW it's suddenly illegal to no longer include a copyright message hidden away in the gutter?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551178)

That's no longer having to print "Copyright (c) YYYY" anymore in order to be copyrighted and not no longer having to print some sort of copyright notice while using a work.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (2)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547832)

We are in the digital millenium, which some felt required new laws for copyright. The content covered is not necessarily all digital.

That being said, in this case, once it was scanned, it became digital. And all the prepress on the magazine was probably digital.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552748)

Had they included the Photo Credit information in the (digital) image's metadat, would it still have been a DMCA violation?

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36552800)

Duh! It's like ripping a cd! The cd (grooved thing) maybe real but the end result is DIGITAL. Duh duh duh. drur

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36573856)

Hey, genius...is a CD digital or analog? :rolleyes:

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547770)

They scanned a printed version of the photo that appeared in a magazine. The magazine version had a copyright notice with the photographer's name in the gutter (the spaces in between columns or between the content and the edge of the page) that the radio station employees either did not scan or cropped away. There was no digital watermark mentioned in the article.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547776)

Unfortunately, the digital is simple the buzz word in the title. The actual law deals with all sorts of copyright issues whether digital or in print.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36553430)

Parse error on my part. It is the Copyright Act for the Digital Millennium, but I guess CADM doesn't sound as memorable.

Read the definition of CMI (2)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548138)

Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".

No it isn't. A copyright notice is practically the definition of
copyright management information

(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright.
(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.
(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright. ...

Again, this ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-circumvention or take-down notice sections of the DMCA, so don't apply what you have heard about those part of the law to this ruling.

Re:Read the definition of CMI (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548170)

Sorry I messed up the link [cornell.edu] to the quoted law.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (3, Interesting)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548902)

I'd rather have the courts stick to the letter of the law and implement congress's bad law then have them try to dance around bad language and end up with a situation that's just as bad and has no clarity. This type of thing SHOULD fall under the DMCA and some high profile people should get stung by it.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI --- WRONG (2)

DRJlaw (946416) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548956)

Copyright law already protects your photo, whether the copyright notice has been cropped or not. This is a stupidly broad application of "copyright management information".

How so? Do you believe that copyright law 'already' protects "copyright management information" (absent the DMCA and this interpretation)? Or do you believe that removing "copyright management information" like this is not a bad act and does not create any additional harm? I hope neither, because on both counts you're wrong.

Pre-DMCA copyright law wouldn't provide any additional protection or penalty if someone removed a byline, photographer's attribution, copyright notice, or the like. At best, you might spend an inordinate amount of time and money arguing for additional damages under a tort theory like slander of title. Meanwhile, the work, stripped of any indication of source and/or copyright, would have essentially been turned into an "orphaned work." People who obtained copies of the work couldn't determine who the original owner was in order to obtain permission to legally redistribute or modify the work, or worse yet could assume that the work was released into the public domain. That's assuming that the person who stripped the information didn't have the gall to claim that it is their own -- as if that never happens.

This application is exactly what Congress intended:

Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information
(a) False Copyright Management Information.
No person shall knowingly and with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement

(1) provide copyright management information that is false, or

(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information that is false.

(b) Removal or Alteration of Copyright Management Information. â" No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law â"

(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,

(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or

(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,

knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.

(c) Definition -- As used in this section, the term "copyright management information" means any of the following information conveyed in connection with copies or phonorecords of a work or performances or displays of a work, including in digital form, except that such term does not include any personally identifying information about a user of a work or of a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a work:

(1) The title and other information identifying the work, including the information set forth on a notice of copyright.

(2) The name of, and other identifying information about, the author of a work.

(3) The name of, and other identifying information about, the copyright owner of the work, including the information set forth in a notice of copyright.

(4) With the exception of public performances of works by radio and television broadcast stations, the name of, and other identifying information about, a performer whose performance is fixed in a work other than an audiovisual work.

(5) With the exception of public performances of works by radio and television broadcast stations, in the case of an audiovisual work, the name of, and other identifying information about, a writer, performer, or director who is credited in the audiovisual work.

(6) Terms and conditions for use of the work.

(7) Identifying numbers or symbols referring to such information or links to such information.

(8) Such other information as the Register of Copyrights may prescribe by regulation, except that the Register of Copyrights may not require the provision of any information concerning the user of a copyrighted work. ...

If you had bothrred to read the applicable law, you would have seen that this "stupidly broad application" of the law by the appellate court was squarely within the terms of the statute. If you had bothered to think through the policy involved, you would have seen that this "stupidly broad" decision by congress protects Slashdot-favored information like Creative Commons Attribution and GPL-licensed works as well as that of the "copyright cartels."

Frankly, this "stupidly broad" application does the little guy a huge favor. If you don't register your copyrightable work from the start (first 3 months), you don't get to claim the $150,000 statutory damage figure that everyone likes to bandy about. You get to argue over what your actual losses were. With this "stupidly broad" application:

"At any time before final judgment is entered, a complaining party may elect to recover an award of statutory damages for each violation of section 1202 in the sum of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000." 17 USC 1203(c)(3)(B)

That's take-the-guy-to-court money that's not coming out of your own pocket, assuming that you can prove the guy removed the information. Quite a bit easier than proving that 100 anonymous people downloaded copies of your photograph valued at $250 each.

Re:Copyright notice != CMI (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552916)

True, but it is also quite expected that attribution printed in the gutter of a magazine should count as copyright information; thus, this decision means 'I didn't know' doesn't fly if the info isn't attached to the actual picture.

Re:Good! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547488)

Does that really require a DMCA violation to enforce?

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547598)

Probably not, but the ruling means the copyright holder can use the DMCA as another hammer to wield in the case.

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547614)

I believe this means you can't even crop the photo for any fair use purposes if cropping it will remove that watermark. So it's potentially different I suppose.

Re:Good! (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548038)

I believe this means you can't even crop the photo for any fair use purposes if cropping it will remove that watermark. So it's potentially different I suppose.

Of course you can. What you cannot do is crop off the authors name and then claim that it was not their photo because it doesn't have their name on it...

Re:Good! (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551970)

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that. This is exactly the sort of thing that copyright law should be used to protect!

Karma's a bitch (5, Insightful)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547288)

We can all argue about what fair use of copyrighted materials should be, but I think we can also more-or-less agree that deliberately stripping off a creator's name is uncool. Of course, the conduct of the defendants in question (RTFA, they were shock-jock DJs who responded to the photographer's cease-and-desist with a smear campaign chock full o' slander and libel and just-plain-lies) probably made it a lot easier for the judge to apply the bitch-slap to 'em. They deserved it.

Re:Karma's a bitch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547478)

Do you only believe in fair trials for likeable defendants as well?

Re:Karma's a bitch (5, Informative)

Caerdwyn (829058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547778)

You need to realize that the state of mind of the defendant is often the entire point of a case and is the difference between "guilty" and "innocent" (the fancy Latin term is mens rea [thefreedictionary.com] ). So if you act like a dick in court or in the actions surrounding the allegation, you may, in FACT, be convicting yourself by demonstrating your state of mind. The shock jocks demonstrated by their actions just what their state of mind was: malicious, reckless, and unrepentant. From a very real, legally defensible, well-established principle, their may well have pushed the likelihood of their guilt from "not enough proof" to "sufficient proof".

In other words, yes, they got a fair trail, because their behavior demonstrated the facts of the case. If someone is unlikeable, acts like an asshole, etc., is it more or less likely that person acted with malicious intent in the matter at hand? And is it more or less likely that the judge, with his authority to decide upon admissibility of evidence, to approve or deny motions by the lawyers involved, and discretion to decide sentencing, is going to throw the book at an asshole or Mother Teresa?

Today's lesson: don't be a dick. As far as the trial and its outcome is concerned, you'd BETTER be a likeable defendant.

Re:Karma's a bitch (4, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547838)

For a car analogy of parent:

If you run over somebody, don't back into their body and run it over again. And again. The courts find it really hard to believe that it was an accident otherwise.

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547936)

> between "guilty" and "innocent"

"not guilty", not "innocent".

Re:Karma's a bitch (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547834)

It isn't about "likable" defendants it is about flagrant slander after ripping someone off! The courts tend to frown on those that brag about their acts when such acts are a violation of literally decades of established law and slandering the person that is taking you to court on a national medium like radio is NOT a smart move. Sorry but these ass clowns deserve to be sued along with the station for a VERY large amount of cash.

To me this is no different than those asses like Ebaum that snatch anything they can find and try to pass it off as their own,or the pricks that steal GPL code and try to lock it behind a paywall. in all of the above you are taking something you have NO rights to and passing it off as your own and this isn't "information wants to be free" this is theft, as you are depriving someone else with your actions which in this case the photographer who is just trying to make a living.

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552178)

There are cases where ill intent is all that differs crime from non-crime. Example being receiving stolen goods. If you did this unknowingly and believing the goods were legit, you are innocent.

In most cases, though, while the stance shouldn't influence the "guilty/not guilty" verdict, it usually is aggravating/mitigating circumstance and in case you are guilty, will modify the scale of the sentence and may often change the classification of the act - say, manslaughter vs murder.

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548382)

Now probably isn't the best time to point out that stuff printed in the gutter, in graphic design, is extra filler around the main content that due to registration errors (off-center printing) might not show up... If they took their copyright seriously, they wouldn't put it there.

Re:Karma's a bitch (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549806)

I have an automated script (using Image Magick and a transparent PNG I made) that stamps the copyright at the lower left of the image. Yes, people can still strip off the copyright notice, but it would be a lot harder than a simple crop job. The script also rotates the images if need be and resizes them for posting to the web. This means that the image, even if the copyright notice were stripped somehow, wouldn't be useful for print publication.

Ditch the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547450)

The 1988 Copyright Act was more fair.

Re:Ditch the DMCA (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549406)

Ditch copyright itself. It does more harm than good.

Re:Ditch the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36550722)

And cripple GPL.

Your username is incrediby descriptive of your post

Re:Ditch the DMCA (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554652)

Yeah, why should authors have a tool to protect the fruits of their labor? While we are at it, why not disband the Department of Labor? Fight the man!

Clueless Courts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36547512)

What I find jaw-dropping about this story is how all of those lower courts consistently came up with the incorrect ruling on what is a total no-brainer copyright case like this one was.

Re:Clueless Courts (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547808)

Well...it was a total no-brainer copyright case, yes. But I fail to see how the DMCA should be involved in this one. If the plaintiff sued exclusively on the basis of the DMCA, I can totally see how the lower courts would side with the radio station, since the radio station didn't strip copyright information from a digital image. I could get the DMCA bit, if they removed a watermark or EXIF data from an image they scrounged on the web, but that's not what they did. Rather, they converted an actual, physical photograph into an electronic format.

Not being a lawyer and all that, I'm probably missing all kinds of details that are relevant, but in my tin-foil-hat mind, I can see this opening up all kinds of scary precedents. For example, could an architect sue for DMCA violations if you take a vacation photograph of a building she designed, with your spouse/kids/cute bystander in front of the plaque that tells who designed the building and uploading it to your Flickr page? After all, there's not that much difference between a digital camera and a scanner when you think about it. Just sayin'...

Re:Clueless Courts (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548152)

I fail to see how the DMCA should be involved in this one. I could get the DMCA bit, if they removed a watermark or EXIF data from an image they scrounged on the web, but that's not what they did. Rather, they converted an actual, physical photograph into an electronic format.

DMCA is Digital Millennium Copyright Act, not Digital Medium Copyright Act... the medium involved is not at issue. Welcome to the digital millennium.

Re:Clueless Courts (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36554690)

HA! People are morons. "I'm a Bears fan, not a Patriots fan, so the PATRIOT act doesn't apply to me! Stupid court system!"

Re:Clueless Courts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548654)

"could an architect sue for DMCA violations if you take a vacation photograph of a building she designed"

Actually, believe it or not, in some places - YES. I don't agree with it, but it's true.

