11 ms·

Patent Trolling’s twin: Copyright trolling

278 points by Stevvo 5y ago

manuelabeledo 5y ago
Just for fun, I searched for a plan loosely similar to my current home. Found an almost perfect match, including the facade, in less than ten seconds. This is the equivalent of taking photographs of thousands of vehicles in existence, then claiming intellectual property over their design. Nonsense.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  And two of the Design Basics designs he linked, the "Cotter" and the "Crandall", are (while not exact, still pretty much) just mirror images of each other. Nice way to blow up your portfolio by 100 %.
_fat_santa 5y ago
I wonder. With these floor plans being so vague, could the defendants being sued for copyright infringement just argue that these copyrights were so vague that they accidentally copied them? That is, say there is a plan on their site for a 2BD/2BA house, the floor plan is very simple and a builder that is unaware of this company ends up copying the floor plan for no other reason that it happens to be a very common floorplan. Could this company still pursue damages? When we think of copyright we often think of companies like Google copyrighting the word "Google". Now you can't go out and use "Google" in your own work, it's pretty dang obvious. But what if Google copyrighted the "Google Grilled Cheese Sandwich" which is just a regular grilled cheese sandwich, could they really go after folks who just happened to make the exact same grilled cheese sandwich just because making one is pretty obvious.
- danaris 5y ago
  > When we think of copyright we often think of companies like Google copyrighting the word "Google". That's trademark. Copyright is for a creative work of some kind. > But what if Google copyrighted the "Google Grilled Cheese Sandwich" which is just a regular grilled cheese sandwich... ...and this sounds like you're referring to patent protection, which is for an invention.
- extra88 5y ago
  > Google copyrighting the word "Google" You can't have a copyright on a word. You're thinking of another category of intellectual property, trademark. Google has a trademark for the word "Google" but trademarks are for specific uses of words related to the business. The intent of trademark law is a form of consumer protection, you can't fool the public that your product or service is offered by the trademark holder by using the trademarked term.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    This is the same reason there can be huge, famous, influential companies with the same name in different industries.
- bena 5y ago
  You're confusing trademark with copyright. Google can't copyright "Google". That's not how it works. Google would apply for trademark protection on the wordmark, Google in relation to search and/or advertising. The USPTO has all the details if you can handle searching their site (it's a bit of a mess).
  - fortran77 5y ago
    You're confusing the word "copywrite" (to write copy) with "copyright" (the right to make copies of a creative work).
    - bena 5y ago
      I did make that mistake in one spot.
- taeric 5y ago
  Nit:. Google is trademarked. Copyright is a different thing. And pretty sure independent creation is a valid thing. Is how the initial pc clone industry got its start.
- badRNG 5y ago
  One regrettable thing that seems to happen here a lot is that pedants will swarm to address some relatively irrelevant misunderstanding made in a genuine question relevant to the article without ever addressing the question being asked. I think the commenter gets it, Christ for the fifth time now yes, there's a difference between copyright and trademark. You can't copyright a word, got it. Now that we have that bit of pedantry thoroughly out of the way, I have the exact same question as the one above: >That is, say there is a plan on their site for a 2BD/2BA house, the floor plan is very simple and a builder that is unaware of this company ends up copying the floor plan for no other reason that it happens to be a very common floorplan. Could this company still pursue damages?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Floor plans are not copyrightable. The blueprint might be - but that includes things like "Joe's architecture services" which wouldn't be on your copy, and the dimension markings would be in different places (unless the placement is standardized in which case the placement is not creative and thus not copyrightable). The floor plan is probably subject to patents. I don't think anyone has done this, but I don't see why it isn't possible.
    - badRNG 5y ago
      The article (and I'm not sure how accurate this is) seems to be claiming the houses themselves are in violation of DesignBasics' copyrights: >Now, with these simple, vague floor-plans (not full architectural drawings!) out there for everyone to see… they look for someone to actually build a house that has a similar layout, and then jump in with the lawsuit! Are they just hoping every builder will settle out of court?
      - zentiggr 5y ago
        That's pretty much the business model. Cost of settling can be less than the cost of defending the suit. Every case where someone with pockets deep enough, holds out and gets a judgment against the troll - especially with legal costs included - is a huge blow to their business. And a single case that doesn't go their way is often enough to shut down their business and poof. Hope one of Design Basics's defendants is in a position to say Enough!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fortran77 5y ago
  I can assure you that "Google" never "copyrighted" the word "Google."
