VPC Stealing Photos again.....

[BigFatKen]

link to image

There is a way to disable the right mouse button. Then most people cannot copy your images. Images should have a digital watermak also.

 

[Firethorn]

Look, there is a simple fix for this. Take a hardcore porn image, rename it to the image name that VPC is linking to, and revise Ponderosa's website to show the original image by a different name.

Then, set up an office betting pool to see how long it takes VPC to notice that their website is displaying a naughty image

They copied the image into a PDF, not hotlinked to it. Otherwise I would have arranged for an interesting image to show up...

To make it even better, if you have a good websystem set up, you could make it so that the image served when the referrer is the VPC is different from when it's their own or any other.

But, like I said, since they copied the image, the entire site could change and that image would still be there.

I'd vote for suing the VPC. Anything to cost them some money.

Edit-

There is a way to disable the right mouse button. Then most people cannot copy your images. Images should have a digital watermak also.

This would stop me for about 3 seconds, if I even notice. Besides, disabling my right mouse button would piss me off. I use it for bookmarking pages and navigation (back&forwards) when I'm too lazy to reach for the keyboard.

In this case there's no need for a 'digital watermark'. You go before the jury. You show them the first page of the PDF. You show them the website. You have the guy who had the picture taken come in. The photographer who took the picture. Case closed.
If you want to watermark it, fine.

 

[Manedwolf]

There is a way to disable the right mouse button. Then most people cannot copy your images. Images should have a digital watermak also.

Nope. That only works for Internet Explorer on Windows. FireFox on all platforms will generally ignore that, as will pretty much any browser on a Mac. Ironically, that's putting the blame on the person who made the image, instead of the person breaking the law by misusing it. (Sort of like blaming gun makers when people misuse them, huh?)

And the DigiMarc watermarks must be traced by their paid service, which is very expensive per image.

 

[kbarrett]

Post an offer to sell the use of any image for any political purpose for some outragious rental fee.

Inform them of said fee.

Bill them.

 

[Gifted]

I kind of like the way they have thier store set up. "left wing" and "right wing". Funny, in a good kind of way.

 

[Cybercop]

FYI:: For those interested in causing them a bit of heartburn is seems that they have recently changed hosting companies. You might have better luck with C&D / DMCA notices here than the last one.

Administrative Contact:
NCS Domain Management
Eric Smith ([email protected])
+1.8668915085
Fax: +1.8668915085
14325 Samoa St
Fishers, IN 46038
US

Looks like they moved in march of this year, and I'll be Eric would be real happy to hear from you!

As a point of interest, I am not an lawyer however I do investigate IP related issues, And one of the more popular things to ask for in the civil suit (or plea agreement) is the surrender of the domain name (just thought I would add that to the fire.)

Enjoy .. Jim

 

[Cosmoline]

Maybe fair use, maybe not. It wasn't a parody, it was just a flat-out copying of a copyrighted ad without permission. And VPC makes no effort to criticize the ad itself or comment about the ad--VPC just COPIES the ad. I don't think this fits in the criticism or political commentary concepts of fair use. Ironically if they had spewed a bunch of nastiness about the ad and decried the policy allowing it to exist they would be on firmer fair use ground. But at some point even if you're a political non profit there's a line. You can't just cut and paste advertisements and use them as your own cover art. I say sue them!

 

[Zedicus]

Similar to what Cosmoline said Fair Use does have its limits, I do Multimedia and Web design for a living and Copyright and fair use were covered quite extensively in college, to say that Copyright and Fair Use when crossed with the Internet is a Legal Minefield is like saying that water is a little damp.

Now I'm not claiming to be an expert, but what the VPC has done is about 90% likely to be way outside of the limitations of "Fair Use".

Let me give some Examples,

A web site owner sees a picture on another site that would suit a part of his site that he is still working on well, to comply with fair use he writes the other site owner an e-mail asking for "Permission" to use it, if he receives a go-ahead he can, if he receives no response but uses it any way, but puts a note below it quoting the source, if later the other site owner e-mails either requesting or demanding that the photo is not used on the site, the site owner must then remove it to avoid a lawsuit.

I'm not sure how many know this but many people have been taken to court over as little as a domain name or product name that sounds "Similar" to another of a Mega-Corp, 9 out of 10 of these have resulted in the little guy getting the short & dirty end of the stick (search Microsoft vs Lindows, NoMayo.com, MikeRoweSoft.com etc)

I could go on all weekend with examples, but I wont because I'm just trying to put a point across that Fair Use issues tend to apply differently to the Internet most of the time than they do elsewhere.

