4 ms·

Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? That is more than a little sketchy. They cannot use their own original photograph

Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? That is more than a little sketchy. They cannot use their own original photographs that they have taken and own the copyright to? Plus why does someone have to be an authorised retailer to sell a product? Once GoPro sells it to a wholesaler it literally isn't their stuff any more (first sale doctrine), now there are certain laws protecting GoPro from things like counterfeiting or trademark violations (basically still just counterfeiting) but that doesn't apply here (since they're selling the original product). Does this also mean that if someone buys a GoPro and decides to sell it on eBay second hand GoPro are going to try and have it taken down? Haven't the courts found that that is unlawful (there was a big Oracle case about it I believe[1])? In general GoPro just took a huge nosedive in terms of my opinion of them. Their statement actually lowers my opinion more than the original DMCA notice did. [1]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-court-says-yes-you-can-resell-your-software-even-if-software-company-says-you-cant.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120703/11345519566/eu-cou...

laumars 14y ago
> Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? That is more than a little sketchy. They cannot use their own original photographs that they have taken and own the copyright to? I maybe mistaken here, but I'm fairly sure reporting / reviews are classed as 'fair use'. If this was ever to go to court, then I'm certain the judge would just throw the case out. However GoPro would never push it that far, their aim is just to take the review offline for the immediate 2 weeks in the hope that when it goes back online, most people would have moved on. Ironically though, GoPro have attracted significantly more attention to the article by trying to bury the review. I say "ironically", but "deservedly" equally works. I hope this serves as a warning to other companies wishing to abuse DMCA take downs (though I doubt it will).
- rayiner 14y ago
  Discussing this is hard because it's not even clear what the legal theory is behind the notice. You cannot claim copyright over someone else's picture of your product. As for trademark--you can only sue for trademark infringement if your mark is used as a mark in commerce. A trademark holder doesn't own the mark itself, just the right to use the mark to label its products. The only thing I can think of that would even be plausible is if the review site used official images of the product in its review without authorization. But the notice doesn't even begin to hint at that theory.
  - ajross 14y ago
    I think the first bit isn't strictly true. You can claim copyright over images of your product to the extent that the product image is copyrightable. You can't publish photographic prints of copyrighted artwork, for example. And I think there's case law about photographs of publicly-visible architecture as well, but someone will have to confirm that. I'd tend to agree that this doesn't extend to straightforward images used to identify the product in a consumer review, but I'm not so sure it's as cut an dry a case as you think.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > I think the first bit isn't strictly true. You can claim copyright over images of your product to the extent that the product image is copyrightable. You can't publish photographic prints of copyrighted artwork, for example. And I think there's case law about photographs of publicly-visible architecture as well, but someone will have to confirm that. Right, if the photograph amounts to a reproduction of something that is itself copyrightable then it is copying and could be infringement. But a camera isn't copyrightable.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    Also, you can't file a DMCA notification for trademark infringement. DMCA is for copyright. If you list trademarks as "infringing material", you're not sending a valid notification under the law.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Is there any potential punishment for GoPro for sending a baseless demand like that, other than crucifixion in the court of public opinion?
    - rayiner 14y ago
      You could sue them for damages/costs for knowingly sending a false DMCA take-down notice. "Knowingly" is unfortunately a high bar--they could plead "stupidity."
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Ironically though, GoPro have attracted significantly more attention to the article by trying to bury the review. Elsewhere in this comment page, someone notes that the review is actually strongly favors the GoPro. Maybe this is some kind of incredibly perverse strategy...?
  - emiliobumachar 14y ago
    If it's that, it's flawed. A lot of people will read just the title, not even click through, and assume GoPro has an inferior product and needs those tactics to hide it. On the other hand, their brand recognition may go up...
  - travem 14y ago
    If you look at the takedown notice there is an ellipsis by the list of URLs. There may have been several pages "infringing" according to GoPro but by excluding those and only sharing the review URL is more likely to go "viral"
smackfu 14y ago
>Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? I think it's more like "Only authorised online retailers can use GoPro's images to advertise GoPro products." Which is fair enough, since GoPro owns their photos, although seems like it will only hit the lowest effort retailers.
tlrobinson 14y ago
I think it's the other way around: "unauthorized" resellers aren't allowed to use GoPro's copyrighted images. Either way, their DMCA notice was horribly worded.