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  >so vague that they accidentally copied them? // No, but you're on the right track. Copyright covers copying, if you didn't copy and can prove it then that's an absolute defence (see eg WIPO PROOF). Copyright being a tort, the usual measure of proof is 'balance of probabilities'. That means if you didn't copy, but you _cannot_ prove you didn't, and it looks like you probably did, then a court can find against you. There is also the notion of distinctiveness, generic, non-creative things don't acquire copyright ("common elements"; trademark has similar aspects, it's hard to word things without confusing the two, they're differently concepts with the same names). However, in 2012 there was a case in UK law over an image of a London bus, where a re-creation of the image was used commercially. The copyright in the original photo was considered to be infringed despite the image being highly generic (Temple Island V New English Teas, 2012). A lot of people, myself included, are not convinced of this decision (see also Kenrick V Lawrence). USC and UK law differ, but as copyright is based on international treaties such as Berne Convention and TRIPS you find they're broadly analogous in a lot of ways; I can't comment on where the line lies in USA law. This is my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment; this is not legal advice.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  Independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement
jermaustin1 5y ago
Copyright trolling cost me a fairly successful blog my wife ran. The ads paid out more than hosting cost! She had shared an image from a girl who took the photo with permission, but then that girl sold the photo to a copyright troll who then sent a demand letter. Either pay a yearly license of $1750 and a back-pay for the 4 years it had been hosted, or get sued. I retained a lawyer to prepare for lawsuit because we were given permission by the author to use the photo, had email proof. But after a few months of back and forth, we ran out of money to keep fighting and had the lawyer negotiate just killing the site.
- float4 5y ago
  Atrocious that such a trivial case cost you so much money that you actually lost (not strictly, but it must've felt like a loss). My dad is currently suing has past employer (the state). It's taken two years so far and they try to screw him over in whatever way possible. Luckily the union is paying for his lawyer, so he doesn't really care. As someone in his early twenties who knows very little about law, the way such cases go down is mind-blowing to me.
- copywrong 5y ago
  Perhaps naive… but in a case where it is so plain that there is no case to answer, what is the rationale behind hiring lawyers rather than simply filing court documents yourself if they _do_ sue? The copyright troll was looking to make money: shutting down your site didn’t do anything for them — it was likely just a negotiating tactic that went awry when you called their bluff (actually shut down the site).
  - a4isms 5y ago
    The fact that we ask this question leads us to asking, “Who is the best person to answer the question of whether it’s a good idea to file the documents yourself, and if so, how things are likely to go over the next ___ years of litigation?” And the answer is... A LAWYER EXPERIENCED IN COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION. That answers your question for me. In cases roughly similar to this, I have begun with a lawyer. Yes, there are two times I recall where they said, “Do it yourself, but watch out for X or Y, and call me back if Z.” That alone justified what I was paying for the first proper, clock is ticking, consultation. What happens after the first consultation would depend upon the case. INAL, YMMV, &c.
kingsuper20 5y ago
Brilliant. It sounds a bit like those guys who brute-forced every melody below a certain size.
- tech-historian 5y ago
  Those melodies were used to fight copyright, not profit from extortion. Different use case.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Opposite use case, but basically same idea. If only some forward-looking intellectual freedom fighter had beaten these bastards to the punch and applied it to the home-building business like those guys did to music. Hm... Maybe someone ought to go through all industries, check whether they rely on common and semi-obvious "intellectual property" like this, and start algorithmically generating and publishing all combinations. But who? I don't think I'm up to it on my own... The EFF or some body like that?
MikeUt 5y ago
What's needed is a general defense against frivolous lawsuits. Something like a pre-trial phase where you're represented by a free public defender, and only if the plaintiff wins, can they move on to a "real" trial. Edit: I should add that this should not be used to punish the plaintiff if they lose (or punish them very little), because that would imperil legitimate lawsuits. If you had a valid case, would you dare sue a multinational, if you knew losing the pre-trial meant having to pay their overpriced team of lawyers*? *As an aside, the defendant should only be allowed the use of the free, public defender in the pre-trial, otherwise this pre-trial would be treated as just another full trial, with all the expense that entails.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  And if they lose the pretrial, the plaintiff has to pay all of what they were suing for to the defendant.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  That, or severe penalties, including reimbursement of all legal costs and the voiding of all copyrights owned by a firm that is found to be attempting to enforce copyright frivolously.
- pitaj 5y ago
  What if we just got rid of copyright? Alternative forms of art monetization already flourish.
stefan_ 5y ago
Remember there are people that spam Wikimedia and Flickr with various CC-FZ-AT-UT-W2 licensed images, then use search engines to identify misuse of their "work": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-03#Files_from_Flickr_mass-deleted_out_of_process https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_reques...
- eli 5y ago
  I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure I saw someone post photos to wikimedia under a CC license. But then later claim that person was an imposter and wasn't authorized to do so. Now they get to make claims against anyone who, in good faith, used the wikimedia image believing it to be CC.
- mdasen 5y ago
  For those of us who don't know as much, could you elaborate? I know "CC" is Creative Commons, but I don't know what FZ-AT-UT-W2 are. From the link (which can be hard to grok for people like me who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes), it looks like there are users who upload images and mark them with a free license and then try to sue people who re-use the photos on other sites for minor infractions of the license terms. It seems that while the images may legitimately be licensed as Creative Commons, the user takes a very strict view of the CC licensing and sues people for minor infractions. "re-users have complained about receiving costly cease and desist orders on behalf of this Flickr-user for minor infractions of the licensing terms." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=292307367#Out_of_process_deletion_of_files_by_User:Hystrix https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...) Because the CC license's attribution requirements can often be a bit hazy or difficult to comply with, it makes it easy for someone to claim that the copyright has been infringed for "minor" infractions. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. That's some of the guidance from the CC license page. It would be easy for someone to re-size the image and not indicate that changes were made, not include the title of the work, etc. There are whole pages about how you should attribute things depending on what information is available: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detai... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#/media/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#/media/File:Ryan_Cro... I'm literally looking at the featured photo from the "In the News" section of English Wikipedia right now. It has an attribution source of http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-..., but that page doesn't exist when I try to view it. Looking at the "more details" page, it gets confusing. What is the "title"? Do I have to duplicate author information if it's in the title? Given that the photo, "has been extracted from another file," I guess I'd have to cite both the original and the derived work if I were to re-use it. Based on the attribution comparison chart, I think I'd have to write something like: "This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt)." What if I just casually grabbed the photo and linked to the Wikipedia page? I think most Wikipedia people would be like "eh, close enough". I think some might send me an email being like, "Could you please put my name next to the link? Thanks!" Oops, actually, my attribution is wrong! I haven't put in the copyright notice which is, "EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL" Let me correct that: "This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt) with the copyright notice, 'EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL'." DONE! Wait... the copyright notice specifies, "FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL", but the "author" is listed as "Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil". Do I go with the author as specified in the image or with how the CRÉDITO specifies it? I'd think I should go with how the CRÉDITO specifies it, but I definitely didn't see that initially. For those that think I'm being pedantic, I am. However, as one person noted: As not all of you may know, the copyright law of Germany and Austria allows the copyright-holder to issue a so-called Abmahnung (sort of Cease and desist) against anyone who in his opinion infringes his copyright, without first calling a court. The typical cost of an Abmahnung is between 500 and 1200 Euros for 1 image. As no court is involved, there is no independant evaluation of the case. Many people pay the amount requested in order to avoid going to court, as this might be even more costly. IANAL. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=292307367#Out_of_process_deletion_of_files_by_User:Hystrix https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...) I understand that maybe you could fight it and win in court. However, the complexity of the attribution requirements do allow a bad actor to be evil to people while claiming to be legitimate. Given that users have been complaining that this is actually happening, it's somewhat worrying. I'm not trying to sound negative about anything other than the fact that it's easy for trolls to "well technically" people. If I used the cropped Wikipedia photo and didn't note the modification, but did properly attribute the title, author, and original URI (which seems to be a dead link), am I using it wrong? Well technically I would be since it was modified and I didn't note that (and didn't provide credit to the modifier). It would be an easy mistake to make: grab the author, title, and URI from the Wikipedia page and I think I'm done! I think most courts and the CC folks would be like, "c'mon, they put in a good faith effort and yes they need to correct it, but they shouldn't be subject to thousands of dollars in penalties!" However, courts aren't cheap and there's a lot of risk.
