3 ms·

I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyrig

by _pius 17y ago

I'm not sure what your point is (or why people upvoted this). Are you suggesting that Flickr's Terms of Service provide them a broader interpretation of copyright infringement? Not at all, but your response betrays the fundamental misunderstanding here. It's not Flickr's job to adjudicate copyright disputes or have any "interpretation of copyright infringement." No, the point here is that Flickr is not infringing some "fair use" right. That right doesn't exist. The right that does exist is Flickr's right not to host the picture. If someone complains to Flickr that a user's image is infringing their copyright, it's certainly not incumbent upon Flickr to pre-emptively argue "fair use" on the user's behalf. If Flickr is truly concerned that the picture is infringing a copyright, why in the world would it be their job to absorb that legal risk on some user's behalf? If the user is so confident that it's a fair use, they can host the image on their own server and be prepared to make that defense in court, rather than expect Flickr to go to court and argue it for them. This is not to say I agree or disagree with the photo being taken down; I'm going to remain agnostic on that point. But implying that Flickr has to defend someone's mythical "fair use" right is nowhere near accurate.

ynniv 17y ago
> It's not Flickr's job to adjudicate copyright disputes or have any "interpretation of copyright infringement." Indeed, but clearly they are adjudicating, so to say it is unfair to hold them to the standards of the position is ridiculous. > No, the point here is that Flickr is not infringing some "fair use" right. That right doesn't exist. No one has used the term "right", except yourself. The original poster's intention was to point out the baselessness of Flickr's actions. Due to the political and parody aspects of the picture, the general public would assume that this content would not result in a lawsuit. If there were documentation to the contrary, Flickr's actions would have some merit.
- _pius 17y ago
  Indeed, but clearly they are adjudicating ... That's not true. It may seem counterintuitive, but they are doing the opposite. They are specifically not adjudicating it, but rather taking the "better safe than sorry" approach. I understand your position, but I think you're lacking some useful context. There's a lot of established case law in the United States (going way back to when Prodigy and Compuserve were in their respective heydays) about what types of behavior make entities that provide fora for online content more like libraries (and thus more or less held harmless for content inside) and what behaviors make them more like newspapers (that exercise editorial control over their content and thus liable for the "speech" that they allow to be published, even if the "speech" is user-provided). IANAL, so I'm not going to rehash all of this law here; instead I will direct you to the Safe Harbor provision of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which I think will rebut you far more directly than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Knowledge_of_Infringing_Material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Knowledge_of_Infringing_... Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common, standard technique for limiting liability online.
  - ynniv 17y ago
    > Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. > Safe Harbor provision of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act The Safe Harbor provision of §512(c) requires the provider to take down content given 1) notice from the content owner, or 2) the presence of "red flags". References to red flags in the DMCA suggest gross infraction, which in this case would look like a Flickr account dedicated to reproducing copyrighted content. This does not appear to be the case [http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/]. The "red flag" provision was also added to §512(d) for link indexing sites. There is more descriptive text attached to this "red flag" and it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach": catalogers would not be required to make discriminating judgments about potential copyright infringement. Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. It is hopefully the work of a single moderator, and not corporate policy.
    - _pius 17y ago
      I'm not sure why you're still arguing, but that wasn't convincing at all. I'll quickly address what you've said and then I'm done with the thread. Beyond that, I don't know what else to do other than again point you to the law and encourage you to talk to some experts in the field if you don't believe me. This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned when I took a class on the subject. Thankfully, it's also supported by the law. :) "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. I don't think "correct" is defined here; there are only "legal" strategies and "liability-minimizing" strategies. The legality is a binary question and I think you'd agree that what Yahoo did was legal. Whether Yahoo's strategy is the most effective at limiting the liability is almost a closed question as well. You conceded earlier that it is a common strategy. The reason it is common for online service providers is that it is currently the most sure-fire strategy for limiting liability stemming from speech that users make. ... it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach" [sic] No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim that taking down the content is equivalent to adjudicating the copyright issues. The point of the provision is that you don't need to make a judgment; as long as you take the content down upon being made aware of potential copyright violations, you're fine. Hence, "better safe than sorry." Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. What makes you think there was no such notice?

by _pius 17y ago

ynniv 17y ago

> It's not Flickr's job to adjudicate copyright disputes or have any "interpretation of copyright infringement." Indeed, but clearly they are adjudicating, so to say it is unfair to hold them to the standards of the position is ridiculous. > No, the point here is that Flickr is not infringing some "fair use" right. That right doesn't exist. No one has used the term "right", except yourself. The original poster's intention was to point out the baselessness of Flickr's actions. Due to the political and parody aspects of the picture, the general public would assume that this content would not result in a lawsuit. If there were documentation to the contrary, Flickr's actions would have some merit.

_pius 17y ago
Indeed, but clearly they are adjudicating ... That's not true. It may seem counterintuitive, but they are doing the opposite. They are specifically not adjudicating it, but rather taking the "better safe than sorry" approach. I understand your position, but I think you're lacking some useful context. There's a lot of established case law in the United States (going way back to when Prodigy and Compuserve were in their respective heydays) about what types of behavior make entities that provide fora for online content more like libraries (and thus more or less held harmless for content inside) and what behaviors make them more like newspapers (that exercise editorial control over their content and thus liable for the "speech" that they allow to be published, even if the "speech" is user-provided). IANAL, so I'm not going to rehash all of this law here; instead I will direct you to the Safe Harbor provision of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, which I think will rebut you far more directly than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Knowledge_of_Infringing_Material http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Knowledge_of_Infringing_... Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common, standard technique for limiting liability online.
- ynniv 17y ago
  > Suffice it to say, the "better safe than sorry" approach taken here by Yahoo/Flickr is a very common "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. > Safe Harbor provision of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act The Safe Harbor provision of §512(c) requires the provider to take down content given 1) notice from the content owner, or 2) the presence of "red flags". References to red flags in the DMCA suggest gross infraction, which in this case would look like a Flickr account dedicated to reproducing copyrighted content. This does not appear to be the case [http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/khateeb88/]. The "red flag" provision was also added to §512(d) for link indexing sites. There is more descriptive text attached to this "red flag" and it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach": catalogers would not be required to make discriminating judgments about potential copyright infringement. Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. It is hopefully the work of a single moderator, and not corporate policy.
  - _pius 17y ago
    I'm not sure why you're still arguing, but that wasn't convincing at all. I'll quickly address what you've said and then I'm done with the thread. Beyond that, I don't know what else to do other than again point you to the law and encourage you to talk to some experts in the field if you don't believe me. This isn't my analysis ... I'm just repeating what I learned when I took a class on the subject. Thankfully, it's also supported by the law. :) "Common" does not imply correct. I will grant you that its common. I'm not sure what you mean by "correct" in this domain. I don't think "correct" is defined here; there are only "legal" strategies and "liability-minimizing" strategies. The legality is a binary question and I think you'd agree that what Yahoo did was legal. Whether Yahoo's strategy is the most effective at limiting the liability is almost a closed question as well. You conceded earlier that it is a common strategy. The reason it is common for online service providers is that it is currently the most sure-fire strategy for limiting liability stemming from speech that users make. ... it explicitly counters your broad "better safe than sorry aproach" [sic] No, actually it confirms what I said and explicitly debunks your claim that taking down the content is equivalent to adjudicating the copyright issues. The point of the provision is that you don't need to make a judgment; as long as you take the content down upon being made aware of potential copyright violations, you're fine. Hence, "better safe than sorry." Without a takedown notice from a copyright holder, or an account dedicated to reproduction of unlicensed content, this is no legal reason for taking this content down. What makes you think there was no such notice?