Is "DMCA takedown" broken?

[Mobbstar]

I know a couple of cool artworks that unfortunately got plagiarised. The artists got informed of that already, but I just checked and even after weeks the plagiarism is still there.

Something about the whole "digital rights" is clearly broken here. No matter whether the artists didn't find the "right" way to report it, or whether nothing happened after they did it, the system failed. The artists were stolen from and can't defend themselves.

So that's essentially my question: What exactly is one meant to do about such situations, and how is the DMCA takedown notice meant to work?

This is an important concern to me, since I'm a modder, and as such also can produce digital goods (eventhough it's harder to plagiarise mods because only true modders could steal mods without revealing themselves to be incapable of bugfixing or alike).

P.S.: These are the original artworks:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=475969791
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=480645640

[Forcen]

Did the artist submit a DMCA notice or not? When was it submitted?

They don't remove "stolen" stuff unless you do a DMCA request if that is what you are asking. They do remove for other reasons if you use the regular report window.

DMCA is intended to be used if your copyrighted work is distributed by someone else in a way you don't allow. If the author is fine with it can still stay up, maybe they attributed the original artist with a link like the second artwork kinda did.

And it can be used for mods also, for example loads of wh40k space marine mods have been removed from the skyrim workshop if i remember correctly.

The DMCA form is very helpful.

[Mobbstar]

引用自 Forcen：

Did the artist submit a DMCA notice or not? When was it submitted?

DMCA is intended to be used if your copyrighted work is distributed by someone else in a way you don't allow. If the author is fine with it can still stay up, maybe they attributed the original artist with a link like the second artwork kinda did.

Thank you for the response.

I don't know whether any DMCAs were submitted. It seems like they did *something* about it.

I have never used DMCA before (maybe I'm too good at watermarking my mods :P), so I don't know how it works. Hence I asked. And I wholeheartedly believe that it is helpful. But my point is that whatever the artists did, it didn't really work out.

And that's where you seem to missunderstand: the linked stuff is the originals, I didn't link the copies because I'm not calling people out. But, for the sake of clearing things up, here the copies are (both by the same user):
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=480879499
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=479031175

As you can see, no link or anything.

I even left a comment saying "This is the same as [link], and the odds are against you being the actual artists. Can you point out any arguments for yourself?" but it got removed and I got blocked, adding to the rich pool of reasons why that seems like an obvious case to me.

[wuddih]

general legality: as long as there is not the possibility to make money with someones picture, you can nearly pack it under fair-use.

the DMCA takedown is just there because the artwork uses the same system as the workshops and workshop submissions have the possibility to give the submitter revenue.

a csgo item was taken down because of an dmca notice, at the point when it was already implemented into the game and was generating money for the submitter. and that is what copyrightholders are waiting for. so a dmca takedown for artwork is pretty pointless, since it never will generate any money.

[Dendrobates Tinctorius]

引用自 mobbstar：

I don't know whether any DMCAs were submitted.

It's up to the rights holder to file a DMCA.

引用自 wuddih：

general legality: as long as there is not the possibility to make money with someones picture, you can nearly pack it under fair-use.

That's not how that works.

[Black Blade]

I don't get what is the point of what you trying to say
Its possible the Original artist did not care, or did not file a DMCA, and if that is the case, why will it be removed?

You basically saying that you do not think it work, even that it may have never been used? maybe connect the artist and ask him? you may found out he dose not really care at all

[Clutch Or Kick]

Nice

[Satoru]

引用自 wuddih：

general legality: as long as there is not the possibility to make money with someones picture, you can nearly pack it under fair-use.

First all works are automatically copyrighted when created. Thus rights to anything is by default assigned to the creator. Trademarks must be registered.

Secondly, while fair use provisions are very broad adn allow for use of copyrighted material in various ways, 'not making money' is not a consideration.

the DMCA takedown is just there because the artwork uses the same system as the workshops and workshop submissions have the possibility to give the submitter revenue.

