I recently got a post taken down about a documentary movie I saw on the death of Diana Spencer. It’s hard to tell what part of the post was a problem as this was the infringement claimed:
Infringing Activity : INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT / TRADEMARK /
PERFORMERS RIGHTS / MORAL RIGHTS (VIA, INTER ALIA, PIRATED FILE UPLOADING
It’s not possible to upload and host a movie to WordPress (this blog uses WordPress) on the plan I’m on, so the claim doesn’t make much sense, though the words “INTER ALIA” in latin means “among other things”, so this claim could refer to anything. I believe it has to do with a link to the movie I had on the post but I’m yet to verify this with WordPress’ company – Automattic.
The post I wrote was actually questioning the idea of suppression which this particular documentary has had it’s fair share of. There wasn’t much I wrote about the movie itself, it was more an example of the extent things can be suppressed on the internet.
I believe suppressing things generally actually has the opposite effect. It seems to me that all the laws of the universe created by God uproot suppression, so it’s something to the effect of – the more we suppress, hide, cover up, the more work and effort we need to keep things suppressed and the more likely these things will come out anyway. Consider the fact that I wouldn’t have written another post on this movie if it hadn’t been taken down.
If you’d like to know some more about this movie, here’s a post that covers the content a fair bit more that say Wikipedia does: http://thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-unlawful-killing-of-princess-diana-and-dodi-al-fayed/
What’s interesting about this particular movie is the guy who made it, Keith Allen has said the reason he did was in the pursuit of truth, not to make money. The truth shall set us free a very wise man once said. It is weird then that the production company pursues and shuts down uploads and links to this movie so relentlessly, as it’s can’t be about money. Something else is the motivation.
Here is also an video from the person who used to host this movie as well as a lot of other very good movies I’ve watched recently. His video hosting company recently pulled the plug.
If interested, below is the correspondence I’ve had so far about this:
We have received a DMCA Takedown Notice (http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130) for the following material published on your WordPress.com site:
As per the DMCA’s requirements, we have disabled public access to the material. If you do not have the legal rights to distribute the material, you are required to permanently delete the post and/or content and let us know when this has been done.
Republishing this material without permission of its copyright holder – or continuing to publish material that results in DMCA Takedown Notices – will result in a permanent suspension of your WordPress.com site and account. Publishing such material is a direct violation of the WordPress.com Terms of Service (http://wordpress.com/tos/), which you agreed to upon registration.
Repeated receipt of DMCA takedown notices for your WordPress.com site will also lead to its suspension. If you believe that this notice was received in error, it is important that you formally challenge this notice to ensure that your WordPress.com site remains operational.
If you wish to formally challenge this notice, we will be happy to provide you will all of the appropriate details.
WordPress.com | Automattic Inc.
Rather than delete the post I’m wondering if I can remove all the links instead? It appears doing this cannot possibly step over anything in DCMA if any link to the movie (Unlawful Killing) is removed. I can’t conceive of how a link to a resource is considered an infringement in the first place, but I’m happy to remove these as the content of the post was more so about questioning the concept of suppressing material generally.
In regards to linking according to DCMA, this is where it stands:
“The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent op(digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.
There has been only one case in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances. ”
I’ve removed all dead or current links to this movie, so this post (http://disorderlyhappiness.com/2013/02/03/uncovered-truth-the-unlawful-killing-of-diana-spencer/) cannot be deemed as violating any of your Terms of Service. It seems that Wikipedia’s public article on the movie is OK too by DCMA by it’s public presence – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_Killing_(film), so I’m assuming the mention the movie is not considered an infringement either.
In the same way as that Wikipedia article, this post is merely mentioning the movie without links to the movie. Other than that, as said above, the content of the post is about posing a question as to the social benefit of removing information of an investigative nature (such as this film).
I’d assume if you’ve not got back to me on this in a reasonable time, it’s OK by WordPress for me to republish this post publicly.
Let me know,
Hi Phil / Automattic,
I’m a big advocate of WordPress, the open source code, the community, the amazing blogs you guys allow hosted basically free of charge. It’s of course not my intention to cross your terms of service, so while I believe that truth, and the pursuit of it (while not trying to be cliche about it) is fundamental to a peaceful and productive world and so have concerns about DMCA generally, I have a great deal of respect for your organisation and so I would prefer having your consent to republish the post. I honestly don’t feel I’ve crossed any ethical boundaries in my original posting, however as I said, because I have a very high regard for your organisation, I do respect your standpoint in regards to DMCA, and am happy to amend my post as I have done.
I wanted to write this as I don’t feel I completely expressed my perspective in the last email.
Let me know if this is being currently reviewed or not.
If you believe this DMCA takedown notice was submitted in error and would like to formally challenge this notice, here is the process you will need to follow:
1) Compose a formal and complete counter-notice (please understand that this is a legal statement) consisting of the following information (http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132):
* Your name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature.
