13 ms·
Disney will send you a copyright strike if your face looks like Loki's
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- buildbot 5y agoSo essentially Disney has some ML face model running around sending DMCA strikes? I really hope one day they do this to someone who can afford some stupid expensive team of lawyers to take them all the way through court for a false DMCA.
- smt88 5y agoIf I'm not mistaken, there are no legal consequences for false DMCA strikes. They're unbelievably common, too.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago> there are no legal consequences for false DMCA strikes On the contrary: filing a false DMCA takedown notice opens you up to perjury. ...even if no-one has been prosecuted yet: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-been-convicted-of-perjury-for-false-dmca-takedown-notices https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee... Instead what happens is media-companies strong-arm content-hosting companies (YouTube, etc) to let them file informal takedown notices that don't open themselves up to perjury with much weaker protections for innocent people caught up in the collateral damage - what does YouTube etc get from it? I suspect it's something they agreed to do to sweeten their deal to keep Vevo and other brands' content mirrored on YouTube.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> what happens is media-companies strong-arm content-hosting companies (YouTube, etc) to let them file informal takedown notices Disney market cap: $315 billion Revenue in 2019: $70 billion Alphabet market cap: $1,700 billion Revenue in 2019: $162 billion What manner of "strong-arming" did you have in mind?
- Hnrobert42 5y agoThey aren’t going head-to-head like sumo wrestlers.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoHow are they going head-to-head? The whole idea of strong-arming is that you compel someone to do something by being stronger than they are. If that's not what's happening here, then what's happening here needs to be described some other way.
- Hnrobert42 5y agoStrong-arming does not require absolute strength superiority. It only requires sufficient strength to compel action.
- ohyeshedid 5y agoThe kind that starts with Disney pulling all its advertising from Google. Companies this size move a lot of money between them, and that becomes leverage in pissing matches.
- coliveira 5y agoDisney may be smaller than Google, but they have a stronghold on media legislation. When it comes to media content, they know how to move the judicial system in their favor.
- smt88 5y agoAs I said, there are no legal consequences. I would say the same even if the company were prosecuted and fined a tolerably small amount of money (which could easily be millions for these types of firms).
- patmcc 5y agoMore likely it's some intern looking up anything tagged "Loki" or similar.
- judge2020 5y agoThe letter: https://twitter.com/LordAmalthean/status/1407360501252755462?s=20 https://twitter.com/LordAmalthean/status/1407360501252755462... Looks like this is an actual complaint from Disney, as opposed to the proactive content removals Redbubble has been sending and was discussed a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27551372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27551372
- nailer 5y agoCan you send a screenshot? I don't know who this person is and haven't interacted with them before but I can't see their tweets.
- judge2020 5y agoThey privated their twitter right after I linked this, so I can't see it either - but the tweet had a screenshot of the email and it did state that Disney themselves were filing a DMCA for infringing content.
- eric4smith 5y agoTotal sidebar... Who would have thought that Tom Hiddleston's Loki would have gotten so popular?
- fartcannon 5y agoWe just had an article on the front page about the power of PR. It's so powerful that you should basically doubt any Disney products grass roots popularity as it's likely the results of PR.
- the_doctah 5y agoAre you suggesting PR has convinced people that they like a character? Bizarre take. Like people can't form their own opinion or something? Disney now has the power to PR me into liking anything basically?
- thundergolfer 5y agoAre you familiar with the pioneering early 20th century work of Edward Bernays?[1]. He founded the PR industry. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
- fartcannon 5y agoYeah, that's (unfortunately) exactly what I'm saying.
- npteljes 5y agoI mean, that's the definition of PR. It's their job. And the longer you think that your opinion is your own, the better it works. Confidence tricks work the same way. But I'm not just defying you, you also have a point. PR can't make people like anything. The target audience is already in some state, they came from somewhere, want something, already have some preferences, can be described to being on some trends. What effective PR can do is take what they have, and align it to these states, trends, preferences. Like how it's said in the movies, hypnotics can't make you do something you don't want to do, or something that makes no sense to you. The "seeds" have to already be there for it to work. Now I'm not sure about hypnosis, but PR, propaganda, advertisement works this way. And this is in no way exclusive to Disney, or PR. It's natural to want others to do something for you. PR is just the current legal way to describe this effort.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoHopefully it goes without saying that you shouldn't be able copyright other people's photos of their own face without their consent. Any lawyers on here to disagree?
