4 ms·

From the DMCA (emphasis added): > A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party

by cobbal 4y ago

From the DMCA (emphasis added): > A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of *perjury*, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed. Though this may not refer to the falsehood here. See stackexchange (where I copy/pasted the above from): 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...

Dylan16807 4y ago
The perjury clause definitely does not refer to the accuracy, only to the authorization.
- masswerk 4y ago
  Doesn't this include a factual claim, though, as in, "an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed"? (It may be somewhat difficult to argue that the use of signage as specified in the contract and provided for this very purpose by the claimant should be infringing.) [Disclaimer: not a lawyer]
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Wrongly alleging isn’t perjuring (per that clause). Misrepresenting who you are is.
    - masswerk 4y ago
      But, as you granted, even demanded the use by contract, is the right at this point still exclusive to you? Hasn't it been partially transferred under the restrictions of this very contract?
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        If "exclusive" meant that, then licensing to anyone would make you unable to send a takedown to anyone else.
        masswerk 4y ago
        The point being: How does you licensing the alleged infringer to use the logo, even demanding the placement of said logo under the terms of said contract, not affect your ability to claim infringement? How could you make such a claim in good faith?
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        You can't make the claim in good faith. And you could, very theoretically, face consequences. But not perjury, because it's only perjury if it wasn't your copyright in the first place.

From the DMCA (emphasis added): > A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of *perjury*, that the complaining party

by cobbal 4y ago

Dylan16807 4y ago

The perjury clause definitely does not refer to the accuracy, only to the authorization.

masswerk 4y ago
Doesn't this include a factual claim, though, as in, "an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed"? (It may be somewhat difficult to argue that the use of signage as specified in the contract and provided for this very purpose by the claimant should be infringing.) [Disclaimer: not a lawyer]
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Wrongly alleging isn’t perjuring (per that clause). Misrepresenting who you are is.
  - masswerk 4y ago
    But, as you granted, even demanded the use by contract, is the right at this point still exclusive to you? Hasn't it been partially transferred under the restrictions of this very contract?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      If "exclusive" meant that, then licensing to anyone would make you unable to send a takedown to anyone else.
      - masswerk 4y ago
        The point being: How does you licensing the alleged infringer to use the logo, even demanding the placement of said logo under the terms of said contract, not affect your ability to claim infringement? How could you make such a claim in good faith?
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        You can't make the claim in good faith. And you could, very theoretically, face consequences. But not perjury, because it's only perjury if it wasn't your copyright in the first place.