jotadambalakiri 5y ago
Obligatory: https://github.com/ASCII-Rightholders/the_characters https://github.com/ASCII-Rightholders/the_characters
- bogwog 5y ago
  Only $1000 for the rights to use ASCII characters? That's a steal!
ttty2 5y ago
What if someone posts a copyrighted image on Facebook. Do they sue Facebook and win? I think Facebook will take it down and that's the end of the story. Maybe this only happens because it's Facebook and small players can't afford to just take it down.
dahart 5y ago
There was a story not too far back about some musicians generating every possible combination of 8 notes and publishing it in order to prevent future music copyright trolls. At the time I thought it was kind of a stunt and was a neat idea but not addressing a real problem with music copyright and real lawsuits. It looks like I might be totally wrong, because that’s exactly what Design Basics is doing. :/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22440944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22440944
- nitin_flanker 5y ago
  There's a similar publication in 3D printing too. It's called Joshua Pearce’s Algorithm[0] which covers all the major parameters and components of 3d printing materials and other factors. It was built with an intention to invalidate 3D printing patents that cover broad elements and general materials and ideas, on the grounds of obviousness. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0172219015000769?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01722...
- akudha 5y ago
  I guess the real problem is court cases can ruin people financially, even if they win. Ideas like this are nice, but the real solution would be to make it difficult for these trolls to go to court in the first place
- Igelau 5y ago
  We probably need this. I got whatever degree of nastygram that isn't a "strike" from YouTube once for a video of me singing a 150 year-old folk song from my own arrangement. Someone claimed to have copyright. I didn't fight it in earnest, but if I had a monetized account that I was depending on financially, I might have had to -- and of course, you pursue that at the hazard of losing your channel and Google account. Got a C&D once for a text graphics Whac-a-mole clone in Basic when I was a teenager. Kinda soured me on everything related to IP rights going forward.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Courts are actually pretty reasonable about music copyrights in most cases[1] - nobody wants really strong copyrights in that field anyways since "derivative" work is a really strong value creator. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsL5yW3bao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsL5yW3bao
frankincense 5y ago
Does anyone know a good web accessibility troll to sue designbasics for their site's accessibility violations?
tzahifadida 5y ago
I had a similar situation whereby someone sued me because i worked with someone 10 years earlier and he was hoping to get dirt on him by extorting me. I called my cousin and the deal was that he will represent me and take the whole compensation for a dumb ass lawsuit. Fortunately it worked and i saved about 8k$ in legal expenses.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > I called my cousin Is your cousin's name by any chance Vincent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cousin_Vinny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cousin_Vinny
ysavir 5y ago
Can anyone speak to the viability of fighting these cases in court? Is it a sure win/loss? Is it guaranteed to take at least X months and cost Y dollars? If there were free resources online on how to fight these cases in court, with information for both defendants and their representatives, is there any chance of making it fast and cheap enough that it won't be worth the troll's time?
- cwkoss 5y ago
  All failed IP suits should have to pay attorney's fees for the defendants and invalidate the IP that was claimed to be infringed.
jedberg 5y ago
I just checked out their website. There is another website called floorplans.com which I'm pretty sure is legit (they will sell you construction plans) and I found some very similar designs between the two. So Design Basics is either stealing their designs from elsewhere, or as the article points out, their designs are so generic they end up matching existing designs.
cwkoss 5y ago
IP laws were created to encourage innovation, but have perverted to the point where now they are mostly used by people hoping to suppress it or seek rent from others' work. Patent duration should be shortened to 10 years or less. Copyright duration should be shortened to 5 years or less. The digital age is moving faster than the people who wrote these laws anticipated.
bottled_poe 5y ago
Someone should patent the business model of patent trolling.
- Joker_vD 5y ago
  Too late, it already is well-established prior art.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Would changing state laws make these cases go away? So if you forced the patent or copyright holder to file suit in the defendant’s home state, you’d also require them to be in unfavorable courts, adhere to local and state laws of the business or person defendant, and allows the defendant to be familiar with local and state requirements. The way I see it now, the system is setup to favor the patent and copyright troll because the system assumes the holder being genuine. A lot of trolls are in Texas. Texas local and state laws heavily favor these trolls.

