Apple Seeing Spots Over Leopard Screenshots, again
|
August 29, 2006 | |
Sender Information:
Apple Computer, Inc.
Sent by: [Private]
O
San Francisco, CA, 94111, USA
|
Recipient Information:
[Private]
Google, Inc. [Blogger]
Mountain View, CA, 94043, USA
Sent via: email
Re: Apple Computer Copyrighted Material Illegally Disseminated by impulsivehighlighters.b
To Whom It May Concern: As you know, we represent Apple Computer, Inc. (?Apple?). On August 18, 2006, I sent you a letter requesting that all screenshots of a pre-release developer?s build of Apple's new operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 (aka ?Leopard?) be removed from a Blogger blog, http://impulsivehighlighters.blogspot.com/. On August 22, you sent me notification via e-mail that those screenshots had been removed. Additional screenshots have subsequently been posted on the blog, however. Per the requirements posted at http://www.google.com/blogger dmca.html#notification I hereby provide the requested information and request that Google take immediate action to remove the infringing screenshots. 1. The copyrighted work at issue is a pre-release developer?s build of Apple?s operating system, Mac OS X 10.5. 2. The materials infringing this work are the screenshots of the operation of the Leopard build posted at http://impulsivehighlighters.blogspot.com/. These screenshots have been posted at this URL since at least Wednesday, August 16, 2006. Under the United States Copyright Act, the rights given to the owner of a copyrighted work include, among other things, the exclusive right to display the work publicly. 17 U.S.C. ? 106. The screenshots on this blog are unauthorized and therefore constitute copyright infringement. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1556-57 (M.D. Fla. 1993); Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006). 3. I can be contacted at [private] or [private]@omm.com. 4. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. 5. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. As soon as possible, please remove all screenshots of the Leopard build from http://impulsivehighlighters.blogspot.com/. Thank you, [private]
|
| FAQ: Questions and Answers | |
[back to notice text] Question: Why does a web host or blogging service provider get DMCA takedown notices?
Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(c)m a safe-harbor for hosts of "Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users." This safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by materials its users post, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous.
Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?
Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)] Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].
Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)?
Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512. Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing.
Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures?
Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued.
Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?
Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice.
For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright.
|
|
FAQ: Questions |
|
|
Related Links |
|
More Like This Notice |
|
|
Other Recent C&Ds |
|
|
|
Related News |
|
|
|
Related Resources |
|
|
|
Other Topics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|