3 ms·
Reading the reddit thread on this, it seems that the DMCA takedown was because the review is using copyrighted images/material that is authorized for use by GoP
by engtech 14y ago
Reading the reddit thread on this, it seems that the DMCA takedown was because the review is using copyrighted images/material that is authorized for use by GoPro resellers, of which digitalrev.com is not one.
I found this comment by photoknut[1] summed up the story:
"I'm sure the DMCA was used a general way for GoPro to have this article pulled. Sure they could've had lawyer contact lawyers and go through all that, but I'm sure this was easier. They clearly don't allow unauthorized resellers to use their images, that definitely falls under the umbrella of a DMCA takedown notice. GoPro owns those images and says who can use them, DigitalRev clearly can not. "
He goes on to mention that digitalrev has a shady history of re-selling the camera they damage in reviews as a new product.
1: http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_like_you_to_use_their_name_dmca_abuse/c8z9j8e http://www.reddit.com/r/gopro/comments/1anq5d/gopro_doesnt_l...
- antiterra 14y agoA shady history of reselling has nothing to with a DMCA takedown. A DMCA takedown notice that says nothing about copyrights is a nonsensical action to take to protect copyrights. Further, if this random internet person's conjecture was correct, the takedown notice would be for the images and not the article itself. That is, it can never legitimately be a way for them to 'have the article pulled.' Yes, doing something completely incorrect is easier than hiring an expert. But GoPro isn't exactly a mom and pop shop these days, do you think they use this same 'this was easier' philosophy on reporting taxes?