The DMCA is for any copyrighted material. If I post a video of the Minions movie on Steam on my profile, you can bet your behind a DMCA notice will be filed, even though "I am not making any monrey"

[Insanity Claus]

引用自 wuddih：

general legality: as long as there is not the possibility to make money with someones picture, you can nearly pack it under fair-use.

No. Fair Use has specific guidelines. See: http://copyright.gov/fair-use/

引用自 wuddih：

the DMCA takedown is just there because the artwork uses the same system as the workshops and workshop submissions have the possibility to give the submitter revenue.

a csgo item was taken down because of an dmca notice, at the point when it was already implemented into the game and was generating money for the submitter. and that is what copyrightholders are waiting for. so a dmca takedown for artwork is pretty pointless, since it never will generate any money.

No. There are various reasons why copyright enforcement may occur despite lack of monetization by the one who is hosting the stolen content. Primary is to eliminate the free distribution of for-pay works. Another issue is trademark expansion, such as the classic example of licensing likenesses to cake bakeries. There is also the sheer desire to control the "intent" of the content. Some authors are notorious about not allowing fan fiction. Some don't care.

Honestly, you have a very poor understanding of how and why copyright is effected.

[Insanity Claus]

引用自 Satoru：

The DMCA is for any copyrighted material. If I post a video of the Minions movie on Steam on my profile, you can bet your behind a DMCA notice will be filed, even though "I am not making any monrey"

First off, very well said, but I wanted to highlight this to show an example of Fair Use. Fair Use guidelines work if you were to use a small clip of the Minions when discussing the Minions. If you simply showed the whole movie and talked over it (MST3K), that does not meet requirements for transformative works and falls under derivative works, which does not have the same legal strengths as Fair Use.

The other issue is Public Domain. If you go to Mystery Science Theater 3,000's YouTube page, you see that they have full videos of movies. Did they pay for those? No. Those movies they are commenting on are under a Public Domain[en.wikipedia.org] license.

Traditionally, in the USA, copyright status was applied to works for 14 years with an additional 14 years re-application if the holder was still alive. After that, works passed to Public Domain status and were free for public use. Establishment of intellectual property was such a huge issue during the day that copyright and trademark law was created on the very first drafting of the US Constitution. (see here for history of USA copyright law[www.arl.org])

Over the years, this has rapidly changed, most notably with the colloquially coined Sonny Bono Copyright Act (Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998[en.wikipedia.org]), which drastically expanded copyright terms and grandfathered many works. (notably, Disney's "The Lady and The Tramp" would have fallen into Public Domain, but the CEA grandfathered it for further protection) Much of this legislation has been globally ratified via trade agreements. The classic is the Berne Convention[en.wikipedia.org] and the UN's Universal Copyright Convention[en.wikipedia.org].

[Satoru]

Fair enough (hah pun intended)

I was referring to the scenario if you posted the entire movie online on Steam but I wasn't clear on that so my bad.

[Insanity Claus]

No worries at all, I'm just very well versed in this. Copyright and TM law is right up my alley. I love this stuff. :)

Even if you were just posting a small segment, you could run afoul of copyright. A lot of people think copyright and IP law is some nefarious neo-corporate scheme, but it was initially done to prevent large companies from stealing the works of artists. (see Statute of Anne[en.wikipedia.org]) Unfortunately, many publishers came in to fulfill that role, still leaving many artists nearly broke for their craft.

There's a lot of confusion about what is Fair Use and what isn't, and there is no real hard lines. That's why MTV blurred out Nike and Reebok logos in rap videos instead of challenging allegations of copyright infringement. But for every time that happens, there is also an artist getting their work stolen. The most infamous being the AP photographer whose picture of Obama was used by Shepard Fairey to make the HOPE posters[en.wikipedia.org].

[hodie]

I'm sorry but in terms of submitting artwork on Steam if you're posting others work it's wrong (I came across an instance of this today). On the upload page it states,

"The artwork you post must be your own creation. Do not post the work of other people. Instead, please encourage them to post it."

You can't be more clearer than that.