 

[Harry Tuttle]

VPC has also appropriated images from Browning catalogs for their campaigns
http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/poisonouspastime/poison.pdf

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

VPC would win a suit on this so fast it would make your head spin. The key to fighting is to choose battles wisely. This particular theft, while annoying, is a battle we should avoid.

Besides, we would probably inflict worse damage on ourselves if we won... can you imagine the implications for Internet forums in general if VPCs use here was ruled outside Fair Use and a violation of copyright?

Anybody here posted news to an Internet forum lately?

 

[Harry Tuttle]

given their habit of stealing images
maybe we should sow the field
with spoiled fruit
for their eventual harvest

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm sorry, but Fair Use does *NOT* allow wholesale cut n' paste of unaltered advertisements. The exception would devour the rule if this were the case. The Supreme Court's opinions have given more leeway to not-for-profit use with a political subtext, but this only goes so far. It does NOT give VPC free license to grab copyrighted products and use them at will. In this case the ad makes a great piece of cover art for their publication. They stole it to avoid having to make their own. There is no PARODY of the piece, there is no POLITICAL COMMENTARY specifically about the ad, and the purpose of the use is not to EDUCATE. I say sue them early and often.

 

[Graystar]

I'm sorry, but Fair Use does *NOT* allow wholesale cut n' paste of unaltered advertisements.

That was my understanding as well. I think Cosmoline is right. Calling this (ab)use "fair use" is a stretch...and a long one at that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's a loser case and as I noted, worse abuses of fair use happen in Internet forums (including this one) on a regular basis. Even if you could win this one, and you wouldn't, you should also consider what kind of genie you are letting out of the bottle.

The mere fact that this is essentially political speech by VPC means the court will give it the maximum amount of leeway possible - and you can bet that ACLU and every other organization (including some conservative pro-gun groups) would be right there filing amicus curiae briefs in support of VPC.

 

[Cosmoline]

Please cite the authority for the proposition that political expression trumps all copyright. The fair use exception allows for parody, criticism and commentary. It also allows for small portions of text to be quoted for educational purposes. To my knowledge it does not allow any group that happens to claim a political cause to cut and paste advertisements and use them as the cover for publications, which is exactly what VPC has done here. VPC may not be a for-profit business, but it absolutely uses publications like the one in question to garner contributions.

If VPC had pasted a funny face on the ad or done a parody of the advertising text, they would have been on much firmer ground. THOSE are protected uses of copyrighted material.

Let me put it this way. What would you say if VPC cut and pasted a Ruger trademarked advertisement as their cover? I'll bet Ruger's attorneys would come down like rolling thunder, and I'll be they'd win. There's a reason VPC is picking on smaller operations.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Please cite the authority for the proposition that political expression trumps all copyright.

Why is it relevant since I never said that? IF you want to debate, the first thing you can do is start by limiting the subject of the debate to what I actually said.

The fair use exception allows for parody, criticism and commentary. It also allows for small portions of text to be quoted for educational purposes.

Ever heard of National Rifle Ass'n of America v. Handgun Control Federation of Ohio, 15 F.3d 559 (C.A.6 Ohio 1994)? Rather than create their own list of Ohio legislators, an Ohio anti-gun group simply photocopied and used the exact same list the NRA mailed to its members. The NRA sued for copyright infringement and lost - this was ruled "fair use" despite being neither parody, criticism or commentary.

VPCs use in this context is both criticism and commentary. Not only do you stand almost no chance of winning that particular fight, you would end up creating a standard that few gunboards could live up to - now you tell me whether you think a narrower interpetation of fair use doctrine serves political discussion forums well or not?

Let me put it this way. What would you say if VPC cut and pasted a Ruger trademarked advertisement as their cover? I'll bet Ruger's attorneys would come down like rolling thunder, and I'll be they'd win. There's a reason VPC is picking on smaller operations.

You obviously don't read much of the VPCs material since they routinely use advertisements from gun manufacturers to illustrate their "studies" and have never been successfuly sued for it yet. Are these all smaller operations? The reason Ruger isn't there is not because they would sue; but because they don't make a gun evil enough to be suitable for VPCs propaganda.

Here are a few examples from VPC studies:
Barrett
Bushmaster Ad
H&K ad
Kahr and Keltec ads
Beretta ad
Colt ad (including Colt's registered trademark in the upper right hand corner no less)
Armalite
Springfield Armory

Note that in many of these, VPC uses not only the actual ads of the companies (ads dating back to 1986); but their registered trademark as well - this is because noncommercial use of somebody else's advertisements is damn near impossible to get enforcement against. Even using registered trademarks can be OK in noncommercial use.