Friday, November 26, 2021

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

Dubious Outfit Uses Copyright Claims for Black Hat SEO Scheme
Ernesto Van der Sar, 26 Nov 12:52 PM

cautionAt TorrentFreak, we write about copyright issues on a daily basis. However, this week we find ourselves on the receiving end of an infringement claim.

A few days ago we received an email from Robert Bradley at Photocredit.org. The outfit accused us of using a photo in one of our articles without permission from the copyright holder.

Attribution Required

The email in question doesn't identify the exact photo, nor is the photographer mentioned by name. However, the demands are crystal clear and quite unusual, as shown below.

Hello Ernesto,

You are using our client's image in one of your articles https://torrentfreak.com/canadian-music-group-proposes-copyright-tax-on-internet-use-181006/.

We are glad you found it useful

However, our client has this image registered, and it requires attribution.

We request a clickable image credit link to Career Employer (https://careeremployer.com/) at the bottom of your article.

Unfortunately, removing the image is not the solution since you have been using the image on your website for a while now. We are obliged to inform the artist if this matter is not resolved in a timely manner.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Robert Bradley

At TorrentFreak, we take copyright issues very seriously, but his email triggered a few alarm bells. More on that later. Let's start by looking at the image that is supposedly being infringed.

There is no direct link to the image. However, the article that's mentioned in the email only uses one photo in the body, one that was taken by the Canadian photographer Stefan Malloch.

These types of stock photos are regularly used without permission, often because people don't know any better. We didn't just grab this image from the web, however, and properly licensed it through Shutterstock years ago.

Link to Career Employer?

With a proper license, Photocredit.org's copyright claim falls flat. But that's not the main issue here. It's the vague nature of the claims and the request to add a link to the random "careeremployer" website as compensation that stands out like a sore thumb.

To find out more we wrote back to Robert Bradley asking for further details. After a few days, our inquiry remains unanswered. We also reached out to Photocredit.org asking for contact information. Again, no response.

At this point, we started to question whether the Canadian photographer is even aware of these infringement notices. Unfortunately, he didn't reply to our inquiries via email, Instagram and Facebook.

Without an official response, we don't know whether Photocredit.org actually acts on behalf of the photographers. However, after spending a few minutes searching for information we found out that many others have received similar claims.

"It's a Scam"

Photocredit has a poor reputation on Trustpilot, where many people complain that they were accused of copyright infringement despite having a proper license.

"It's a scam – same as all the other reviews. Same email from Robert Bradley saying we're infringing his 'client's' image – which is licenced to us via Adobe Stock," one of the reviews reads.

There were also some 'positive notes' about the company at the Black Hat SEO forum. "Yo this is a great method to get links, saved this thread for later use," one commenter wrote.

Others were more cautious. One commenter on the SEO forum warned that this is a "low life tactic" that will cause trouble when it's sent to the wrong person.

Effective SEO Tactic

While black hat SEO tactics generally have a bad reputation, they can be quite effective. And indeed, when we looked into the number of backlinks to the "careeremployer" site, it became clear that hundreds of people complied with Photocredit's unusual demand.

This doesn't just apply to small sites either. Below is a screenshot from POLICE Magazine, which credits Career Employer and links to the website.

The same is true for hundreds of other publications, including Lifehack, and even the University of Manchester links to Career Employer in a photo credit.

manchest

Caution Warranted

All these links help the Career Builder site to increase its SEO value, which could come in handy when it's put up for sale.

Again, we don't know for sure if the email is legit or not. It could in theory be a "creative" way to get photographers paid through a dubious SEO tactic, but we're not putting any money on it.

In any case, we urge everyone who hears from Photocredit to contact the photographer directly, before linking to some random site.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Filmmakers Want ISP to Share Personal Info of Thousands of Pirates
Ernesto Van der Sar, 25 Nov 10:15 PM

pirate-flagOver the past two decades, online piracy has proven a massive challenge for the entertainment industries.

Some copyright holders have tried to go after individual pirates in court but, increasingly, third-party intermediaries are targeted as well.

There are several lawsuits pending in US courts where rightsholders accuse Internet providers of not doing enough to stop piracy. One of the main allegations is that ISPs fail to terminate accounts of repeat infringers in 'appropriate circumstances', as is required under the DMCA.