* Identification of the material and its location before removal.
* A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification.
* Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body.
2) Send the above notice to email@example.com. We will forward the counter-notice, in its entirety and including all of your contact details, to the claimant. Please ensure that this is sent as a separate email. Do not reply to this email with your counter-notice.
3) If the claimant decides to not legally pursue the matter in 14 days, the material can be restored. If you are not fully prepared to face the claimant in court, you should not proceed.
The Takedown Notice in question is provided below:
DMCA / EUCD NOTIFICATION
1. Rights Owner(s) : ALLIED STARS FILMS
2. Rights Agent : WEB SHERIFF
3. Infringed Rights : COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK, PERFORMERS & MORAL RIGHTS
4. Infringed Artist(s) : N/A – MOTION PICTURE
5. Infringed Title(s) : “UNLAWFUL KILLING”
6. Infringing Activity : INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT / TRADEMARK /
PERFORMERS RIGHTS / MORAL RIGHTS (VIA, INTER ALIA, PIRATED FILE UPLOADING
7. Infringing Web Site : http://disorderlyhappiness.com
8. Infringing File Location(s) :
9. DMCA Request : Please cease Infringing Activity / remove Infringed
Title(s) from Infringing File Location(s) ASAP : thank you.
10. Signature :
for and on behalf of
Queen Caroline Street
London W6 9DX
Tel 44-(0)208-323 8013
Fax 44-(0)208-323 8080
(Signed as Duly Authorized Rights Agent
of the Rights Owner(s) Specified Herein)
Note 1 : The information in the notification is accurate and, under
penalty of perjury, Web Sheriff is authorized to act on behalf of the
exclusive owner of the rights alleged to have been infringed in this
Notification. Both Web Sheriff and the Rights Owner specified herein have
a good faith belief that the infringing party specified above has no right
or entitlement to exploit the Infringed Rights specified herein.
Note 2 : This DMCA request is issued without prejudice to all of our
client’s accumulated, worldwide rights in relation to the infringements
specified herein – including, but not limited to, the right to seek
injunctive relief, the right to sue for damages and the right to seek
criminal prosecutions all of which rights are hereby reserved in full.
Web Sheriff Ltd Co. No. 4093131 Reg’d in England & Wales
London Office : Argentum, Queen Caroline Street, London W6 9DX
Reg’d Office : Aurum, High Street, Pewsey Wilts SN9 5AF
WordPress.com | Automattic
I don’t want to do a counter-notice as its not worth the hassle for
me. The claim refers to infringement of copyright regarding a link to
the movie which is a dubious claim to say the least but I don’t want
to pursue it. The request was:
> Please cease Infringing Activity / remove Infringed
> Title(s) from Infringing File Location(s) ASAP : thank you.
I’ve done this, as I mentioned, so I want to check with you there’s no
issue with your terms if I now republish (after I’ve previously made
the edits that abides by the request – removing link to movie).
Can you let me know if publishing this post to public view with these
mentioned edits does not break your TOS?
Hi there Deborah Sykes,
I received a DMCA take down notice from you in regards to a post I’ve made. This email is not a legal counter-claim and because my correspondence with the company that hosts my blog, Automattic does not directly answer my queries (see my correspondence with this email), I respectfully ask for clarification directly from yourself.
There was a request to remove the post or change the copy in a way that would no longer be an infringement according to your claim. This request is not specific or clear enough for me in regards to what I would need to change. I would like to republish my post (it is not public right now) and I’m happy to abide by your request but I feel I have no specific request to abide by as yet, I need more clarification. Please clarify for me exactly what you would like.
I’ve amended the copy of my post already in a way that I believe at the moment abides by your request as far as I understand that to be. I’ve removed all links to the movie “Unlawful Killing” which were only placed there as a resource for readers to illustrate my opinion. I do not host this movie, nor do I personally have any details as to whether the host of this movie is doing so legally or not. Apart from that I do not believe an opinion alone can be an infringement of copyright. Does removing the link/s as I have done abide by your request? If so, I’m happy to republish my post without links to this movie and I am happy for you to review my post before republishing.
Thanks for your help
I’m sorry for the delay and hassle. I took a closer look at this yesterday with our legal counsel, and we’ve marked your post as public again since we need the copyright owner to provide more specific information before taking any action.
If you made any edits, feel free to use post revisions to restore a previous version. You can see more details about post revisions here:
WordPress.com | Automattic
Thanks for looking further into this. Restores my high regard for what you guys do. I’m a designer / frontend developer and always been a big advocate for WordPress.
I do understand you’d get hundreds of these take down notices per day and so it’s going to be difficult to review them all. I guess though you might appreciate how eventually that process wouldn’t actually be serving to protect copyright, ownership etc. but “protect” people from expressing their opinions. I’m glad though it’s clear for me that’s not the direction you guys want to be taking.
Thanks for that.