3 ms·

> If we're going to resort to ill-fitting metaphores, it's closer to the owner of a piece of artwork posting public notice that their art can only be viewed in

> If we're going to resort to ill-fitting metaphores, it's closer to the owner of a piece of artwork posting public notice that their art can only be viewed in their studio, permitting a public gallery to show that art, and then suing you for trespassing because you looked at their art while it was in a public gallery. Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. > the very quietly changed their ToS just 4 days prior to filing suit -- that's bullshit if I've ever smelled it From the article, CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. After that, they required CL poster to agree to new copyright rules, and then 4 days later sued 3Tap. It's not clear if that later change was also a change in their T's and C's.

icebraining 11y ago
Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. But that would be copyright infringement, not trespass. The CFAA charge is still unfounded.
nmrm2 11y ago
> you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. Find me a single example of an artist successfully suing for trespassing in such a situation. CL's only plausible claim is to copyright infringement. They should stick to that claim. > CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. 1. After "less than a month". 2. 3Taps replied to the Cease and Desist Letter stating that it didn't make any sense because the C&D letter requested that 3Taps stop accessing CL, but 3Taps wasn't accessing CL directly. 3Taps assumed this was an adequate response (and asssumed their initial behavior was okay) because the explicit caveat to the explicit "use our data" invitation from CL executives was that such use shouldn't over-tax CL's bandwidth. At that point, to quote the article (emph. mine), "craigslist concocted a scheme to allow it to assert ownership over copyrights to user postings so it could bring copyright infringement claims against 3taps and other innovators who accepted Mr. Newmark's invitation. Without notice to its users, craigslist inserted language into its posting process that it claims gave it an exclusive license to user posts. Four days later, craigslist sued 3taps."

icebraining 11y ago

Changing the scenario slightly makes this seem far less absurd: you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. But that would be copyright infringement, not trespass. The CFAA charge is still unfounded.

nmrm2 11y ago

> you took a photo of the art piece while it was on display at a public gallery, then used your own photo commercially. Find me a single example of an artist successfully suing for trespassing in such a situation. CL's only plausible claim is to copyright infringement. They should stick to that claim. > CL changed their ToS, and after a month sent a Cease and Desist Letter to 3Tap. 1. After "less than a month". 2. 3Taps replied to the Cease and Desist Letter stating that it didn't make any sense because the C&D letter requested that 3Taps stop accessing CL, but 3Taps wasn't accessing CL directly. 3Taps assumed this was an adequate response (and asssumed their initial behavior was okay) because the explicit caveat to the explicit "use our data" invitation from CL executives was that such use shouldn't over-tax CL's bandwidth. At that point, to quote the article (emph. mine), "craigslist concocted a scheme to allow it to assert ownership over copyrights to user postings so it could bring copyright infringement claims against 3taps and other innovators who accepted Mr. Newmark's invitation. Without notice to its users, craigslist inserted language into its posting process that it claims gave it an exclusive license to user posts. Four days later, craigslist sued 3taps."