Re:Clueless Courts (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36552238)

This is actually practiced by Starbucks. They take their exclusive interior designs very seriously. If you take a photo in one of their shops and publish it, you may very well be hearing from their lawyers.

I'm unsurprisingly okay with that (2)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547538)

Even if the picture in question was released under a Creative Commons Attribution license, you'd still have to include the attribution. If you don't include attribution in the first place you should be expecting to get sued.

Re:I'm unsurprisingly okay with that (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36547918)

Yeah unlike the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA which bans tools just because they could be used for piracy, and thus effectively prevent any fair use of works, the copyright management information [cornell.edu] section seems fairly reasonably. It is entirely focused on removing or falsifying attribution of copyright. I don't know that the section needs to exist; removal of attribution could just be treated as strong evidence of willful infringement, which already carries higher punishment. But it doesn't seem actively harmful.

Holy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36548136)

Holy shit, they cracked his Double-ROT13 encryption! Nothing is safe now!

Does this make Photoshop illegal? (1)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36548720)

Now Photoshop is a tool that can be used to circumvent CMI restrictions. Of course no court would declare Photoshop illegal. But what reasoning would they use?

Re:Does this make Photoshop illegal? (1)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 3 years ago | (#36549388)

Unlikely because PhotoShop has significant "non-infringing" uses.

Re:Does this make Photoshop illegal? (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551388)

Unlikely because PhotoShop has significant "non-infringing" uses.

More to the point, it puts Adobe in a pretty sticky situation. Adobe uses all kinds of DRM and activation on their products, and Photoshop is among the most pirated pieces of software in existence. They rank pretty high up on a list of BSA members when sorted by columns involving dollar signs, so clearly they have a very vested interest in having a DMCA to throw at pirates. They don't (at least not in any high profile cases to my knowledge), but it's certainly a back-pocket play for them, should it ever be in theory be advantageous for them.

Conversely, if Photoshop is deemed as being a tool where "singificant noninfringing uses" are no longer sufficient, then that'd be quite the amusing scene to watch as a civil war erupts in Adobe's legal department. While the Slashdot Cynic in me says "it's a corporation, they'll pay off the judge to make some sort of exception", the more whimsical side would find that there would be significant entertainment value in watching lawyers duke it out. Once they've finished their little competition, the winner of the grudge match will be decided by the consensus of the Chief Actuary and CFO. For true irony, the verdict will be generated through a pirated copy of Excel.

The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36549498)

It's a shame this ruling didn't happen before the whole The Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk [theoatmeal.com] situation occurred. Especially since FJ was ostensibly profiting from the hundreds of stolen images, I doubt it would have been considered fair use.

Stupid post. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36551104)

This is just a stupid post but it took some creativity to come up with it.

Oh... don't even THINK about quoting this in its entirety, but without the CMI displayed below!

COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
--
The title of this work is Stupid post.
This work was created by Anonymous Coward, the copyright belonging to the same: Copyright (c) 2011.
The performer of this work is also Anonymous Coward.
Terms and conditions for use of the work are those set forth by Geeknet, Inc.
The Identifying number is displayed above.

Re:Stupid post. (1)

Desirsar (666014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551766)

This is just a stupid post but it took some creativity to come up with it.

Oh... don't even THINK about quoting this in its entirety, but without the CMI displayed below!

Do what now? How will anyone know if you're the real Anonymous Coward who posted that without being logged in? :)

Why this is covered by DMCA... (2)

Desirsar (666014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36551758)

Too many comments asking this to reply to them all, and I don't want to explain it more than once.

The copyrighted image was being hosted without permission on a website. In order to force the site to remove it, one must file a DMCA takedown notice. If the radio station had, for instance, copied the image and had it published in a different magazine without credit (which would not happen because the magazine would have asked for a credit to publish, but go with the example anyway...), DMCA would not apply. In short, the radio station's lawyers tried to argue that the source was not digital (a magazine), and the DMCA didn't apply. The appeals court correctly ruled that the site's use of the photo being digital, without regard to the source format, is covered by DMCA.

Bar code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36553808)

If you rip the bar code off of a bag of chips, is that a DMCA infringement?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?