Should I Retract my DMCA Complaint?
December 11, 2014 10:09 AM Subscribe
An organization who used one of my copyrighted images wants me to retract the DMCA complaint I filed with YouTube.
The offending video has been removed and YouTube placed their account on some kind of hold/probation for 6 months?
Should I retract my complaint?
I contacted a website directly letting them know they were using one of my copyrighted images in their YouTube video.
After receiving no response, I filed a DMCA complaint to YouTube. YouTube quickly removed the offending video.
The organization contacted me saying that YouTube placed some restrictions on the their YouTube account. For 6 months they are on some kind of probation, which limits their ability to create thumbnails (and maybe limits other features as well).
The organization wants me to retract my DMCA complaint, because the infringing video is removed, so that their account won't be on hold/probation any more.
I'm not sure if I should retract my complaint. Based on what I'm seeing here,
I don't feel like I'm retracting for any of those reasons. I haven't changed my mind (they did infringe, and YouTube removed that content) and I didn't wrongly identify my content.
Is there a reason why I should retract? Are there downsides to retracting? Will future DMCA complaints be taken less seriously if I have a record of retracting them?
I contacted a website directly letting them know they were using one of my copyrighted images in their YouTube video.
After receiving no response, I filed a DMCA complaint to YouTube. YouTube quickly removed the offending video.
The organization contacted me saying that YouTube placed some restrictions on the their YouTube account. For 6 months they are on some kind of probation, which limits their ability to create thumbnails (and maybe limits other features as well).
The organization wants me to retract my DMCA complaint, because the infringing video is removed, so that their account won't be on hold/probation any more.
I'm not sure if I should retract my complaint. Based on what I'm seeing here,
I don't feel like I'm retracting for any of those reasons. I haven't changed my mind (they did infringe, and YouTube removed that content) and I didn't wrongly identify my content.
Is there a reason why I should retract? Are there downsides to retracting? Will future DMCA complaints be taken less seriously if I have a record of retracting them?
Best answer: I wouldn't do it considering they ignored your initial request. If they didn't want to have restrictions placed on their YouTube account, they should not have used other people's copyrighted material in their videos.
posted by Librarypt at 10:17 AM on December 11, 2014 [36 favorites]
posted by Librarypt at 10:17 AM on December 11, 2014 [36 favorites]
If they'd like to settle your original complaint of infringing use of your material for some monetary amount, and the terms of the settlement require retracting your complaint, why not?
Wouldn't do it for free, though.
posted by bfranklin at 10:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
Wouldn't do it for free, though.
posted by bfranklin at 10:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [14 favorites]
I think it is a judgement call based on what you think the sincerity of the organization is to not offend again and to understand and appreciate their evil ways. It is not a black or white answer.
If I did retract, I would ask then for a letter of apology first, just because I think they should apologize and jump through a hoop.
posted by 724A at 10:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
If I did retract, I would ask then for a letter of apology first, just because I think they should apologize and jump through a hoop.
posted by 724A at 10:20 AM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Not your attorney. Don't retract your complaint— the complaint and the attendant probation is a record of their bad behaviour. They did something wrong, you followed the correct procedure, they deal with the consequences.
posted by a halcyon day at 10:21 AM on December 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by a halcyon day at 10:21 AM on December 11, 2014 [12 favorites]
Is there a separate, harsher penalty for a second offense? If there is, I'd think keeping the first complaint active would make double-sure they don't do it again to someone else.
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:37 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by JoeZydeco at 10:37 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Came in to say what a halcyon day said: this way, there's a record of their past misuse of materials, so if they do it again they'll be dealt with as the repeat offender they would prove themselves to be. (Heck, they might already be repeat offenders --- perhaps they've talked other people into dropping their complaints!)
For the sake of everyone else: please keep your complaint on file. They deserve it, they've earned it.
posted by easily confused at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
For the sake of everyone else: please keep your complaint on file. They deserve it, they've earned it.
posted by easily confused at 10:38 AM on December 11, 2014 [6 favorites]
What's the old saying? "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." if they had responded to your initial inquiry I'd be possibly maybe consider it, but as it is I'd give their email the same response they gave yours.
posted by wwax at 10:40 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by wwax at 10:40 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Agreed with the above: they refused to play nice until forced to do so, so there's no reason to trust them going forward, or treat them like this was all a big misunderstanding.
posted by IAmBroom at 10:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by IAmBroom at 10:41 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Not into the punishment angle, but I would let the complaint stand because the form makes you lie to retract it and you don't know if a retraction will lessen your future ability to make complaints.
posted by michaelh at 10:43 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by michaelh at 10:43 AM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Tell them you will be happy to retract it after they license your content.
posted by bensherman at 10:55 AM on December 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by bensherman at 10:55 AM on December 11, 2014 [7 favorites]
They violated the TOS; this was the (then-hypothetical) punishment they agreed to when they chose to use the service. That they don't like the punishment is all the more reason to let it stand, since apparently they had no qualms about stealing your work and being let off of probation would just help them steal others'.
posted by teremala at 11:03 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by teremala at 11:03 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
The responses above are very knee-jerk about "copyright infringement" and that's rather dispiriting. It really depends on a couple of things:
1. The purpose of the use: Did they indeed actually infringe? When they included your photograph in a video, was it to discuss the photograph? Was it commentary on what was depicted? How long did they show your photograph in the video? In many cases, they have a decent fair use claim and you should consider being civil and lift the complaints. They don't seem like they have enough of a clue to make an argument, however. And perhaps they totally overstepped the bounds of fair use.
