Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Chilling Effects
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > Another Case of Pedigree-CBS.org Getting Catty About A Cattery (NoticeID 1749, http://chillingeffects.org/N/1749) Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1749

Another Case of Pedigree-CBS.org Getting Catty About A Cattery

March 23, 2005

 

Sender Information:
[Private]
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]
[Private]
Simi Valley, CA, 93063, US

Recipient Information:
User Support, DMCA Complaints
Google, Inc.
[Private]
Mountain View, CA, USA


Sent via: fax
Re: Complaint of Copyright Infringement Against www.pedigree-cbs.org

Complaint of Copyright Infringement Against www.pedigree-cbs.org
[Private]
Attn: User Support, DMCA complaints

1. The copyrighted work at issue is an email authored by myself, posted to this website without my permission. It is at the bottom of the page, under the title "
2. [Private] REPONSE TO COMPLAINT VERBATIM"
3. Search query: Elusive Blue Cattery or Olivia Strongo
Google results: [Private]Elusive Blue Cattery
The worst pedigree cat breeder in the entire world.
www.pedigree-cbs.org/bs.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

"Bad" Pedigree Cat Breeder's websites #2
...ELUSIVE BLUE BSH. Heaven Haven. Taja Siberians. Kimberlyn. Cloud's Meow. India Ink Bengals. Carraig Birmans. Fleur-D-Le Persians. Debra Rexelle [photo]
www.pedigree-cbs.org/badcatbreeders2.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

4. [Private], [Private], Simi Valley, California 93063
[Private]
5. [Private], [Private]; Beaumont, CA 92223
[Private], [Private]
6. "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." The "response" quoted was my email, verbatim. I did not, nor do I now, give permission for this to be reproduced in any form. Her reproduction of my email does not constitute fair use under US copyright law, not having been used in part, for editorial or reporting purposes.
7. "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

image

FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is copyright infringement? Are there any defenses?

Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above.

The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors:


  1. the purpose and character of the use
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and
  4. the market effect.

(17 U.S.C. 107)

The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use."

Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?

Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.


[back to notice text]


Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable?

Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium.

Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV.

The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable.

Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where is the fair use doctrine codified?

Answer: The fair use doctrine was originally a judge-made doctrine embodied in case law. See Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841). Congress later codified it at Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 107.

This section provides:

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [setting forth copyright owners' exclusive rights and visual artists' artistic rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include


[back to notice text]


Question: Where can I find the text of the U.S. Copyright Act?

Answer: The federal Copyright Act may be found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

  • The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
  • The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
  • Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
  • A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
  • A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.


Topic maintained by Chilling Effects

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse page printed from: https://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1749
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts