Design and copyright infringements.

It is like hiring attorney this dmca.com is not linked any way officially with digital millennium copyright act .Which is basically a is a United States copyright law that control access to copyrighted works on internet.

This dmca.com is privately owned website which provide legal help (paid).

but i think they can help you as attorney.

 

agree

i have seen they helped my clients, I am sure they can take care of copyrights

 

Free isn't worth much... (DP Advice) but cheap is worth even less! (DMCA Support)

You: "How do I search?"...

You: "How do I fax?"...

"We at DMCA won't actually show you how - we'll just do it for you... thanks for the $100."

 

I didn't say it was a scam. I said it was just some random company taking $100 to send a fax for you. They have nothing to do with the law itself, they are a private company selling you a service for money. That is all.

What does a link to wiki have to do with anything? Also, where exactly is there a link to dmca.com on copyscape? Not that it matters, but I looked and did not see a link to that site.

 

I did a search for something and it was in the very middle, knowing about DMCA I clicked on it

I just tried to find it again, and understood that it was a usual sponsored ad

 

They provide a service. It is probably a value to some people. I just wanted to make sure you understood that they are simply a private company and that this is probably something you can do yourself if you follow some websites that describe the procedure.

 

I did the design for conceptmobiles and i've transfered all the copyrights to Ludwig. It's really frustrating to see that someone else took my (actually him) design.

 

How exactly is the infringer being scammed?

 

...when a counterclaims comes then you'll know.

 

You are showing a pattern of having it out for the DMCA process, and I haven't quite figured out why.

Either you don't understand that counterclaims are extremely rare and that DMCA gets pretty much everything removed, or you are trying to support infringement by telling theifs to counterclaim. So which is it?

 

Your position suggests the law doesn't matter "because" few people ever exercise their rights.

You "assume" (I guess) everyone that has a copy is a thief no matter the circumstances... I assume the rightful owner must prove that assumption don't assume anything...

You also "assume" (I guess) everyone who is anonymously posting here is posting the whole truth and the exclusive truth and not padding their comments to reflect themselves in a positive light...

I assume (I guess) a rightful copyright holder desiring advice to preserve their rights wishes to do that... as oppose to "not really". They only wish advice that when challenged - they are screwed.

You assume (I guess) an alleged infringer is guilty without so much as a preponderance of the evidence... I assume that's bad legal advice in all countries of the world.

You assume that DMCA is meant to protect copyright holders... "IT IS NOT". DMCA is meant to protect innocent 3rd parties from frivolous copyright holder claims (e.g. the alleged infringer has no pockets to pick so I'll sue Google for millions as they are benefiting from the alleged infringer's bad faith)... the safe harbor provisions of DMCA protects Google from both parties so long as they follow the provisions as outlined.

But in the event where an online service provider IS NOT a REGISTERED designated agent of DMCA they have no protection whatsoever so you as the alleged copyright holder may sue them at your convenience. You're right though - it isn't easy to do and certainly isn't worth the cost... and that's why you pull the DMCA trick.

I'm sure you can abuse that system to avoid the cost of copyright (everyone does - it's rare to see that not occurring)... you have that right to do as you see fit and you are equally aware of that right... you can do whatever you wish right up to the point someone else challenges your rights and then what?

It is absolutely wrong for you to treat all posters as equally aware... because you can get away with something does not mean that's the law.

 

Why does anyone listen to your nonsense?

 

Fathom, we talk from the perspective of dealing with infringers in these threads. Actual infringers. Infringers that knowingly stole content for commercial gain. Is it your opinion that such infringers should file a counterclaim?

Is it your opinion that actual infringers should take whatever steps necessary to keep the stolen content up on their sites?

 

Wordpress is open source

CSS is open source

Hexcode is open source

They seem to have replaced all images that "might" have some copyright attached but I suspect the original images weren't actually the exclusive property of the designer (more likely stock photos)

The "design" from what I could see didn't include copyright literary works and even if it did - they didn't use that.

It's a real piss off (I understand) but what parts of this project can you make claims on?

Sending Google, Yahoo, and Bing DMCA claims in absolutely ridiculous... what part of the "design" is searchable?

You're so stuck on DMCA EVERYTHING BECAUSE YOU CAN - you advise people to do it just because (not because of any exclusive rights)

People with exclusive rights protect those rights... people with a burr in their ass just fake around the exclusive part.

I see they are selling the design... well you can sue for actual damages (whatever) and possible statutory damages in the amount of $150,000... but you also must register the work and go to court... and the design wasn't created by the owner so it would be a work for hire - but I don't believe it falls in any of the 9 categories.

 

1. I wouldn't trust ANY site selling you legal services where you cannot find out information about who the company is and land/phone contact information

2. How many lead generator sites out there and why is this any different? It could be a bunch of people in a basement collecting your money and sending it to a $20 attorney who generates a form letter for you on their stationary. I'm not saying it's illegal or illegitimate but if you don't get information about what you're paying for then use your imagination.

