Hi. I've heard a few different answers to this question, but let me ask it one last time: Is pornographic material under the same restrictions as other material online when it comes to copyright infringement? For example, if an adult website just pulls its videos from other adult sites and uses it as their own content, can they be sued over copyright infringement? thanks!
If you are talking about ripping them off and hosting them on your own server, this is definitely copyright infringement and some companies are agressive towards it. Another thing is that you wouldn't have model releases or their ID. This is potentially an even bigger risk than the infringement.
Is the act illegal? Absolutely! But you can't claim copyright INFRINGEMENT without proving copyright first and in the US that means registering your claim of copyright. Simply - If you have no claims your copyright (required proof)... you have no infringement case. You can search for claims here (type in porn and search by keyword) and a bunch of claims will appear. http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First These people/companies can claim infringement.
That's only true if the copyright holder wants to sue you for damages (and at up to $150,000 per infringement, that's a serious issue) The copyright holder does NOT have register the copyright to file a DMCA takedown notice with your web host, Google and other search engines, the advertisers on your site etc.
You are in error. Claiming someone is infringing on your copyright is the same as suing to preserve your copyrights... 1 step merely comes before the other. When you sign a DMCA claim you are claiming under the penalty of perjury you are the copyright holder... if you are not (in the USA) that can be used against you. The alleged infringer also has rights... DMCA is not a court of law... it is merely a process to align the digital world with the print world... to consider the unique 3rd party issues. Claiming copyright without having exercised your copyright is a dangerous game to play... you're playing around with vigilante justice. (which is illegal) The alleged infringers' rights start in DMCA as well and is a step inbetween the two previously noted steps... that is a DMCA counterclaim which states they have a good faith belief you are in error about your rights on the alleged claim... at which time you are notified by the DMCA Designated Agent under DMCA protection that you have 10-14 business days to show proof of court action... obviously that would be what a copyright holder would do next. If you do not show proof it that time period... The Designated Agent you contacted MUST replaced the alleged infringing content... if THEY DO REPLACE they can be sued as they are no longer acting within the Safe Harbor provisions... in which case you concede that you are not the rightful copyright holder. (and now the fun starts) In the USA... you can't file infringement claims in court without your registration number... which means you can't show proof and by default the alleged infringer can easily sue you for damages... with all the Designated Agents that didn't understand DMCA. Also statutory damages (The $150,000) are automatic when a copyright claim was filed within 3 month of the original publishing date. After that 3 months to 5 years the court can awards whatever to a minimum of $2000. If you don't claim your rights you can't file so there are no damages.
You keep saying this but it is not true. You do not need to register your copyright in order to stop someone else from using your material. And while you are correct that if the other party LIES and says they in fact own your copyrighted material, the host has concflicting claims of copyright. The law says that in that case they need to return the original material that someone was claiming is copyrighted until such time as other legal action is brought to clear up the conflict. You make up this whole area of conflict which only occurs of the infringing party LIES and says that your material is free for them to use. If they do lie in that manner than yes, you may in fact have to go to court and enforce your rights. You certainly do not need to do it in two weeks or anything of that nature. But the simple reality is that most infringes are not fucking stupid enough to file a counter claim saying that have the right to use the content. That would just compound their infringement and serves no real end game. I mean, what kind of moron baits a copyright owner who has already filed a DMCA?
what about all the adult tube sites? they can have users upload copyrighted porn material to them but i think if the xxx video/pic does not any copyrighted proof such as watermarks etc.. it would be hard for a claim no?
The question comes about because of all the porn video sites which seem to "share" many of the same videos... Obviously, there has to be one video site that first published the video and I know that there are "video grabbers" employed by many other sites that probably pulled that video from them... What's to keep the original host of the video from suing all of these "grabbers?" A friend told me that pornographic material can't be copyrighted, but from what I hear in this forum, that is just wrong...
You are assuming that no one will dispute your ALLEGED claim. Lie? The counterclaim says nothing about the alleged infringing party owning copyright... it states they have a good faith belief you are mistaken about your claim of copyright. The fact that you never exercised your claim and never registered is proof that you are mistaken and it is also my "good faith belief" in that I can check the copyright office for free and see you have no copyright claims".... where is the lie? According to DMCA provisions you are in error.
Well there are different degrees here... if you. If you record people engaging in an act you need "signed releases" from all parties before you can claim you are the copyright holder and then you still need to register it if you wish to preserve your rights. Granted if you send most people a C&D (or some other legal document) if they did nab it from somewhere else - they will likely delete it without asking any questions... but say the people in the video gave permission for the website owner to use and gave them signed releases and that company register it... and you sent a DMCA and they counterclaimed... you "assumed" you have the rights and they "know you don't"... you commited perjury yourself in a legal document without you knowing you did... now where are you? You have absolutely no idea what the other party has to protect themselves so while members post "you don't need" ... don't ever put yourself in a position to get blindsided afterthefact.... for the sake of $35 to registered your complete website and the potential of statutory damages is better than the alternative.
Interesting...In other words, most of these video sites (even the biggest ones) are probably using non-copyrighted material since I seriously doubt that they would have signed releases from their uploaded videos...
I wouldn't assume anything... I agree with others here - it is not advisable to "borrow" anything that isn't yours without permission of the owner... but in the online world everyone "assumes" and the owner may not even be the owner - they just think they are. (would that be a lie?) With freelancing work-for-hire, under the table, no contract, cash in hand... a person that thinks they are the author may only think that... the real author can resell to whomever and not disclose any list of customers... what's more... A freelancer can borrow and, rightly or wrongly, sign legal documents transferring copyright to a customer, that customer can register... and you just happen to come across it and serve a DMCA claim which the party knows is bogus (according to their legal documents). Now because of the legal document you signed and the information on it they see your copy and know they registered within 3 months of authoring. They commence court action and the courts have your word, you perjurying a DMCA claim because you didn't actually have copyright vs. legal copyright documents certified by the copyright office... It only matters what you can prove... and the court MUST provide statutory damages in the amount of $150,000. If you don't prove your case you are the rightful copyright holder you owe $150,000 because you assumed. Lastly, every time Google gets hauled into court for YouTube... is it because "they LIED"? The law (all law) isn't about the truth... it's about what you can prove... and you're a real dumbass if you think your word is proof.
infact fathom is absolutely right in what he is been saying in the last 2 threads where this was hotly debated . and that is the law and it is practical , if you claim copyright to something you would better be able to prove it, cause I for one would def take you to court over this. any one needing clarifying on this can google up Davenport Lyons and their bogus claims esp in field of porn and now they are facing court action in U.K courts at least. here are some links read it up. http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?company=davenport+lyons&edition=techdirt http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2008/12/davenport_lyons_threatening_le.html infact there is site now , i can't find that link that if you recive a notice from this law firm , to report to that site , it shows how these lawyers took some laws and made it a multi million dollar industry for themselves. edit found it http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/
There it is... and a little more... the LAW doesn't just protect the copyright holder, the law protects everyone else too from copyright holder abuse. Legally I'm entitled to police protection and fire protection... the police department & fire department cannot ignore my claims that someone stole from me or I have a fire in my home... but while I'm automatically protected... I need to claim I need their help. God forbid if I abuse that right. In the context of what people are saying in copyright law... I claim there is a fire at my home (when there isn't) and the fire department acts... (or a robbery when there isn't)... you can easily see here how I'm in deep trouble in these development... I'm in fact abusing my rights. A "work" is automatically protected the moment it is put in tangible form... That isn't disputed. What isn't automatic is a claim of infringement - because someone else also has rights to be protected from false claims... and your copyright "word" isn't evidence against me (as the alleged infringer). YOU MUST prove that I am infringing. To do that you MUST conclusively prove your claim of copyright... and you cannot positively do that without litigating the matter. I'll agree you can abuse the system - but it was NEVER EVER the intended use of the system to allow anyone to avoid litigation. And DMCA isn't about protecting the copyright holder - its about protecting innocent 3rd parties from claims they have no direct knowledge or involvement in. And when you threaten the innocent 3rd parties - sure you can get away with it... but you are acting outside the intended use of the law.
I really can't comment on your experience as a lawyer but I am puzzled... Normally lawyers want evidence of something.
Well I'd much rather be a dumbass than a copyright holder paying you your fees while you're telling them they can't recover your fees & that they need to register first before you can help them further.