I recently discovered that a website was developed recently that not only mirrors the information posted one of my own websites, but copies my original work. My original content that has been copied is located at: http://www.forgottendiesels.com/6.9_ford.html http://www.forgottendiesels.com/ford_diesel.html And has been posted by another webmaster at the following address: http://blueovaltrucks.com/tech/6_9-7_3-IDI.htm Most notably, this person has copied word for word the introduction of my website and the timeline that I created. I have researched the website owner's contact information but have yet to send an email. I was hoping first to get some input on the best way to approach the situation. Any advice or knowledge on these kinds of issues would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, -Teal
Well "how important is this stuff to you"? Most times you can convince webmasters to remove the alleged infringements on your rights but you also must understand they also have rights and their right says (paraphrasing) they are entitled to legal representation e.g. their day in court. If you plan to escalate this to the courts you must register you copy with the US Copyright Office (for US only)... you are best to register first because if you don't you non-escalation at the time of an original claim can be used by the defense as bad faith. If you merely wish the shock & awe route (that is - scare them into submission then a DMCA takedown order with the search engines will likely do. References for DMCA processes are here: References: Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (US DMCA) – http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf Google Network Processes – http://www.google.com/dmca.html Yahoo Network Processes – http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/us/details.html Microsoft Network Processes – http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyrtInfrg.htm (for MSN & Bing) Ask Processes – http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/copyright_iac.shtml Sample Cease & Desist Order – http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7 Copyright Registration Forms – http://www.copyright.gov/forms/ DMCA Claims & Counter-claims Both claims and counter claims follow the same informational requirements and quite easy to generate: Identify your copyrighted works (web page url) Identify the infringing material (web page url) and a search query reference for where they appear in that search engine’s results… (if you can’t find any reference in a search engine’s archive for the alleged infringement – that search engine doesn’t receive a claim/counterclaim). Your contact info (email / phone number). Alleged infringers contact info (possibly from website, or whois – email / phone number) Include the following statement: “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.†Include the following statement: “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.†Sign the paper. Send the written communication – Fax, Register Mail, Courier (and where applicable email) all recipients at the same time. Proof all DMCA complaints for errors. If you need visual examples for help check http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi ...and send to: Google.com F: (650) 963-3255 Yahoo.com F: (408) 349-7821 or eMail: MSN.com F: (425) 936-7329 or eMail: Ask.com mail to: IAC Search & Media, Attention: General Counsel, 555 12th Street, Suite 500, Oakland, CA 94607 or or use mailform: http://sp.ask.com/en/docs/about/feedback.shtml It is especially important to send (fax) Google's... they are the only designated agent that will attempt to contact the alleged infringer which means they will probably remove the information as oppose to ignoring Google... but they can counterclaim and your only recourse then is suing them in a court of law.
Thank you, that information is very helpful. The site is not worth going to court over, it is just irritating to see someone copying & pasting my content after putting so much work into research on the subject. Thanks again -Teal
Please IGNORE legal advice from fathom. He is clueless and gives bad advice on this particular topic of DMCA and copyright. His advice discourages actual copyright owners and encourages infringers and he uses his misunderstanding of the law and its application to support his bizarre notions. Just to be clear - this is the part to completely ignore:
I discourage actual copyright owners to not to do what? I encourage actual copyright owners to register their claim first for a cost of $35/domain - you advise them act without any understanding whatsoever so to save $35. For a lawyer that charges "how much"?
You discourage copyright owners from filing a DMCA. You mislead copyright holders into thinking they should not file a DMCA until they have registered their copyright with the government. You mislead people into thinking that some infringer gains rights when a copyright holder files a DMCA before registering their copyright. Since you keep posting this nonsense can you let us all know what qualifies you to make these bizzare claims about how the DCMA works?
Here is a good article on how to craft your own DMCA letter How to Write and send a DMCA Takedown notice
What's misleading is an attorney, such as yourself, saying DMCA protects a copy holder's rights... when it doesn't - it's meant to protect 3rd parties from a dispute it knows nothing about.
If I mislead by saying they should file a copyright before filing an infringement by default of omission you are saying the opposite. So let's look at the act of Misrepresentations http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501 So yes I STRONGLY RECOMMEND before you ever put yourself in this position... you register your claim first... the why is obvious... If you represent to others that another party IS INFRINGING you had better be damn certain you are 100% correct... for the law clearly states you are liable for my damages, including costs and attorneys' fees. (me being the alleged infringer)
This is the crux of your misunderstanding. Filing a DMCA request before filing for a copyright, when you are the copyright holder, is not a misrepresentation. Let me repeat, Filing a DMCA request before filing for a copyright, when you are the copyright holder, is not a misrepresentation. So, while you keep saying that a copyright holder opens the door to some damages, but if you are in fact the copyright holder you have not made any misrepresentation. The only person who should follow your advice [and not file a DMCA] is someone who is not the actual copyright holder. Someone who is not the copyright holder should never file a DMCA take down as they open themselves up to liability. For some unknown reason, you keep making the assertion that a legal copyright holder commits some misrepresentation filing a DMCA request claiming ownership before registering their copyright. Do you have anything that supports this absurd proposition? Further, the very rule you cite is what keep inringers from requesting the material be put back up. That is a reciprocal provision and both sides end up liable for legal fees if there is a misrepresentation. What infringer is going to request the material they know they don't own be put back up and risk additional liability?
First in these instances: 1. paid a 3rd party to write 2. created an unauthorized derivative work 3. fair use works as your starting point for your work Just because you think you own copyright doesn't mean you actually do. Second... it is NEVER wrong to register. Third... you CANNOT file an infringement claim unless you are registered. Fourth... in the event of AdSense Publisher is the alleged infringer the publisher has no choice but to counterclaim. (I'm sure they'll all just ignore the money in their account and walk away) Lastly, just because you think everyone is guilty in advance doesn't mean they do... furthermore, AGAIN... it only matters what you can prove and an infringement on a right cannot occur without proof of a right. That works both ways... what person knowingly & willfully infringes in the first place? Anyone knowingly & willfully doing this thinks they can get away with it... they obviously had a plan in advance AND DOING THINGS YOUR WAY... THEY CERTAINLY CAN. Everyone unknowingly doing this goes "OMG! SORRY! SORRY! SORRY!" That said, I agree with you... if the material isn't important enough to go to court over don't worry about it just do a DMCA and hope for the best... it does work... because most people don't think about copyright.
Are those supposed to be three examples where you should not file a DMCA? Well, you are using the wrong criteria. The only issue is whether you have a valid copyright in your material. If you do not, then you can't file for a copyright and should not file a DMCA take down. It does not matter if you paid someone to write the content, or made a legal but unauthorized derivative work, or use public domain works as the starting point for your copyrighted work. In each of those three examples you could still own a valid enforceable copyright. As for registering one's copyright material, of course it is a good idea, I never suggested otherwise. I merely disagree with your assertion that people should not file a DMCA unless they have already registered their copyright. You have yet to explain any reason why not except to say you can't file a lawsuit. But that is true regardless of whether or not you file a DMCA. So, again, what legal harm, or any harm whatsoever, comes to a copyright holder who files a DMCA prior to registering their copyright? All of the imagined harm you speak about only happens to people who never had the right to the material in the first place. Obviously. Is that what this is about? When I speak of a copyright holder, I mean an actual copyright holder, not someone who mistakenly thinks they have copyright in some material when they really do not. Of course, that idiot should not file a DMCA over his non-existent copyright. Nor should anyone with a tenuous copyright claim file a DCMA take down. Only people who have a clear and exclusive ownership of the copyright material should be filing a take down request.
browntwn is correct. The DMCA's purpose is not just meant to protect third parties from suit which, in this case, is the "safe harbor" for Internet Service Providers that you are talking about. It also places the burden on the person accused of infringement to show that they are the owner of the rights to the work in order for it to be placed back online. If I have 50 articles and I don't want to spend over $1,000 registering each one as I create them, I can send a DMCA takedown notice to get the content taken down. By law the ISP is required to take down the content and problem solved, registration or not. If the ISP doesn't take them down then fine, I'll register my copyright and the ISP will know he's about to be mounted. Most ISPs don't want to be involved, whether now or later, so they will take down the content knowing the law and compel the user of the content to provide some protection to the ISP as a reason for putting the content back up. 90% of cases never go to court and it's mostly about leverage and taking advantage of what the law provides you.
