So what is the legal fallout from the Faeit212 take-down?
A friend of mine is both an accomplished 40K player and an attorney with IP experience. We have been chatting about all of this as I am an attorney (though I am smart enough not to practice!) and he sent me this email:
As you're aware (I've read through the posts on your blog), they're seriously over-reaching in most of these takedown requests.
"Fair use" allows for news reportage and commentary, and nearly everything that I've seen would fall squarely into those areas.
Even Natfka's notice *claimed* that he was publishing photos taken of a WD that had not been released yet. But the problem with that is that's not completely true -- the photos HAD been released, albeit in Germany.
It's not like Natfka snuck into GW's offices and took some spy-camera photos of the WD; some 3rd party had the magazine and took pictures. That's a lapse on GW's part, not on the blogger/journalist/reporter that uses the images.
I don't know what you posted from IA12, but -- again -- that book was released in the UK before Adepticon, and was available for purchase there. If you put up limited images for commentary, you're within the ambit of Fair Use.
I really want GW to step too far over the line and get slapped. Copyright actions are one of the few areas in American jurisprudence where a successful defense can shift attorney fees. They have it coming!
His feedback is pretty much right on and while GW is probably overstepping their bounds, avoiding problems with them is pretty easy. You won't find me posting photos of their books and White Dwarfs anymore unless it is secondary to commentary about those items.
And honestly, anyone who wants any GW product, can get it illegally through numerous download sites (not to be mentioned here!).
Loken
Ummm...as subtle as that last sentence was meant to be, I don't think you should be advocating piracy on a site that is attempting to project an image of journalistic integrity. I'm not trying to be self-righteous...just a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteMy (completely unprofessional) understanding is that the "amount and substantiality" and "effect on work's value" of the posted pages would be some of the biggest claims against allowing fair use, especially in the case of IA12 pages. Damn near all the 40k rules were posted, and that is the #1 thing most people would be buying the book for. "Transformative value" of the commentary is another issue, as this really is just posting photos most of the time, and not providing substantial review or analysis.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, IP law is often a total mess so I am never surprised to see all the different viewpoints and interpretations coming up.
I was not advocating any piracy. I was simply stating that my blog is the LEAST of GW's IP worries as I actually buy their product and promote others buying it.
ReplyDeleteSo... you know that BOLS and Faeit212 weren't taken down by GW right? In fact, BOLS is back up now and has said exactly that.
ReplyDeleteAnd you conclude from BOLS that the same is true for Faeit212?
ReplyDeleteFrom Faeit himself
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L02uNG9sl5Y
Actually BoLS was taken down by Google but back up. It is unclear why. Faeit212 was taken down for DMCA violations. That is a known fact.
ReplyDeleteLoken
For BOLS, one speculation is that it went down as a "collateral damage" to Faeit212.
ReplyDeleteFaeit212 obviously had written-permissions to BOLS, posting their regularly (Rumour Roundup).
When Google killed Faeit212, blogs (i.e. BOLS) he had author-status to got hit with it somehow.
I am not much of a Blogspot.expert though, just rumours
For the lawyers and the not so lawyers....You are walking in the mall parking lot and a van drives up and offers you the newest, hottest platform the wii-station-360 by Microny. It's not released for 2 weeks. You take it and brag on the net that you have the new wii-station-360 in your possesion. Police show up at you door with a court order, take your machine and serves you papers for possession of stolen good. Is this any different than posting pictures that you know are stolen and should not have been on the net....just wondering
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? All photos posted have been from people who have seen the actual item, NOT photos my employees who have seen them at GW HQ or something. The photos are from releases in other countries.
ReplyDeleteYour example makes no sense.
I always find it entertaining when people attempt to make analogies of stealing v. pirating. Especially when they don't make sense in the previous example.
ReplyDelete"Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
ReplyDeleteThe use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author."
Thats what the law states. I guess its up to the jury to decide if faiet 212 overstepped his mark
So the ATTORNEY says:
ReplyDelete-If everybody does it its ok.
-Its free press??? (he uploaded only the pics with no Articel, apart from the notice that its a leak... thats like stealing a car to make a Articel about crime)
-It has been released or not (so its ok to steal stuff once you "could" buy it?)
IMO that BS
He uploaded pictures knowing they were leaks from WD, knowing they would soon be released and he was a repeat offender that had been warned.
If you really want to defend the hobby you should bring better arguments to make a case. Those same arguments would be a joke if this was a case of Movie Ripping.
IMO GW is on the Winning side. And i only wonder why they don´t close down more sites such as warseer.
Also it is funny that Faith Natfka complained at several points about others stealing (copy pasting) his Articels with out word. Funny that he was doing the same thing!
Save me from the politics!
ReplyDeleteOK I need to clarify something. Were the pictures the Faeit212 had on his site "leaked" or were they from a country that had already released the content? Calling them "leaked" when they weren't really only hypes the article, it doesn't make it illegal.
ReplyDelete