3. Anyone can write a DMCA letter. I've posted information here which has all the steps.

How to Write and send a DMCA Takedown notice

But it is not effective outside the US except by notable companies that may choose to comply (and why would you want to have illegitimate sites running that might involve you in a lawsuit?) So law firm or not isn't going to help.

4. If I read correctly, the designers are in India. Your only remedy is the site owner and the host. After that it's not an easy process if they want to rip you off. Truth is that the DMCA is more useful for copyright owners with money to spend.

Good luck.

 

Fathom, do you, or do you not believe that actual infringers who knew what they were doing should file a counterclaim on any DMCA takedown notice with the goal of keeping the infringing content on their site?

 

It doesn't matter what I believe... it only matters what you can prove. How can you possibly know what an alleged infringer knew or knows without ever talking to them?

I believe writers can be the alleged infringer or the opening designer. I believe an infringer can be the brother of a IP attorney or have very big pockets and even attorneys can be the alleged infringer. I believe the guilty also seek legal advice and I also believe the guilty can win even when they are in the wrong.

I believe the alleged infringer can do everything within the law and have a better case than you and 100% believe they are the copyright holder.

I think is absolutely idiotic to believe an infringer is a just some dumbass thief that doesn't have access to their own legal defense... and I also think it's pretty irresponsible to send a legal document to another party that can take that document to an attorney and get real legal advice before you do.

Bottomline - if copyright is important to you, you shouldn't pretend that it isn't... and if it isn't important to you, you shouldn't pretend that it is.

Lastly, in the thread, there is lots of suggested advice about copyright that has (IMHO) zip to do with the OPs problem... instead of focusing on me... do you seriously believe they have any legal claim? If they don't why advise they do?

<added>HERE: this specific case the creator of the "design" is not the commissioning officer... so at best this would be a work-made-for-hire.

In order to be a work made for hire - a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas. (contest for the best template for wordpress - doesn't fall in these categories - what "specifics" were specifically ordered? ...but that's just an opinion)

If the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. The written instrument could simply be a check endorsed by both parties prior to the work commencing. If say PayPal was use as the preferred payment method - no endorsements were likely use... and you can't legally do that now especially after an alleged infringement has occurred in order to make this a work-made-for-hire afterthefact.

For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a “supplementary work” is a work prepared for a publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, (e.g. wordpress itself) such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes; and an “instructional text” is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

The OP (IMHO) IS NOT the copyright holder and has no right to be infringed on.

The additional problem here is that the alleged infringer removed (may have) everything that could possibly have a copyright claim by someone (but that isn't likely the OP)... the creator didn't create colors, and they didn't actually create the source code for wordpress or wordpress template plugins or the CSS - those are open source.

And it isn't 100% clear if the original creator didn't just use some royalty free background code to commence the work... and so did the alleged infringer. (most cheap designers don't start all projects from scratch and few professional services would invest in contest-based unpaid work).

So - sure they can send a DMCA claim but they don't have any legal legs to stand on... and if the other party seeks legal guidance that legal person isn't likely to just say "face the music you stole copyright material"... when this can't easily be proven.

So advise them how you wish... I think it's legally stupid to claim infringement if you can't defend your copyright claim in the first place.

 

Fathom, you keep dancing around my question.

Let me use this hypothetical situation:

I am the owner and webmaster of a for-profit commercial site who can't or won't write my own text content. So I decide that I will go to other random for-profit commercial sites big and small, highlight text that they have full rights to and copy & paste it onto my site without their authorization. I fully understand that this act is in violation of copyright laws in both my and their jurisdictions, and I accept this because I have deemed that the potential rewards outweigh the risks. Then one day my host gets a DMCA takedown from one of the sites that I stole text content from. Would you, fathom, recommend that I submit a counterclaim for the sole reason of keeping the infringing materials on my site so that I can continue to illegitimately profit off of someone else's work?

 

If you don't want to discuss this topic start a new thread... I'll gladly post.

This is a "REAL CASE of DMCA or to not DMCA" - so we don't need to consider a hypothetical... let's discuss the real deal.

To be clear: I wouldn't be a dumbass putting in a counterclaim without knowing all the specifics... just like I wouldn't be a dumbass putting in a claim without knowing all the specifics.

The person claiming copyright - doesn't have it IMHO... that's a pretty big specific that's missing... so what do you do here?

 

it is my opinion that both Fathom and Dubdub should be banned from the legal section.
They turn every thread about copyright violation into a personal battle field, taking the attention away from the original posters predicament.

If you two want to continue fighting then go and open your own thread and fight it out there. You are both as bad as one another - You are both nothing more than attention seeking idiots.

I am sure That I am not the only one that thinks this but it would appear no one else has the gehones to say it out in the open to you both.

And NO I am not saying either one of you is right or wrong in your opinions. However you are both wrong in the way you continue to take over and monopilize these threads, with your personal in fighting.