2. The evil and/or goodness of the user: Are they jerks? Were they just being pigs? Or are they nice little people who are maybe a little clueless and/or not familiar with the law?
There's a great number of situations in which use of a photograph or even parts of a video are completely acceptable legally. It may or may not be in this case. Your feelings on the matter will vary as well.
But it seems worthwhile to put yourself in their shoes. (If they aren't the shoes of a total jerk.)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:12 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
1. The purpose of the use: Did they indeed actually infringe? When they included your photograph in a video, was it to discuss the photograph? Was it commentary on what was depicted? How long did they show your photograph in the video? In many cases, they have a decent fair use claim and you should consider being civil and lift the complaints. They don't seem like they have enough of a clue to make an argument, however. And perhaps they totally overstepped the bounds of fair use.
2. The evil and/or goodness of the user: Are they jerks? Were they just being pigs? Or are they nice little people who are maybe a little clueless and/or not familiar with the law?
There's a great number of situations in which use of a photograph or even parts of a video are completely acceptable legally. It may or may not be in this case. Your feelings on the matter will vary as well.
But it seems worthwhile to put yourself in their shoes. (If they aren't the shoes of a total jerk.)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:12 AM on December 11, 2014 [8 favorites]
I can't imagine a case where a hearty "fuck you"/"eat shit in hell"/"I'm sorry that won't be possible" is more richly deserved.
posted by jayder at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by jayder at 11:16 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
Karma is bitch - and these people completely deserve you ignoring them.
However, Karma is indeed a bitch - do you want to collect some bad karma yourself?
I would not rush out to help them - but two wrongs do not make a right.
posted by Flood at 11:30 AM on December 11, 2014
However, Karma is indeed a bitch - do you want to collect some bad karma yourself?
I would not rush out to help them - but two wrongs do not make a right.
posted by Flood at 11:30 AM on December 11, 2014
These guys sound like assholes who don't give the tiniest shit about you, your content, or your inconvenience.
If there is evidence that they're sincerely sorry or that this was an honest mistake, that's a different story, but it doesn't sound like it.
Ignore the request like they ignored yours in the beginning. I wouldn't reply at all, they'll probably never leave you alone about it if you do.
posted by mattu at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2014
If there is evidence that they're sincerely sorry or that this was an honest mistake, that's a different story, but it doesn't sound like it.
Ignore the request like they ignored yours in the beginning. I wouldn't reply at all, they'll probably never leave you alone about it if you do.
posted by mattu at 11:31 AM on December 11, 2014
What have they done for you lately? If the answer is nothing, then that's precisely what you owe them.
posted by starbreaker at 11:45 AM on December 11, 2014
posted by starbreaker at 11:45 AM on December 11, 2014
I wouldn't retract it. Presumably your work has value. They declined to compensate you for the value, and declined to open a dialogue with you when you made a good faith attempt to resolve this the nice way.
This is the not-nice way, and it's the one they've chosen. I do feel bad for whoever's stuck in this issue behind the scenes, but after having multiple images stolen for years now... not that bad.
posted by Nyx at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is the not-nice way, and it's the one they've chosen. I do feel bad for whoever's stuck in this issue behind the scenes, but after having multiple images stolen for years now... not that bad.
posted by Nyx at 11:48 AM on December 11, 2014 [1 favorite]
They're asking you to lie; don't lie. In fact, you might want to tattle on them for the request.
posted by destructive cactus at 12:29 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by destructive cactus at 12:29 PM on December 11, 2014 [3 favorites]
Most of the responses here are pretty disheartening based on the amount of information given. I'm a photographer and I try to make sure that my images aren't used inappropriately but...
If it wasn't used in a way that I found offensive in the video and it wasn't done clearly in a way designed to get around paying me/another professional, I'd likely let it slide if they communicated that they understand what they did wrong.
A lot of people genuinely don't understand copyright and this could be a good teaching moment. Six months is almost a death sentence in the internet world. If you only made contact once through a website, it's entirely possible it got missed, especially if it's a younger organization that generationally communicates more through Twitter/Facebook/etc. It's not fun policing use of one's images but there's not a lot of benefit of just being mean if it was a relatively minor infraction.
posted by Candleman at 1:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
If it wasn't used in a way that I found offensive in the video and it wasn't done clearly in a way designed to get around paying me/another professional, I'd likely let it slide if they communicated that they understand what they did wrong.
A lot of people genuinely don't understand copyright and this could be a good teaching moment. Six months is almost a death sentence in the internet world. If you only made contact once through a website, it's entirely possible it got missed, especially if it's a younger organization that generationally communicates more through Twitter/Facebook/etc. It's not fun policing use of one's images but there's not a lot of benefit of just being mean if it was a relatively minor infraction.
posted by Candleman at 1:09 PM on December 11, 2014 [4 favorites]
Maybe this is what they do every time they steal an image and get caught. And they should be getting worse punishments, but aren't because people keep retracting.
posted by smackfu at 2:16 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by smackfu at 2:16 PM on December 11, 2014 [2 favorites]
After receiving no response, I filed a DMCA complaint to YouTube. YouTube quickly removed the offending video.
If they didn't want their account suspended, they shouldn't have stolen your work. Or they should have responded to your first request. Don't retract your complaint. They were assholes, twice. Your complaint was and is valid, they deserve to be suspended.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:49 PM on December 11, 2014
If they didn't want their account suspended, they shouldn't have stolen your work. Or they should have responded to your first request. Don't retract your complaint. They were assholes, twice. Your complaint was and is valid, they deserve to be suspended.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 2:49 PM on December 11, 2014
If the organization in question is a non-profit, run by volunteers, and it looks like they meant well, but just didn't have the resources to check copyrights on the images they were going to use, or to respond to your initial contact, then I'd cut them a little slack. (Being on the board of such a non-profit, I'd find it to suck horribly if our YouTube account was locked out because a complaint fell through the cracks after some member was careless with copyrights on images or music.
If it's a non-profit with staff, I'd want to make sure that their board is aware of this issue, so that their staff can be properly corrected.
In both non-profit cases, a written apology from the board is not unreasonable to ask for.
If OTOH, the organization is a business, or hopes to be one, then they're expecting to make money off your work, and you absolutely deserve a cut. First you quietly gather evidence that the image in question is your creative output (e.g. other photos you took in the same setting, any intermediate files if you photoshopped it, etc.). Once that's all in order, offer them a licensing deal. If they seem like they'll go for it, get a lawyer, paralegal, or agent to hook you up with a proper contract. If they don't accept the licensing deal, then tough noogies on them, their account can stay frozen
If they turn around and accuse you of trying to extort royalties from them, get a lawyer, and be very glad that you took the time to get your evidence of creativity in order.
If you've got a couple hundred bucks to burn (or anticipate that you might be licensing more of your work in the future), then hire a lawyer for a quick consultation beforehand so you can find out how best to prove the work is yours, and also what you can reasonably ask for before they can make a credible claim that you're using their YouTube lock-out to extort royalties unfairly from them.
I'm definitely not a lawyer myself, but I am stuck in litigation right now, so it's giving me a bit of an extra peek at what lawyers are good for, and what they like their clients to bring to them.
posted by kiwano at 2:59 PM on December 11, 2014
If it's a non-profit with staff, I'd want to make sure that their board is aware of this issue, so that their staff can be properly corrected.
In both non-profit cases, a written apology from the board is not unreasonable to ask for.
If OTOH, the organization is a business, or hopes to be one, then they're expecting to make money off your work, and you absolutely deserve a cut. First you quietly gather evidence that the image in question is your creative output (e.g. other photos you took in the same setting, any intermediate files if you photoshopped it, etc.). Once that's all in order, offer them a licensing deal. If they seem like they'll go for it, get a lawyer, paralegal, or agent to hook you up with a proper contract. If they don't accept the licensing deal, then tough noogies on them, their account can stay frozen
If they turn around and accuse you of trying to extort royalties from them, get a lawyer, and be very glad that you took the time to get your evidence of creativity in order.
If you've got a couple hundred bucks to burn (or anticipate that you might be licensing more of your work in the future), then hire a lawyer for a quick consultation beforehand so you can find out how best to prove the work is yours, and also what you can reasonably ask for before they can make a credible claim that you're using their YouTube lock-out to extort royalties unfairly from them.
I'm definitely not a lawyer myself, but I am stuck in litigation right now, so it's giving me a bit of an extra peek at what lawyers are good for, and what they like their clients to bring to them.
posted by kiwano at 2:59 PM on December 11, 2014
I'd say that unless they're a) a non-profit with a mission you can get behind, so you're willing to 'donate' a license to the image, or b) willing to pay a fee you specify to retroactively license their use of the image, then there's no reason to retract the complaint. If this is their business you're impacting, they should be willing to negotiate with you like one. One way or another, there should be a consequence; otherwise they'll just go on to rip off someone else's copyright in the name of profits.
posted by Aleyn at 11:19 PM on December 11, 2014
posted by Aleyn at 11:19 PM on December 11, 2014
I wouldn't. This is their punishment for having done something wrong.
This is the equivalent of a thief stealing money and getting caught and convicted of a crime, and sentenced to six months. Then, he decides to pay back the money, and expects to be released immediately because "he fixed it after he got caught, so he never really did anything wrong".
posted by stormyteal at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is the equivalent of a thief stealing money and getting caught and convicted of a crime, and sentenced to six months. Then, he decides to pay back the money, and expects to be released immediately because "he fixed it after he got caught, so he never really did anything wrong".
posted by stormyteal at 4:17 PM on December 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 10:12 AM on December 11, 2014