278 points by Stevvo 5y ago

Just for fun, I searched for a plan loosely similar to my current home. Found an almost perfect match, including the facade, in less than ten seconds. This is the equivalent of taking photographs of thousands of vehicles in existence, then claiming intellectual property over their design. Nonsense.

CRConrad 5y ago
And two of the Design Basics designs he linked, the "Cotter" and the "Crandall", are (while not exact, still pretty much) just mirror images of each other. Nice way to blow up your portfolio by 100 %.

_fat_santa 5y ago

I wonder. With these floor plans being so vague, could the defendants being sued for copyright infringement just argue that these copyrights were so vague that they accidentally copied them? That is, say there is a plan on their site for a 2BD/2BA house, the floor plan is very simple and a builder that is unaware of this company ends up copying the floor plan for no other reason that it happens to be a very common floorplan. Could this company still pursue damages? When we think of copyright we often think of companies like Google copyrighting the word "Google". Now you can't go out and use "Google" in your own work, it's pretty dang obvious. But what if Google copyrighted the "Google Grilled Cheese Sandwich" which is just a regular grilled cheese sandwich, could they really go after folks who just happened to make the exact same grilled cheese sandwich just because making one is pretty obvious.

danaris 5y ago
> When we think of copyright we often think of companies like Google copyrighting the word "Google". That's trademark. Copyright is for a creative work of some kind. > But what if Google copyrighted the "Google Grilled Cheese Sandwich" which is just a regular grilled cheese sandwich... ...and this sounds like you're referring to patent protection, which is for an invention.
extra88 5y ago
> Google copyrighting the word "Google" You can't have a copyright on a word. You're thinking of another category of intellectual property, trademark. Google has a trademark for the word "Google" but trademarks are for specific uses of words related to the business. The intent of trademark law is a form of consumer protection, you can't fool the public that your product or service is offered by the trademark holder by using the trademarked term.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  This is the same reason there can be huge, famous, influential companies with the same name in different industries.
bena 5y ago
You're confusing trademark with copyright. Google can't copyright "Google". That's not how it works. Google would apply for trademark protection on the wordmark, Google in relation to search and/or advertising. The USPTO has all the details if you can handle searching their site (it's a bit of a mess).
- fortran77 5y ago
  You're confusing the word "copywrite" (to write copy) with "copyright" (the right to make copies of a creative work).
  - bena 5y ago
    I did make that mistake in one spot.
taeric 5y ago
Nit:. Google is trademarked. Copyright is a different thing. And pretty sure independent creation is a valid thing. Is how the initial pc clone industry got its start.
badRNG 5y ago
One regrettable thing that seems to happen here a lot is that pedants will swarm to address some relatively irrelevant misunderstanding made in a genuine question relevant to the article without ever addressing the question being asked. I think the commenter gets it, Christ for the fifth time now yes, there's a difference between copyright and trademark. You can't copyright a word, got it. Now that we have that bit of pedantry thoroughly out of the way, I have the exact same question as the one above: >That is, say there is a plan on their site for a 2BD/2BA house, the floor plan is very simple and a builder that is unaware of this company ends up copying the floor plan for no other reason that it happens to be a very common floorplan. Could this company still pursue damages?
- bluGill 5y ago
  Floor plans are not copyrightable. The blueprint might be - but that includes things like "Joe's architecture services" which wouldn't be on your copy, and the dimension markings would be in different places (unless the placement is standardized in which case the placement is not creative and thus not copyrightable). The floor plan is probably subject to patents. I don't think anyone has done this, but I don't see why it isn't possible.
  - badRNG 5y ago
    The article (and I'm not sure how accurate this is) seems to be claiming the houses themselves are in violation of DesignBasics' copyrights: >Now, with these simple, vague floor-plans (not full architectural drawings!) out there for everyone to see… they look for someone to actually build a house that has a similar layout, and then jump in with the lawsuit! Are they just hoping every builder will settle out of court?
    - zentiggr 5y ago
      That's pretty much the business model. Cost of settling can be less than the cost of defending the suit. Every case where someone with pockets deep enough, holds out and gets a judgment against the troll - especially with legal costs included - is a huge blow to their business. And a single case that doesn't go their way is often enough to shut down their business and poof. Hope one of Design Basics's defendants is in a position to say Enough!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fortran77 5y ago
I can assure you that "Google" never "copyrighted" the word "Google."
pbhjpbhj 5y ago
>so vague that they accidentally copied them? // No, but you're on the right track. Copyright covers copying, if you didn't copy and can prove it then that's an absolute defence (see eg WIPO PROOF). Copyright being a tort, the usual measure of proof is 'balance of probabilities'. That means if you didn't copy, but you _cannot_ prove you didn't, and it looks like you probably did, then a court can find against you. There is also the notion of distinctiveness, generic, non-creative things don't acquire copyright ("common elements"; trademark has similar aspects, it's hard to word things without confusing the two, they're differently concepts with the same names). However, in 2012 there was a case in UK law over an image of a London bus, where a re-creation of the image was used commercially. The copyright in the original photo was considered to be infringed despite the image being highly generic (Temple Island V New English Teas, 2012). A lot of people, myself included, are not convinced of this decision (see also Kenrick V Lawrence). USC and UK law differ, but as copyright is based on international treaties such as Berne Convention and TRIPS you find they're broadly analogous in a lot of ways; I can't comment on where the line lies in USA law. This is my personal opinion, unrelated to my employment; this is not legal advice.
gnopgnip 5y ago
Independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement

jermaustin1 5y ago

Copyright trolling cost me a fairly successful blog my wife ran. The ads paid out more than hosting cost! She had shared an image from a girl who took the photo with permission, but then that girl sold the photo to a copyright troll who then sent a demand letter. Either pay a yearly license of $1750 and a back-pay for the 4 years it had been hosted, or get sued. I retained a lawyer to prepare for lawsuit because we were given permission by the author to use the photo, had email proof. But after a few months of back and forth, we ran out of money to keep fighting and had the lawyer negotiate just killing the site.

float4 5y ago
Atrocious that such a trivial case cost you so much money that you actually lost (not strictly, but it must've felt like a loss). My dad is currently suing has past employer (the state). It's taken two years so far and they try to screw him over in whatever way possible. Luckily the union is paying for his lawyer, so he doesn't really care. As someone in his early twenties who knows very little about law, the way such cases go down is mind-blowing to me.
copywrong 5y ago
Perhaps naive… but in a case where it is so plain that there is no case to answer, what is the rationale behind hiring lawyers rather than simply filing court documents yourself if they _do_ sue? The copyright troll was looking to make money: shutting down your site didn’t do anything for them — it was likely just a negotiating tactic that went awry when you called their bluff (actually shut down the site).
- a4isms 5y ago
  The fact that we ask this question leads us to asking, “Who is the best person to answer the question of whether it’s a good idea to file the documents yourself, and if so, how things are likely to go over the next ___ years of litigation?” And the answer is... A LAWYER EXPERIENCED IN COPYRIGHT AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LITIGATION. That answers your question for me. In cases roughly similar to this, I have begun with a lawyer. Yes, there are two times I recall where they said, “Do it yourself, but watch out for X or Y, and call me back if Z.” That alone justified what I was paying for the first proper, clock is ticking, consultation. What happens after the first consultation would depend upon the case. INAL, YMMV, &c.

kingsuper20 5y ago

Brilliant. It sounds a bit like those guys who brute-forced every melody below a certain size.

tech-historian 5y ago
Those melodies were used to fight copyright, not profit from extortion. Different use case.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Opposite use case, but basically same idea. If only some forward-looking intellectual freedom fighter had beaten these bastards to the punch and applied it to the home-building business like those guys did to music. Hm... Maybe someone ought to go through all industries, check whether they rely on common and semi-obvious "intellectual property" like this, and start algorithmically generating and publishing all combinations. But who? I don't think I'm up to it on my own... The EFF or some body like that?

MikeUt 5y ago

What's needed is a general defense against frivolous lawsuits. Something like a pre-trial phase where you're represented by a free public defender, and only if the plaintiff wins, can they move on to a "real" trial. Edit: I should add that this should not be used to punish the plaintiff if they lose (or punish them very little), because that would imperil legitimate lawsuits. If you had a valid case, would you dare sue a multinational, if you knew losing the pre-trial meant having to pay their overpriced team of lawyers*? *As an aside, the defendant should only be allowed the use of the free, public defender in the pre-trial, otherwise this pre-trial would be treated as just another full trial, with all the expense that entails.

jtbayly 5y ago
And if they lose the pretrial, the plaintiff has to pay all of what they were suing for to the defendant.
InitialLastName 5y ago
That, or severe penalties, including reimbursement of all legal costs and the voiding of all copyrights owned by a firm that is found to be attempting to enforce copyright frivolously.
pitaj 5y ago
What if we just got rid of copyright? Alternative forms of art monetization already flourish.

stefan_ 5y ago

Remember there are people that spam Wikimedia and Flickr with various CC-FZ-AT-UT-W2 licensed images, then use search engines to identify misuse of their "work": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2018-03#Files_from_Flickr_mass-deleted_out_of_process https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_reques...

