Exclusive: Publisher sues Tumblr over porn pics

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

It’s finally happened. In a case with big implications for the booming market in photo-sharing, a publisher is suing popular blogging site Tumblr for copyright infringement.

In a complaint filed Friday in Manhattan, Perfect 10 claims Tumblr failed to remove unauthorized photos posted by its users. The company, which sells nude model photographs through a magazine and website, says Tumblr not only turned a blind eye to copyright infringement but that its staff uploaded images themselves to jumpstart the business.

http://paidcontent.org/2012/05/07/exclusive-publisher-sues-tumblr-over-porn-pics/

[Mulligan]

As a professional writer, I'm sensitive to copyright, and I believe those who make their living via copyrightable materials should receive fair compensation for what they do.

With that said, the current state of copyright is absurdly inadequate in a digital world, and with the proliferation of extrajudicial copyright trolling schemes to extort money from websites and users, I fear matters are only going to get worse.

The "good old days" of the internet may soon be behind us, especially if the politicians and greedy bastards who own them, along with lawyers like the copyright trolls at Timothy B. McCormack law firm who are out to make an easy buck by abusing the spirit of many laws, are allowed free rein.

Perhaps, however, in the future, groups like Anonymous will develop ways to keep the internet vital and free by making it impossible for the trolls and their masters to ruin digital life for the rest of us. It saddens me to look to what some would call "rogue elements" for justice, but, alas, the American "justice system" these days is not a friend of the average person. Instead, for the most part, it seems to me to be just another broken part of a system that now works mainly for the special interests.


 

[lucia]

Being a porn company that makes money from images, I suspect Perfect 10 will have all their copyrights in place for images of their stars. This isn't going to be like Getty trying to mass copyright various garden variety stock photos of things like sprinkler heads.

If it's true Tumbler failed to failed to take down copyrighted material when asked by the copyright owner and uploaded it themselves, Perfect 10 will likely win this one.

[SoylentGreen]

Personally, I don't feel that the present laws are or were ever intended to be abused in the manner in which we see today.
I'd like to see laws updated to reflect recent advances in media/tech, however.

Additionally, I don't feel that anyone should assume that another party holds the copyrights to anything, especially in the face of trolling, or a lawsuit.
We can check those facts, and we need not assume anything.
Indeed, a porn company recently attempted to extort/troll/sue people whom allegedly downloaded a video.
Turns out that they didn't even copyright their own material.

S.G.

[lucia]

Additionally, I don't feel that anyone should assume that another party holds the copyrights to anything, especially in the face of trolling, or a lawsuit.
We can check those facts, and we need not assume anything.
Indeed, a porn company recently attempted to extort/troll/sue people whom allegedly downloaded a video.
Turns out that they didn't even copyright their own material.

The courts aren't going to assume anything about copyrights and I don't either.

But this isn't Getty.  Perfect 10 is pretty well known and has pursued cases before. They lost Perfect 10 v. Amazon but not because they didn't hold valid copyrights. They had valid copyrights in that case and I anticipate they will have put copyrights in place this time too. (Wikipedia's article on Perfect 10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_%28magazine%29 ). Of course when sued Tumbler will try to dispute the copyrights and if this gets to court we'll learn more.

Don't assume just because Getty doesn't always have their copyright house in order that no one does.  Some publishers do take care to copyright the photo's the publish in their periodicals.  I'm guessing Perfect 10 does systematically copyright their photos.

porn company recently attempted to extort/troll/sue people whom allegedly downloaded a video

I'm not familiar with this. I'm familiar with the bit torrent cases. My impression is some of those fell apart for reasons other than the porn company not owing the copyrights. Do you have a particular case in mind?

[SoylentGreen]

Lucia, I think that you misunderstood my posting somewhat, I'm simply explaining that I don't take anyone's word without proof.
My requirement of "proof" does not mean that I have automatically assumed that "Perfect 10" has no standing.
I would prefer that readers of the forum (many of them extortion letter victims) stop giving the copyright trolls "benefit of the doubt".
The burden of proof is ultimately upon the copyright troll, regardless of their reputation or how many pieces they registered in the past.

While you may feel that my worldview is based on the Getty "model", and that I assume that the other trolls are akin to Getty, that's simply your opinion.  I didn't say that.

The case that I was referring to is the famous "Mick Haig" / "Evan Stone" case:
http://torrentfreak.com/producer-sues-bittorrent-users-but-doesnt-own-copyright-100924/
http://torrentfreak.com/670-alleged-file-sharers-off-the-hook-as-bittorrent-case-dismissed-110201/
Mick Haig/Evan Stone dropped the case, and copyright standing was one of the reasons for this.
We can discuss what a "win" for trolling victims is or isn't.  But, a "win" is a "win" in my book, and lack of copyright registration would have killed it regardless.

