26 ms·
2600 Accused of Using Unauthorized Ink Splotches (2015)
- foodstances 9y ago(2015)
- sctb 9y agoThanks! Updated.
- alex_young 9y agoI was expecting this to be about Rorschach slides for some reason. Somehow this is even sillier. Maybe there should be some kind of way to sue for damages for claiming damages from work you don't own. What a waste of time.
- pavel_lishin 9y agoI expected it to be about some secret image-copy-prevention constellation like EURion.
- Varcht 9y agoMe too, well, I was expecting them to be even more sexually explicit than usual...
- DenisM 9y agoBut it is about Rorschach slides. - What do you see when you look at this picture? - I see a copyright infringement. - How do you feel about it? - Rather litigious...
- pavel_lishin 9y agoWhen was this published? The letter from Trunk Archive is dated August 2015.
- trav4225 9y agoThis is nothing more than taking IP law to its logical conclusion... ;)
- rinon 9y agoFollowup apology from accuser: https://www.2600.com/node/27106 https://www.2600.com/node/27106
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bomb199 9y agoShould be illegal. I'm sure countless people pay these kinds of fines, just assuming that the company threatening to sue them is legitimate. What's to stop me from just making a cool company name and sending cease and desist letters asking for fines for all kinds of "IP"?
- ghusbands 9y agoThe company issuing the threat had identified what they thought was a copied bit of artwork. This isn't a company just randomly attacking anyone - they honestly thought (via automated system) that one of their images had been partially copied.
- gruez 9y ago>they honestly thought (via automated system) that sounds like passing the blame to someone else ("automated system")
- ghusbands 9y agoI was responding to a claim that it was entirely spurious. It did show signs of being a copy of a portion of the image. It turned out that that portion was a copy of another image, which they (or their system) didn't realise. But none of this is (as the top post in this thread claims) just invented. Had 2600 copied that portion of that image, court action against them may well have succeeded. All of this could easily have happened without an automated system involved.
- bomb199 9y agoIf it wasn't an automated system, they would have the cost of someone going through everything. Do you really doubt that this is constantly happening and people are paying? Just look at the people who get DMCA'd for content they made themselves. Same system, just instead of paying a fee they lose their youtube/Twitch.
- 9y ago
- quadrature 9y agothis has got to be automated right ?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- russdill 9y agoI got a copyright ding on YouTube for children singing come all ye faithful. I challenged it and they never responded, but the claim remained on the video for 30 days. It's especially frustrating because the companies involved in claims and even the content is rarely identifiable and of course has no consequence.
- gumby 9y agoI believe this is from 2015
- nsxwolf 9y agoThey literally took a portion of someone's image and duplicated it wholesale. What's so ridiculous about the original copyright infringement claim?
- piracykills 9y agoThe original artist had licensed it freely, both 2600 and the Trunk author had used that freely licensed work.
- nsxwolf 9y ago2600 didn't mention that in their original post. Did they know that at the time they chose to use the image? The argument they originally used seemed to be that the original work isn't actually worthy of copyright protection because it's just ink splotches.
- detaro 9y agoFrom the article: > But it gets even better. You see, not only are they trying to get us to pay them for using a few ink splotches, but as it turns out, the ink splotches don't belong to them in the first place! Our cover artist happened to keep meticulous records (probably not something they anticipated) and traced the source of the ink splotches to a Finnish artist at this page. [3] And as you can see below, the Loadus image (which is at least five years old) is a background to both our Spring 2012 cover and "Harry Potter in a Vest" or whatever Trunk Archive is calling their image (which also may not even be theirs).
- GrumpyNl 9y agoYou used the image without permit, you dint ask. I would do the same and go after you. Good image recognition software they have. Are they still able to read the watermark within the pic?
- mabbo 9y agoThis falls within fair usage rules.
- ljf 9y agoAs another user says above: piracykills 1 minute ago | unvote [-] The original artist had licensed it freely, both 2600 and the Trunk author had used that freely licensed work.
- detaro 9y agoThey link to the freely licensed source splatter image they used in the article. Someone else used the same freely licensed splatter in their photo, and they then got a claim because of that.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- paulgb 9y agoI had a run-in a few years back where a company claimed rights on a screenshot of work I did and tried to shake down bloggers who reproduced the original image saying that it was a derivative work of the screenshot. It turned out to be a completely innocent mistake, but with no disincentive to making such a mistake it will no doubt keep happening.
- ghusbands 9y agoTheir claims that such copying would have been fair use are spurious at best. If they had copied that portion of the other image directly, it would have been copyright infringement. The fair use provisions are for specific circumstances, not just randomly copying. But they didn't copy it and had instead used a freely licensed common source, so they're in the clear, anyway.