eli 5y ago
I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure I saw someone post photos to wikimedia under a CC license. But then later claim that person was an imposter and wasn't authorized to do so. Now they get to make claims against anyone who, in good faith, used the wikimedia image believing it to be CC.
mdasen 5y ago
For those of us who don't know as much, could you elaborate? I know "CC" is Creative Commons, but I don't know what FZ-AT-UT-W2 are. From the link (which can be hard to grok for people like me who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes), it looks like there are users who upload images and mark them with a free license and then try to sue people who re-use the photos on other sites for minor infractions of the license terms. It seems that while the images may legitimately be licensed as Creative Commons, the user takes a very strict view of the CC licensing and sues people for minor infractions. "re-users have complained about receiving costly cease and desist orders on behalf of this Flickr-user for minor infractions of the licensing terms." (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=292307367#Out_of_process_deletion_of_files_by_User:Hystrix https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...) Because the CC license's attribution requirements can often be a bit hazy or difficult to comply with, it makes it easy for someone to claim that the copyright has been infringed for "minor" infractions. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. That's some of the guidance from the CC license page. It would be easy for someone to re-size the image and not indicate that changes were made, not include the title of the work, etc. There are whole pages about how you should attribute things depending on what information is available: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Detai... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#/media/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page#/media/File:Ryan_Cro... I'm literally looking at the featured photo from the "In the News" section of English Wikipedia right now. It has an attribution source of http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-..., but that page doesn't exist when I try to view it. Looking at the "more details" page, it gets confusing. What is the "title"? Do I have to duplicate author information if it's in the title? Given that the photo, "has been extracted from another file," I guess I'd have to cite both the original and the derived work if I were to re-use it. Based on the attribution comparison chart, I think I'd have to write something like: "This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt)." What if I just casually grabbed the photo and linked to the Wikipedia page? I think most Wikipedia people would be like "eh, close enough". I think some might send me an email being like, "Could you please put my name next to the link? Thanks!" Oops, actually, my attribution is wrong! I haven't put in the copyright notice which is, "EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL" Let me correct that: "This work, 'Ryan Crouser in 2016' (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_2016.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ryan_Crouser_Rio_201...) by Materialscientist (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Materialscientist) and licensed under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.en), is a cropped version of 'Rio de Janeiro - Norte-americano Ryan Crouser bate recorde olímpico e leva ouro no arremesso de peso nos Jogos Rio 2016, no Estádio Olímpico. (Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil)' (http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-de-atletismo-no-engenhao http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/rio-2016/foto/2016-08/noite-...) by Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil used under CC-BY 3.0 BR (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/br/deed.pt) with the copyright notice, 'EBC-EMPRESA BRASIL DE COMUNICAÇÃO/Agência Brasil. Uso sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil. CRÉDITO FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL'." DONE! Wait... the copyright notice specifies, "FOTOGRÁFICO OBRIGATÓRIO: FERNANDO FRAZÃO/AGÊNCIA BRASIL", but the "author" is listed as "Repórter Fotográfico, Fernando Frazão/Agência Brasil". Do I go with the author as specified in the image or with how the CRÉDITO specifies it? I'd think I should go with how the CRÉDITO specifies it, but I definitely didn't see that initially. For those that think I'm being pedantic, I am. However, as one person noted: As not all of you may know, the copyright law of Germany and Austria allows the copyright-holder to issue a so-called Abmahnung (sort of Cease and desist) against anyone who in his opinion infringes his copyright, without first calling a court. The typical cost of an Abmahnung is between 500 and 1200 Euros for 1 image. As no court is involved, there is no independant evaluation of the case. Many people pay the amount requested in order to avoid going to court, as this might be even more costly. IANAL. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=292307367#Out_of_process_deletion_of_files_by_User:Hystrix https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Admi...) I understand that maybe you could fight it and win in court. However, the complexity of the attribution requirements do allow a bad actor to be evil to people while claiming to be legitimate. Given that users have been complaining that this is actually happening, it's somewhat worrying. I'm not trying to sound negative about anything other than the fact that it's easy for trolls to "well technically" people. If I used the cropped Wikipedia photo and didn't note the modification, but did properly attribute the title, author, and original URI (which seems to be a dead link), am I using it wrong? Well technically I would be since it was modified and I didn't note that (and didn't provide credit to the modifier). It would be an easy mistake to make: grab the author, title, and URI from the Wikipedia page and I think I'm done! I think most courts and the CC folks would be like, "c'mon, they put in a good faith effort and yes they need to correct it, but they shouldn't be subject to thousands of dollars in penalties!" However, courts aren't cheap and there's a lot of risk.