I glad you finally agree. ...and you are now talking about over half the people that come through here... (in the blog design thread... there is absolutely nothing to claim copyright due to the nature of the business transaction). Here in this thread the copyright gist appears to be a list of vehicle parts with normal industry jargon and no real creative expression... (a recipe for a truck) and again not much to copyright ... fair use "likely" applies. The word for word opening dialog is 1 (maybe 2) sentences [I believe: Information on the engines that laid the foundation for diesel evolution. Company Name features specifications, history, & data on the following diesel engines (a description similar to what anyone would write on a directory or a review of the domain) - fair use applies... no real creative expression. The timeline is a list of parts and dates... no real creative expression. I'm not a lawyer - but I'm sure the alleged infringer's lawyer would point these out... and advise a counterclaim. These are the people you conveniently (IMHO) setup as idiots because they don't understand what copyrights are and assume everything is acceptable... when they could in fact be causing an 'alleged infringer' lost business due to frivolous claims... and that can equally have them in court and paying damages when they had no intention of stepping foot inside one. I'm not an attorney, you are, and no matter whether your client is in the right or in the wrong you (I assume) provide an adequate defense. That happens here 'even with the drop dead guilty SOBs'. The best advice obviously is "consult with an IP attorney".
Please read the counterclaim outloud to a room full of people. It places NO BURDEN on the accused. It quite plainly states the accused has a good faith belief the plaintiff is mistaken about their rights on the work in question or they have misidentified the work. The designated agent cannot take any position within the dispute as to guilt or innocence if they wish to avoid claims against themselves. There is no room for burden of proof in any DMCA provisions (other than the plaintiff showing proof of court action to maintain the conditions of the takedown order) - the rest is reserved for a court of law.
The mysticism of copyright. Copyright is by title, the title can be "your name" or "your domain" or some other umbrella reference and you can include billions of articles for registration for a bargain price of $35 (online material)... and you don't need to update with every change... do it once a year... ever see a book copyright statement e.g. Copyright 1990, 1996, 2001, 2005, 2010 (those coincide with their republishing/copyright updates. So you're saying that 1:10 do go to court and out of that how many of the accused take advantage of what the law provides them?. The problem with this - the alleged infringement occurred prior to the date of registration. You can't prove bad faith (it's reasonable if anyone checked for a claim and found none that means there is no claim) You can't be awarded any damages other than actual when an infringement occurs prior to you registering... and just because you registered afterthefact doesn't mean the accused infringed. You don't recover court costs or legal fees (even if you win) ...and you can still lose and pay damages and legal fees for the alleged infringer.
All along you have been misleading people by telling copyright holders that they were risking their copyright rights by filing a DCMA prior to registration. You were making that up, it is not true. Now you are making some lame ass suggestion that all along you didn't really mean copyright holders but just people who thought they had a copyright but really do not. What a load of bullshit. Read your posts in these legal threads over the last few weeks. Over and over you suggest that COPYRIGHT HOLDERS should not file DCMA. If you can't tell, I had enough of your bullshit on this topic.
You can always sue. If I'm so misleading - show some case law which supports that. ... saying "a load of bullshit" is really subjective and refutes nothing. If you have documentation which shows the OP is the rightful copyright holder... please show that... I have a really good faith belief they are not. (As I stated fair use likely applies) If you believe the OP has a legitimate case... point that out & why? Don't do it for my benefit - but for the OP... he's the person supposedly being mislead here... to not file a DMCA claim. Wrongfully accusing someone (unintentionally or not) where other parties must act to protect themselves is a legal matter. Misrepresenting your claim on a DMCA order (unintentionally or not) is a legal matter. Your first advice is consult with an attorney... so I ask this: if I came to you and said: I just got this... I have been wrongly accused of copyright infringement and it's costing my business money... I don't think I've done anything wrong can you help... your advice would be?