Microstock Photography Forum - General > Image Sleuth

Abiding by the DMCA does not mean you "take copyright seriously"

<< < (4/4)

unnonimus:
the DMCA protects the stock agencies.

however, I am pretty sure there is a copyright law that predates the DMCA that states that once they know there is infringement, they become liable from that date. so even if you are not the owner, the site is still liable if they do not take any action.

Justanotherphotographer:

--- Quote from: unnonimus on May 13, 2019, 13:21 ---the DMCA protects the stock agencies.

however, I am pretty sure there is a copyright law that predates the DMCA that states that once they know there is infringement, they become liable from that date. so even if you are not the owner, the site is still liable if they do not take any action.

--- End quote ---
The point is that the action required by the letter of the DMCA is completely insufficient to ensure a site like a stock agency isn't inundated with stolen work. And any agency who's whole copyright stance is "we abide by the DMCA" is just covering their a** and shouldn't expect a cookie for doing it.

Brasilnut:

--- Quote from: unnonimus on May 13, 2019, 13:21 ---the DMCA protects the stock agencies.

however, I am pretty sure there is a copyright law that predates the DMCA that states that once they know there is infringement, they become liable from that date. so even if you are not the owner, the site is still liable if they do not take any action.

--- End quote ---

Need more research but there appears to be a case made for breach of duty of care towards shareholders and clients. If I recall from my negligence / tort law school days, it goes something like this in a common-law jurisdiction (mainly for personal injury claims / medical negligence, but would also apply in this case, i believe):

1. Establish a duty of care between SS and its shareholders, clients and contributors: A duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on a legal entity requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

2. Breach of such duty of care by action or omission: In this case, by being aware of a tort and not taking action (omission). They may argue that they set up DMCA procedures but may be counter-argued that it's insufficient. This is also known as "corporate neglect", for example, a car-company knew about a serious defect and did nothing about it.

3. Causation leading to damage (cause in fact): This may be the trickiest of all. To prove that the thieves led to economic damage / reputation damage to the company. First, one needs to know the extend of thievery to have any notion. On an individual cases it may be easier, such as the Ansel Adams...if a SS buyer purchased a license to such image for a book cover as an EL and printed 1million copies.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page