18 ms·

Canadian anti-piracy outfit pirates photos for its website

189 points by vy8vWJlco 13y ago

barbs 13y ago
Wow, just like this incident: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.ht...
j_jochem 13y ago
This headline just took me 45 seconds to parse.
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Really? It seems fine to me.
  - pgsandstrom 13y ago
    The Capitalization Made It Harder For Me.
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
      Fixed the caps for you, though perhaps the OP was referring to the absurdity of the scenario. :)
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      Perhaps I'm better at ignoring the capitalisation, having had to deal with it for a while (my native language doesn't capitalise titles).
      - innguest 13y ago
        What's your native language?
        lucian1900 13y ago
        Romanian. Of the languages I've encountered, only English (and German?) appears to capitalise titles.
  - probably_wrong 13y ago
    I read it at first as if somehow a pirate outfit (as in, a pirate costume) was being used in relation to Canada and anti-piracy, with photos involved somehow.
    - andyhmltn 13y ago
      Same. I thought it was some kind of parody video they made where they dressed as pirates.
- d23 13y ago
  Changing it to "pirated" would make more sense, since it would be more obviously a verb (I think you're like me and read "pirates" as a plural noun).
bobsy 13y ago
What are the anti-piracy people supposed to do? They trusted the web design firm and apparently were let down. Should the site owner have to vet the content again? I was on a site buying icons the other day and it occurred to me. There is no way for me to know for sure if this icon I am buying is being sold by the original author. Sure.. I have proof of purchase but if the guy is reselling without permission I have no idea where it leaves me. Which brings us back to this. Photos from an image bank were apparently used. Well.. anyone can be at fault for putting the images in. Naive intern is just as likely as some rip-off merchant. I disagree with what the Anti-Piracy people do but I sympathize if they had nothing to do this and were let down by designers / rogue image reseller.
- kevingadd 13y ago
  They're supposed to be internally consistent. "I had no way to know the distributor of the content didn't have the rights to it" isn't an excuse most IP holders will accept, regardless of whether or not you happened to pay for the content. It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means!
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means! Yes, although this is not exactly the case. It's not like they are getting people to court for cases like this -- which could be legitimate ignorance. They do it for people downloading and sharing copyrighted content knowingly. Now, if somebody else was using their wifi, that's another thing (and it can be shown in court). But they don't really do it for cases that are analogous to "i trusted a website company and they used pirated stock photos".
    - 13y ago
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
This reminds me of when the Conference Board of Canada was caught copying content for its copyright policy paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-approach-to-hollywood-copy-that/article4211630/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-approa...
InclinedPlane 13y ago
This seems common, someone should come up with a name for the phenomenon, similar to Muphry's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law
- dmiladinov 13y ago
  Two names come to mind: Irony[1], and Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3...
maeon3 13y ago
How much, and in what ways do I have to modify an image (add features, delete features, change aspect) in order to make sure I don't get sued because I am using an image I found on the internet to create something useful for others? If I can get sued for doing such a thing, certainly there has to be a law outlining it? Or is it the wild west like: "the cowboy with the fastest gun/lawyer gets the pesos".
- notdang 13y ago
  Don't modify it, buy it.
  - maeon3 13y ago
    I didn't give you authorization to read my comment. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.
- xsmasher 13y ago
  There's one simple trick: pay the copyright holder whose work you are exploiting. Once you have a license you have nothing to worry about. If you don't do that, then any recognizable* use of someone else's image is a copyright violation. *There are semantic games like "what if I shrink the image to a 1x1 pixel and use that in another image, is that illegal, HUH, IS IT?" But I don't think that's what you care about.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    > If you don't do that, then any recognizable* use of someone else's image is a copyright violation. Er, no. Fair use is actually fairly broad.
    - xsmasher 13y ago
      > Er, no. Fair use is actually fairly broad. You are right, I didn't take fair use into account, and Fair Use does take "Transformative nature" into account. Fair Use does not help the parent poster "make sure [they] don't get sued" though. Fair Use is a defense after you get to court. I should have said "If you don't do that, then any recognizable use of someone else's image can result in a lawsuit."
youngerdryas 13y ago
Torrent freak should be auto banned.
- JoeKM 13y ago
  Why?
- saddestcatever 13y ago
  Certainly biased - but I've read dozens of thought-provoking articles from them.
tekromancr 13y ago
I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreude whenever I see these "Copyright-Troll-Bites-Dog" stories; but I think as it keeps happening again and again I can't help but think that they just show a glimpse into human psychology en masse. A person may stop pirating content, but the nature of the internet guarantees that people will continue to do so. Back when I was a hardcore pirate, (read: poorer than I am now, which is pretty fucking broke) I would download Gigs and Gigs of movies and music that I would almost never watch/listen to. I just found it soothing knowing that I had Terribytes of interesting data; all categorized, indexed and organized, and that could never be taken away from me if Content Producer A got into a corporate pissing match with Content Distributor X.
tagliala 13y ago
something similar happened here in Italy/other countries... anti piracy advertising stoled music http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-artist-for-anti-piracy-ad-120717/ http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-ar... oddly this article is not related...