I'd like to reiterate that the concept that a troll "might have standing" is quite offensive to me.
Either an entity has copyrights registered or it doesn't.  There's no grey area.  If one asks for proof, and none is forthcoming, then there's your answer.
Additionally, all evidence must be submitted before any court foray.  There's no mystery.

I do wonder, however if Tumblr was sent a DMCA complaint in regard to this.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Perfect 10 lost a similar lawsuit against Google several years ago when it was determined that their notices were not sufficiently detailed. However, in this case, Perfect 10 has filed in the 2nd Circuit rather than the 9th, where the courts may have a looser interpretation of DMCA requirements.

Perfect 10 alleges in its lawsuit that it sent Tumblr a total of six Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices regarding more than 200 allegedly infringing images. Perfect 10 says that Tumblr has "failed to completely process any of Perfect 10's DMCA notices, taking down at most only a handful of the over 200 infringing images."

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/174118/tumblr-sued-for-widespread-and-uncontrolled-copy.html#ixzz1uITQR2rt

[lucia]

Buddhapi--
Or Perfect 10 may have started to include url's in the takedown notice. 

I think it's fair for the judge to tell Perfect 10 they have to send the darn urls where the violations supposedly exist. It's ridiculous for Perfect 10 to just inform a groups like (Tumblr/Facebook/Wordpress ) etc. that someone, somewhere on their site is hosting a picture and expect them to take it down.

Soylent--
Thanks for the link. Of course lack of copyright would make a suit fall apart. But notwithstanding whatever it is that bothers you, I would be very surprised if the reason Perfect 10 loses turns out to be they don't have copyright.  Of course the burden of proof for showing they have copyright falls on Perfect 10-- but I anticipate they will have that in place. 

If it bothers you that I anticipate it is highly likely this particular plaintiff who has in the past had copyrights in place, who hires their own photographers to take pictures, who pays the models and publishes their own photos will, in fact, have taken the step to copyright their material in this case so be it.  But my anticipating this is not by any stretch of the imagination suggestion they will not have to prove it in court. Obviously, they will have to prove it. And if they don't prove it, they will lose their case.

They may also lose the case for other reasons-- as they have lost cases in the past for other reasons. But this particular plaintiff seems to be in the habit of filing copyrights. And, moreover, I'm much more sympathetic to their position than that of Gettys. In fact, I'm not sure I even consider Perfect 10 a "troll".  I don't consider merely attempting to enforce copyright an act that turns someone or a business into a copyright troll. (I don't generally consider people who try to enforce patents trolls -- though some are.)

[SoylentGreen]

I'm not "bothered" by the parties involved - I've never had any dealings with them.
Your opinions don't bother me - I rather like the debate.  In any case, I think that we largely agree anyway.
My only real point here is that people should NOT pay up in the face of "questionable standing"...
that is when an extortion letter victim thinks that "they MIGHT have some proof... I better pay just in case".
Therefore, "my jimmies remain unrustled" as the meme says.
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m365ir39fR1ruzcgto1_400.jpg

In any case... not much if anything on Tumblr is original content.
So, Tumblr is another site much like Pinterest that aggregates content of questionable ownership/sourcing.

S.G.

[lucia]

My only real point here is that people should NOT pay up in the face of "questionable standing"...
that is when an extortion letter victim thinks that "they MIGHT have some proof... I better pay just in case".

Oh. I agree with that.  Obviously, just because someone approaches you  and claims you violated their copyright that doesn't mean you have to fork over money without having them show you they have a copyright, verifying that you violated and so on.

Therefore, "my jimmies remain unrustled" as the meme says.
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m365ir39fR1ruzcgto1_400.jpg

In any case... not much if anything on Tumblr is original content.
So, Tumblr is another site much like Pinterest that aggregates content of questionable ownership/sourcing.

S.G.

Sure. To some extent, Tumblr is a site whose business model depends on copyright violation. It's not even incidental. Where as one does find copyright violation on youtube, huge number of youtube videos are by content creators who post videos they created themselves.   Similarly, Wordpress, blogger etc contain many blogs with content posted by their creators.   Tumblr and Pinterest... not so much.   

I actually blocked Tumblr from my blog. If a Tumblr blogger wants to copy from me they can do it the oldfashioned way.    Cut and paste, load to their blog.