laumars 14y ago

> Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? That is more than a little sketchy. They cannot use their own original photographs that they have taken and own the copyright to? I maybe mistaken here, but I'm fairly sure reporting / reviews are classed as 'fair use'. If this was ever to go to court, then I'm certain the judge would just throw the case out. However GoPro would never push it that far, their aim is just to take the review offline for the immediate 2 weeks in the hope that when it goes back online, most people would have moved on. Ironically though, GoPro have attracted significantly more attention to the article by trying to bury the review. I say "ironically", but "deservedly" equally works. I hope this serves as a warning to other companies wishing to abuse DMCA take downs (though I doubt it will).

rayiner 14y ago
Discussing this is hard because it's not even clear what the legal theory is behind the notice. You cannot claim copyright over someone else's picture of your product. As for trademark--you can only sue for trademark infringement if your mark is used as a mark in commerce. A trademark holder doesn't own the mark itself, just the right to use the mark to label its products. The only thing I can think of that would even be plausible is if the review site used official images of the product in its review without authorization. But the notice doesn't even begin to hint at that theory.
- ajross 14y ago
  I think the first bit isn't strictly true. You can claim copyright over images of your product to the extent that the product image is copyrightable. You can't publish photographic prints of copyrighted artwork, for example. And I think there's case law about photographs of publicly-visible architecture as well, but someone will have to confirm that. I'd tend to agree that this doesn't extend to straightforward images used to identify the product in a consumer review, but I'm not so sure it's as cut an dry a case as you think.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > I think the first bit isn't strictly true. You can claim copyright over images of your product to the extent that the product image is copyrightable. You can't publish photographic prints of copyrighted artwork, for example. And I think there's case law about photographs of publicly-visible architecture as well, but someone will have to confirm that. Right, if the photograph amounts to a reproduction of something that is itself copyrightable then it is copying and could be infringement. But a camera isn't copyrightable.
- mistercow 14y ago
  Also, you can't file a DMCA notification for trademark infringement. DMCA is for copyright. If you list trademarks as "infringing material", you're not sending a valid notification under the law.
- rdl 14y ago
  Is there any potential punishment for GoPro for sending a baseless demand like that, other than crucifixion in the court of public opinion?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    You could sue them for damages/costs for knowingly sending a false DMCA take-down notice. "Knowingly" is unfortunately a high bar--they could plead "stupidity."
sliverstorm 14y ago
Ironically though, GoPro have attracted significantly more attention to the article by trying to bury the review. Elsewhere in this comment page, someone notes that the review is actually strongly favors the GoPro. Maybe this is some kind of incredibly perverse strategy...?
- emiliobumachar 14y ago
  If it's that, it's flawed. A lot of people will read just the title, not even click through, and assume GoPro has an inferior product and needs those tactics to hide it. On the other hand, their brand recognition may go up...
- travem 14y ago
  If you look at the takedown notice there is an ellipsis by the list of URLs. There may have been several pages "infringing" according to GoPro but by excluding those and only sharing the review URL is more likely to go "viral"

smackfu 14y ago

>Online retailers can only use "authorised images" to advertise GoPro products? I think it's more like "Only authorised online retailers can use GoPro's images to advertise GoPro products." Which is fair enough, since GoPro owns their photos, although seems like it will only hit the lowest effort retailers.

tlrobinson 14y ago

I think it's the other way around: "unauthorized" resellers aren't allowed to use GoPro's copyrighted images. Either way, their DMCA notice was horribly worded.