jotadambalakiri 5y ago

Obligatory: https://github.com/ASCII-Rightholders/the_characters https://github.com/ASCII-Rightholders/the_characters

bogwog 5y ago
Only $1000 for the rights to use ASCII characters? That's a steal!

ttty2 5y ago

What if someone posts a copyrighted image on Facebook. Do they sue Facebook and win? I think Facebook will take it down and that's the end of the story. Maybe this only happens because it's Facebook and small players can't afford to just take it down.

dahart 5y ago

There was a story not too far back about some musicians generating every possible combination of 8 notes and publishing it in order to prevent future music copyright trolls. At the time I thought it was kind of a stunt and was a neat idea but not addressing a real problem with music copyright and real lawsuits. It looks like I might be totally wrong, because that’s exactly what Design Basics is doing. :/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22440944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22440944

nitin_flanker 5y ago
There's a similar publication in 3D printing too. It's called Joshua Pearce’s Algorithm[0] which covers all the major parameters and components of 3d printing materials and other factors. It was built with an intention to invalidate 3D printing patents that cover broad elements and general materials and ideas, on the grounds of obviousness. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0172219015000769?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01722...
akudha 5y ago
I guess the real problem is court cases can ruin people financially, even if they win. Ideas like this are nice, but the real solution would be to make it difficult for these trolls to go to court in the first place
Igelau 5y ago
We probably need this. I got whatever degree of nastygram that isn't a "strike" from YouTube once for a video of me singing a 150 year-old folk song from my own arrangement. Someone claimed to have copyright. I didn't fight it in earnest, but if I had a monetized account that I was depending on financially, I might have had to -- and of course, you pursue that at the hazard of losing your channel and Google account. Got a C&D once for a text graphics Whac-a-mole clone in Basic when I was a teenager. Kinda soured me on everything related to IP rights going forward.
munk-a 5y ago
Courts are actually pretty reasonable about music copyrights in most cases[1] - nobody wants really strong copyrights in that field anyways since "derivative" work is a really strong value creator. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsL5yW3bao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgsL5yW3bao

frankincense 5y ago

Does anyone know a good web accessibility troll to sue designbasics for their site's accessibility violations?

tzahifadida 5y ago

I had a similar situation whereby someone sued me because i worked with someone 10 years earlier and he was hoping to get dirt on him by extorting me. I called my cousin and the deal was that he will represent me and take the whole compensation for a dumb ass lawsuit. Fortunately it worked and i saved about 8k$ in legal expenses.

CRConrad 5y ago
> I called my cousin Is your cousin's name by any chance Vincent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cousin_Vinny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Cousin_Vinny

ysavir 5y ago

Can anyone speak to the viability of fighting these cases in court? Is it a sure win/loss? Is it guaranteed to take at least X months and cost Y dollars? If there were free resources online on how to fight these cases in court, with information for both defendants and their representatives, is there any chance of making it fast and cheap enough that it won't be worth the troll's time?

cwkoss 5y ago
All failed IP suits should have to pay attorney's fees for the defendants and invalidate the IP that was claimed to be infringed.

jedberg 5y ago

I just checked out their website. There is another website called floorplans.com which I'm pretty sure is legit (they will sell you construction plans) and I found some very similar designs between the two. So Design Basics is either stealing their designs from elsewhere, or as the article points out, their designs are so generic they end up matching existing designs.

cwkoss 5y ago

IP laws were created to encourage innovation, but have perverted to the point where now they are mostly used by people hoping to suppress it or seek rent from others' work. Patent duration should be shortened to 10 years or less. Copyright duration should be shortened to 5 years or less. The digital age is moving faster than the people who wrote these laws anticipated.

bottled_poe 5y ago

Someone should patent the business model of patent trolling.

Joker_vD 5y ago
Too late, it already is well-established prior art.

jbluepolarbear 5y ago

Would changing state laws make these cases go away? So if you forced the patent or copyright holder to file suit in the defendant’s home state, you’d also require them to be in unfavorable courts, adhere to local and state laws of the business or person defendant, and allows the defendant to be familiar with local and state requirements. The way I see it now, the system is setup to favor the patent and copyright troll because the system assumes the holder being genuine. A lot of trolls are in Texas. Texas local and state laws heavily favor these trolls.