- eric__cartman 5y agoIf only these companies put half as much effort into their actual product rather than lawyering up against each other and every suable entity in the universe. I don't think copyright laws should be abolished, but this shit is getting ridiculous. Sending false copyright claims should be treated as a crime in it of itself. When falsely accused of a copyright claim, the recipient has to go through a process to try and get that pulled, costing time, effort and potentially money. And yet these corporations get no punishment for spamming legal threats to whatever their bots deem appropriate.
- vinceguidry 5y ago> If only these companies put half as much effort into their actual product rather than lawyering up against each other Like, I'm as much of a Disney hater as anyone, but you really should understand just how much money, time, and effort go into Disney productions. The amounts would blow your mind. They spend a comparatively miniscule amount of money defending their intellectual property. This is what people should be up in arms about. It really shouldn't be this easy for them.
- eric__cartman 5y agoI know, I was being a bit over dramatic there, but I still believe copyright holders shouldn't be throwing DMCA claims all willy-nilly.
- viraptor 5y agoThe context here is a bit more interesting. The case seems closer to: Disney will send you copyright strike for a photo you yourself called Loki, after a number of successful takedowns on your cosplay photos for the Loki character. I'm against the idea of DMCA for cosplay in general... But if he knew how the rules apply before, this seems like testing the boundaries / "I'm not touching you" game. He can contest the request through the standard procedure. It would get interesting if that gets rejected.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoHere's an idea to stretch the legal system to a breaking point: This person should legally rename himself to Loki so that he looks like Loki and is actually named Loki. (I mean this sarcastically.)
- coolspot 5y agoAnd then make a movie with him titled as the main actor’s name. Also should change last name to Disney.
- keanebean86 5y agoChange his name to Disney s Loki
- joliv 5y agoSee "Brewer in dispute with real Sam Adams" (2007) https://web.archive.org/web/20071027024211/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_re_us/odd_candidate_vs__beer https://web.archive.org/web/20071027024211/http://news.yahoo...
- 1MachineElf 5y ago>Bornemann said she's willing to discuss Adams' use of his name on his Web sites "probably for the length of the time the election is being held." How about for the rest of his life? Names shouldn't be copyrightable like this.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoCan a bunch of us on HN just meet up, call a congressperson together, and basically ask that congressperson to add to some larger omnibus law a DMCA reform saying frivolous DMCA takedown requests carry an automatic $1000 penalty per request as determined by arbitration or lawsuit, with loser paying the victor's legal fees? [ Edit: Also, you know how we name-and-shame Patent Trolls? This is the behavior of a Copyright Troll and we should call this behavior as such. And ultimately we need legislation against Patent Trolls and Copyright Trolls. ]
- echelon 5y agoI'm down. This is absurd. I'd also be open to doing the same for any of the monopolistic practices of other companies that stifle small creators and engineers.
- eganist 5y agoMinimum 5k (inflation adjusted) or revenue lost plus punitives and attorneys fees, whichever is greater, plus a stipulation barring companies from performing automated takedowns if they slip from 99.999% accuracy. Some of HN's readers are decently connected and don't have a conflict against dmca reform, but many probably are conflicted given how many startups in some way deal with IP. I can try proposing this.
- gjsman-1000 5y agoThe goal in my mind would be to make a very approachable, reasonable, "safe" reform that's both small and yet makes a difference. Senators get scared of big changes unless the entire political party is on board, which is unlikely in this case. Or, or, here's an different idea. Every DMCA request gets $10K automatically put in escrow for a mandatory arbitration. If the violator is a no-show or the DMCA takedown is ruled "not frivolous" (regardless of how good it is, just not frivolous level), the money is returned to the DMCA filer. However, if the person slapped shows up and the arbitrator says "frivolous," the $10,000 is sent to the slapped person and the DMCA filer must do a full lawsuit to retrieve the $10,000 back, which will ultimately require full legal proceedings over the validity of the request. Or instead of $10K, make it $25K. If you truly believe your request is valid, what do you have to fear knowing the money will be returned? The point is some system where the DMCA Filer must throw cash on the line from the beginning to prove good faith. You could also make the amount required variable to company size. Small company under $1M in revenue? $500. $1-$100M? $5000. $100M+? $10000. IDK, just something.
- brokenmachine 5y agoI don't want to watch Disney's crappy TV show, but this story just makes me want to go pirate it right now.
- hellbannedguy 5y agoI was told to subscribe to Disney+ by a family member. They have a whole section on Star Wars. It has everything, except the first Star Wars? That said, you it is very family friendly. If I had children, I might only have Disney+ on my tv. I guess those at Disney feel their brand is so good, they let their lawyers harass people? (When I was a kid, my dad took us to Disney Land. It was the only time I saw him enthused over anything. He was shocked at the detail, and cleanliness of the LA park. He told us the Matterhorn will be last because of the line. At 10 minutes to closing they th old us to come back tomorrow. I've been meaning to go back. I still remember my first view of the park, and it was magical.)
- risyachka 5y ago>>It has everything, except the first Star Wars? They have all movies, including first. I've watched it there like a month ago.
- dragonsky67 5y agoThey don't have the original versions though, just the CGI "enhanced" Jabba version.
- vlunkr 5y agoWell if you weren't going to pay for it in the first place they're not losing anything.
- KMag 5y agoBut, their accountants and lawyers at least pretend to think they're losing something. I guess the GP seeks to inflict a psychological toll.
- boboche 5y agoReminds me of that south park episode with mickey mouse being an evil heartless brute ru(i)nning Disney.
- hellbannedguy 5y agoI bet they heard (Parker/other guy) from Disney.
- zahrc 5y ago“[…] as Mickey returns to Valhalla to slumber and feed.”
- gjsman-1000 5y agoWe hear a lot about Patent Trolls. We should call this behavior the actions of a Copyright Troll. And we need legislation against both Patent Trolls and Copyright Trolls.
- superkuh 5y agoAt some point in his life he did cosplay the disney owned variation of the public concept of loki. But loki in general is definitely not something that disney owns. And just his face without a costume is not disney loki. So this should be immediately rejected on dmca appeal. Should he have to appeal and enter into a legal battle with one of the most dangerous and well funded legal teams on earth? No. It sucks. But the DMCA we have now probably cannot be improved and the safe harbor provisions are vital to the freedom of the net. Any attempts to change it for the better will just make it worse. The best thing he can do, what he's done, is try to get wider public coverage of the stupidity in the hope that disney will try to avoid controversy.
- ralusek 5y agoHey that's pretty crazy, but also why is a person going by Lord Amalthean selling shirts with his face on them?
- Hnrobert42 5y agoThis happens because content creators outsource this work to law firms. The law firms have an incentive to be as aggressive as possible. The more takedowns they report, the more effective they seem. All these comments which imply Disney pursued this takedown despite consideration of competing interests like supporting fans are a bit silly. First, Disney itself isn’t likely directly involved. Second, Disney is MASSIVE. Even if one of Disney’s marketing departments opposes such notices, they likely wouldn’t even know who to call to try to stop them. Note: I dislike takedown notices as much as the rest of you.
- celeritascelery 5y agoThere really needs to be some back pressure mechanism for DMCA requests. Right now it feels like we are all peasants living at the whims of some medical lord issuing decrees. I am just not sure what that mechanism would look like, because it is a fine balance to strike.
- LaundroMat 5y agoIP is a big chunk of the balance sheet. Posturing like this is necessary for a company like Disney, even if it doesn't believe it is effective. Not doing this would imply its IP is less valuable than it is currently valued at. And then shareholders would be sad. As long as IP is an accounting asset, this isn't going to stop.
- origamirobot 5y agoIt's set to private. I can't see anything on this link.
- chrismcb 5y agoI call shenanigans. Looks like the user made their account private. But this isn't how copyrights work. If your face looks like Loki's good for you. There would have to be a lot more going on in the photo to be an infringement.