189 points by vy8vWJlco 13y ago

barbs 13y ago

Wow, just like this incident: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.ht...

j_jochem 13y ago

This headline just took me 45 seconds to parse.

lucian1900 13y ago
Really? It seems fine to me.
- pgsandstrom 13y ago
  The Capitalization Made It Harder For Me.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    Fixed the caps for you, though perhaps the OP was referring to the absurdity of the scenario. :)
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    Perhaps I'm better at ignoring the capitalisation, having had to deal with it for a while (my native language doesn't capitalise titles).
    - innguest 13y ago
      What's your native language?
      - lucian1900 13y ago
        Romanian. Of the languages I've encountered, only English (and German?) appears to capitalise titles.
- probably_wrong 13y ago
  I read it at first as if somehow a pirate outfit (as in, a pirate costume) was being used in relation to Canada and anti-piracy, with photos involved somehow.
  - andyhmltn 13y ago
    Same. I thought it was some kind of parody video they made where they dressed as pirates.
d23 13y ago
Changing it to "pirated" would make more sense, since it would be more obviously a verb (I think you're like me and read "pirates" as a plural noun).

bobsy 13y ago

What are the anti-piracy people supposed to do? They trusted the web design firm and apparently were let down. Should the site owner have to vet the content again? I was on a site buying icons the other day and it occurred to me. There is no way for me to know for sure if this icon I am buying is being sold by the original author. Sure.. I have proof of purchase but if the guy is reselling without permission I have no idea where it leaves me. Which brings us back to this. Photos from an image bank were apparently used. Well.. anyone can be at fault for putting the images in. Naive intern is just as likely as some rip-off merchant. I disagree with what the Anti-Piracy people do but I sympathize if they had nothing to do this and were let down by designers / rogue image reseller.

kevingadd 13y ago
They're supposed to be internally consistent. "I had no way to know the distributor of the content didn't have the rights to it" isn't an excuse most IP holders will accept, regardless of whether or not you happened to pay for the content. It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means!
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's almost as if IP rights for content in the modern era are incredibly complex, and it's very difficult to actually be certain you have the rights for anything, making it kind of absurd to threaten people and take them to court for minor violations that could be resolved through other means! Yes, although this is not exactly the case. It's not like they are getting people to court for cases like this -- which could be legitimate ignorance. They do it for people downloading and sharing copyrighted content knowingly. Now, if somebody else was using their wifi, that's another thing (and it can be shown in court). But they don't really do it for cases that are analogous to "i trusted a website company and they used pirated stock photos".
  - 13y ago

RyanMcGreal 13y ago

This reminds me of when the Conference Board of Canada was caught copying content for its copyright policy paper: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-approach-to-hollywood-copy-that/article4211630/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-approa...

InclinedPlane 13y ago

This seems common, someone should come up with a name for the phenomenon, similar to Muphry's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

dmiladinov 13y ago
Two names come to mind: Irony[1], and Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[2] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3...

maeon3 13y ago

How much, and in what ways do I have to modify an image (add features, delete features, change aspect) in order to make sure I don't get sued because I am using an image I found on the internet to create something useful for others? If I can get sued for doing such a thing, certainly there has to be a law outlining it? Or is it the wild west like: "the cowboy with the fastest gun/lawyer gets the pesos".

notdang 13y ago
Don't modify it, buy it.
- maeon3 13y ago
  I didn't give you authorization to read my comment. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.
xsmasher 13y ago
There's one simple trick: pay the copyright holder whose work you are exploiting. Once you have a license you have nothing to worry about. If you don't do that, then any recognizable* use of someone else's image is a copyright violation. *There are semantic games like "what if I shrink the image to a 1x1 pixel and use that in another image, is that illegal, HUH, IS IT?" But I don't think that's what you care about.
- coldpie 13y ago
  > If you don't do that, then any recognizable* use of someone else's image is a copyright violation. Er, no. Fair use is actually fairly broad.
  - xsmasher 13y ago
    > Er, no. Fair use is actually fairly broad. You are right, I didn't take fair use into account, and Fair Use does take "Transformative nature" into account. Fair Use does not help the parent poster "make sure [they] don't get sued" though. Fair Use is a defense after you get to court. I should have said "If you don't do that, then any recognizable use of someone else's image can result in a lawsuit."

youngerdryas 13y ago

Torrent freak should be auto banned.

JoeKM 13y ago
Why?
saddestcatever 13y ago
Certainly biased - but I've read dozens of thought-provoking articles from them.

tekromancr 13y ago

I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreude whenever I see these "Copyright-Troll-Bites-Dog" stories; but I think as it keeps happening again and again I can't help but think that they just show a glimpse into human psychology en masse. A person may stop pirating content, but the nature of the internet guarantees that people will continue to do so. Back when I was a hardcore pirate, (read: poorer than I am now, which is pretty fucking broke) I would download Gigs and Gigs of movies and music that I would almost never watch/listen to. I just found it soothing knowing that I had Terribytes of interesting data; all categorized, indexed and organized, and that could never be taken away from me if Content Producer A got into a corporate pissing match with Content Distributor X.

tagliala 13y ago

something similar happened here in Italy/other countries... anti piracy advertising stoled music http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-artist-for-anti-piracy-ad-120717/ http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-ar... oddly this article is not related...