These lawsuits were pioneered by music companies that had some success on this front, including a $1 billion verdict against Cox. More recently a group of filmmakers adopted a similar strategy by suing several Internet providers, including WOW!.

Filmmakers sue WoW!

WOW! is being sued by a group of smaller movie companies, including Millennium Media and Voltage Pictures. They accuse the ISP of failing to terminate the accounts of subscribers who were repeatedly flagged for sharing copyrighted material. As such, they want to hold WOW! liable for these pirating activities, which could lead to millions of dollars in damages.

The ISP responded a few weeks ago with a motion to dismiss the case. Among other things, the company argued that an IP address is not sufficient to prove that subscribers downloaded any infringing material.

The filmmakers opposed the motion to dismiss in court yesterday. With regard to the IP address evidence, they point out that WOW!'s own terms of service points out that subscribers are fully responsible for how and by whom their account is used.

The full opposition includes a wide variety of other arguments as well, which the court has yet to decide over. Meanwhile, a new issue is brewing that could potentially put thousands of WOW! subscribers in the movie companies' crosshairs.

Disclosing Pirates' Personal Details

Both sides are preparing for the discovery process, which allows them to gather evidence from the counterparty if the case continues. Among other things, the filmmakers want WOW! to disclose the identities of the account holders whose IP addresses were repeatedly flagged as infringing.

WOW! does want to hand over the names of its subscribers, even if these are only used for this case. However, the filmmakers ask for more. They want to reserve the right to sue these pirating subscribers in separate lawsuits and propose adding the following line to the protective order:

"For the avoidance of doubt, the Plaintiffs are not limited from using subscriber information to pursue legal relief against certain subscribers," the proposed addition reads.

wow addition discovery dispute

The disclosure of personal details in a lawsuit like this is not uncommon. Last year, Charter was ordered to do the same as part of its legal battle with several music companies. However, that disclosure order prohibited rightsholders from going after subscribers in separate lawsuits.

Few Other Options

The filmmakers don't want this limitation. They point out that WOW! leaves them with few other options, since the ISP refuses to terminate repeat infringers based on repeated copyright infringement notices.

"Since Defendant refuses to terminate the accounts of its customer that are pirating Plaintiffs' Works thousands of times in response to these Notices, Plaintiffs must preserve their opportunity to take actions to protect their valuable copyrights from the piracy of Defendant's customers," they inform the court.

The only other option the rightsholders have is to file "John Doe" lawsuits. However, the filmmakers point out that WOW! has criticized these legal efforts as well.

WOW! Objects

Responding to the dispute, WOW! argues that its subscribers should not be subjected to potential legal action through this lawsuit, where they are not listed as defendants.

"Plaintiffs should not be permitted to use information properly designated Confidential or Highly Confidential outside of this case, or specifically to file lawsuits against Defendant's customers," the ISP writes.

There is no reason to deviate from the custom rule that protected information can only be used for the present case, not for other lawsuits. And if the movie companies want to sue subscribers they can do so through John Doe lawsuits, WOW! notes.

"Plaintiffs' counsel has filed many John Doe lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers without first obtaining discovery from the defendant's internet service provider, so they cannot claim to have no other way to pursue their claims."

If the filmmakers want an exception to this rule they can file a separate request with the court instead of targeting thousands of subscribers in one go, the ISP adds.

Filmmakers Are Willing to Drop Their Request if…

Interestingly, the filmmakers point out that they are happy to drop the request. However, they'll only do that if WOW! agrees to terminate repeat infringers, which is the exact issue that started this case.

"Plaintiffs are willing to drop their request for this provision if Defendant will stipulate to an injunction to do what it claims it is already doing – terminate the accounts of its customers for which it receives multiple notices of infringement," they write.

The issue now rests with the court which is expected to decide on these matters in the weeks to come. The disclosure dispute will only come into play if WOW!'s motion to dismiss is denied, partially or as a whole.

A copy of the filmmakers' opposition to the motion to dismiss is available here (pdf) and the joint motion for the entry of a protective order can be found here (pdf)

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: