Comment on Improved DMCA Reporting System by damphyr
We sent you a note, with links and artist contact information, concerning a glaringly obvious infringement of a (non-DA-member) friend's work two weeks ago and a second message one week ago. We are now entering week three since the first message was sent. Another member sent a note, as well, and still the image remains. It is nice to have policies and update them, and it is nicer still if you actually take steps to protect the copyrights of artists. As long as that image remains on DA, it is clear evidence that this policy is not enforced as it should be.
You should read this article fully and have the copyright holder/original artist report it via the methods outlined in this article. If the copyright holder files a complaint via the DMCA takedown link in this article, the claim will be reviewed by end of day on Monday.
Hello can a false DMCA report reverted back? if so how? someone has falsely reported DMCA on me and he wants to revert back
Indeed that the DMCA notices are helpful to speed things along, but it's turning out to be the only way to get dA's copyright policy to be enforced. I am personally concerned over this as I feel the movement may be treading over to permitting things like screencaps from television programs as part of people's galleries here. I fear to see dA altering their rules to "do what ever, but we'll take it down if an owner complains with legal papers."
I truly do believe in the contribution that deviantART offers to the art world as a virtual artist community. It is a place where we show our true colours and potential as well as it being a great learning environment. Yes there is a big problem with the consistency of copyright violations, but let's not get discouraged and let the problem overwhelm us to the point where the supporting staff won't take action against blatant infringements.
I truly do believe in the contribution that deviantART offers to the art world as a virtual artist community. It is a place where we show our true colours and potential as well as it being a great learning environment. Yes there is a big problem with the consistency of copyright violations, but let's not get discouraged and let the problem overwhelm us to the point where the supporting staff won't take action against blatant infringements.
Ms. Damphyr has made it very clear that unless a DMCA is filed, there will be no effort expended to protect the copyright of any artist, either a DA member or not. None, nada, diddly. Until there is integrity at the heart of a website for artists, there is no protection and the website has no veracity, when making any statement attesting to their 'protection of artists' copyrights. Actions have meaning. Words without supporting action have none. Based on the current situation, as we are experiencing it, DA does not protect the copyright of an artist, unless they divulge personal information, per the USA requirements. So much for living in a global society - and forget any moral component that might be apparent to most of us.
The staff does what they can. Can you quote the words used that you find seem to indicate that they the staff won't take action other than the DMCA claims? It would help make it clear for me and many others.
I do not believe that your statement is correct: 'the staff does what it can.' If Ms. Damphyr had taken the same amount of time to look at the image in question, she would have easily determined that this was a copyright infringement and should be removed. She did not. Instead, she assumed that I had not clearly read her message, which was incorrect, as my having read it is what prompted my comment to her. You may also wish to read her original post, which contains this important, open-ended sentence: 'As reports from the copyright holders themselves are given top priority, please keep in mind that third party reports will not receive the same response.' So, what response will they receive? This is not defined in her message. Historically, we are hearing off-site artists tell us that three months time is what some have experienced, before DA pulled an copyrighted work from its site. When I posed a direct question to Ms. Damphyr - 'So, to be clear, are you telling us to inform the artist that unless he files a DMCA with DA that you will not remove the offending infringement from your server(s), in spite of the blatantly obvious copyright infringement?' there was silence. No reply. From an educated standpoint, one can safely assume that this side-stepping of the issue means 'bugger off, we'll do what we want, when we want.' A site that is actually concerned about its image, regarding copyright infringement, would not suddenly go silent on an issue being discussed in a thread initiated by the person responsible for 'copyright and etiquette'. A website that would protect the copyright of all artists would remain engaged in such a thread, to discuss the concerns of its members, which in this case are many. Ms. Damphyr has not.
To date, the image is still posted to the offender's page. So, after 1.5 months of being told about the infringement, by several people, multiple times, with necessary data to make a valid determination of who holds the copyright, and no action, one can safely assume that DA has no concern about the copyright of an artist. We posted a rather lengthy journal regarding this, including the link to the image, if you are interested.
To date, the image is still posted to the offender's page. So, after 1.5 months of being told about the infringement, by several people, multiple times, with necessary data to make a valid determination of who holds the copyright, and no action, one can safely assume that DA has no concern about the copyright of an artist. We posted a rather lengthy journal regarding this, including the link to the image, if you are interested.
It's not upon the decision of a single individual to act according to what they think is right or wrong, the entire staff needs to work in an organized and efficient manner that prioritizes what level of importance certain tasks are to be ordered in. To do what you can is to also work within your field and your assignment according to the regulations set by the team. We cannot hold it against an individual if a copyright issue has yet been able to be taken care of if taking the 'right' action is not justified by regulations. The issue is ordering the regulations and organizing the serious problem we have at hand.
1.5 months is honestly nothing for the waiting period for action to be taken on lower priority cases. You could likely be waiting for a year. Sending multiple reports will help no more than continuously pressing an elevator button. Yes the waiting period is terribly long and it is because it is an overwhelming issue. There are more important issues to resolve beforehand.
I had asked for a quote, not a lack of quote. There is no confirmation on a statement when something was not confirmed. These "educated guesses" are simply negative assumptions because action was not YET taken. I feel very sorry that the third party copyright violation complaint has been set to lower priority, so don't go taking it out on staff if it hasn't been removed yet, they do what they can, but they have to keep their priorities in check, so just have a bit more patience. It's very good to be concerned over the etiquette of the community and to watch over each other. The efforts we make are important. I can only hope that the staff can adjust some more improvements into their reporting system soon.
1.5 months is honestly nothing for the waiting period for action to be taken on lower priority cases. You could likely be waiting for a year. Sending multiple reports will help no more than continuously pressing an elevator button. Yes the waiting period is terribly long and it is because it is an overwhelming issue. There are more important issues to resolve beforehand.
I had asked for a quote, not a lack of quote. There is no confirmation on a statement when something was not confirmed. These "educated guesses" are simply negative assumptions because action was not YET taken. I feel very sorry that the third party copyright violation complaint has been set to lower priority, so don't go taking it out on staff if it hasn't been removed yet, they do what they can, but they have to keep their priorities in check, so just have a bit more patience. It's very good to be concerned over the etiquette of the community and to watch over each other. The efforts we make are important. I can only hope that the staff can adjust some more improvements into their reporting system soon.
We are in disagreement, as to what is a reasonable waiting period, and we are likely to remain so. I doubt very much that you have any extensive, personal experience with copyright issues, on an international level, unlike DDM and myself. We have had a seven-year education in this area and find DA's lack of action with regard to obvious violations to be reprehensible, whatever excuse they provide. The C&EA's lack of engaging members in discussion, in a thread initiated by her, is also significant - such as not answering direct questions posed to her. An organization dedicated to protecting copyrights of all artists would not disengage in the middle of a discussion, where many members are displaying substantial dissatisfaction with the message contained in the original post.
You may hold onto your opinion and, lacking anything in your message to sway us, we will hold onto ours. As for the rest of your message: we will be as patient as we choose to be...or not. Perhaps you will find a way to live with this?
You may hold onto your opinion and, lacking anything in your message to sway us, we will hold onto ours. As for the rest of your message: we will be as patient as we choose to be...or not. Perhaps you will find a way to live with this?
View all replies
I already reviewed the article in full, which is what prompted my reply.
The artist whose copyright has been infringed does not wish to be forced to reveal personal information to DA, a website on which he has no presence. Based on the lax approach DA has had to this issue, he feels that there is no reason for him to trust that any of his personal information would be safe, in such an atmosphere. In his country, he is also allowed to create his work and remain anonymous. Some of us have professional lives and prefer to share our creativity anonymously.
If DA has no intention of responding to third-party notices, even after several requests, from more than one party and nearing three weeks time, then why does DA bother posting the option? It seems disingenuous to do so and then tell members that they will not look at the issue soon...if ever.
So, to be clear, are you telling us to inform the artist that unless he files a DMCA with DA that you will not remove the offending infringement from your server(s), in spite of the blatantly obvious copyright infringement?
The artist whose copyright has been infringed does not wish to be forced to reveal personal information to DA, a website on which he has no presence. Based on the lax approach DA has had to this issue, he feels that there is no reason for him to trust that any of his personal information would be safe, in such an atmosphere. In his country, he is also allowed to create his work and remain anonymous. Some of us have professional lives and prefer to share our creativity anonymously.
If DA has no intention of responding to third-party notices, even after several requests, from more than one party and nearing three weeks time, then why does DA bother posting the option? It seems disingenuous to do so and then tell members that they will not look at the issue soon...if ever.
So, to be clear, are you telling us to inform the artist that unless he files a DMCA with DA that you will not remove the offending infringement from your server(s), in spite of the blatantly obvious copyright infringement?
That is one deafening silence, Ms. Damphyr.