DMCA - Copyright Infringement Takedown

Stavro said:

One of my clients lost a DMCA complaint because they had previously shared product photos on Imgur.

I am not armchair lawyering here, I am referencing settled cases that I was personally involved with.

Click to expand...

The facts of an individual case do not change the fact that posting on IMGUR absolutely DOES NOT grant "everyone" a license to use the content however they want. You literally quoted where it specifically says it grants IMGUR a license, NOT everyone else. I literally quoted where it specifically tells users that they CANNOT use the content for commercial purposes. It's OK to state that you think based on your opinion that something is a certain way, but I am stating that factually you are incorrect here, and I don't want anyone else to read what you wrote and think it's true. Just because someone sees an image on IMGUR does not mean they can use that image however they want. Uploading to IMGUR doesn't grant anyone except IMGUR a license to use the photo.

I actually like it when threads get slightly heated like this because people try and prove themselves right with facts and share lots of valuable info and opinions on the subject at hand. So I will post one more time to say I appreciate you posting your rebuttals with all of this valuable info on copywrite infringement

SMMnet said:

Why do I need a CDN if my speed time is already fast? CDN's are mainly used to speed a site up. Good recommendation though!



Pay the $50k and move on... But there is no fraud here.

Click to expand...

The settlements also included to not provide services in those states. If you are selling fake likes or fake followers it would be considered fraud.

ExperimentalSEO said:

The settlements also included to not provide services in those states. If you are selling fake likes or fake followers it would be considered fraud.

Click to expand...

Nothing is fake here... Please spend the time to read my site to see how we generate the engagement.

ExperimentalSEO said:

The settlements also included to not provide services in those states. If you are selling fake likes or fake followers it would be considered fraud.

Click to expand...

Selling fake likes and followers is not necessarily considered "fraud." It really depends on the individual facts of a case. The 2 major things that the New York Attorney General had were 1) Influencing people to buy products and services with "fake" likes and endorsements 2) Buyers of the services not being aware they were "fake." The fact that the Attorney General accepted a settlement for $50,000 and a cease and desist suggests that they didn't think they could win on a challenge in court. They knew Devumi had made over $10,000,000, so $50,000 is nothing. This is just for show to scare other sellers. BlackHatWorld is, of course, a BlackHat website, and not a criminal website. If you look at the marketplace, the Mods and Admins have approved of dozens of services selling "fake" SMM services, so it seems they do not agree with you that it is fraud.

SocialManager said:

Uploading to IMGUR doesn't grant anyone except IMGUR a license to use the photo.

Click to expand...

...you grant Imgur a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use...

This is why I recommended having a lawyer review the case. When it's a simple matter of self-created and self-hosted content, the DMCA is straightforward. But when there's licensing and sublicensing, as with Imgur, and third-party development of scripts with potentially non-exclusive licenses, it enters a legal grey area, and getting it wrong has very harsh consequences.

Stavro said:

...you grant Imgur a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable worldwide license (with sublicense and assignment rights) to use...

This is why I recommended having a lawyer review the case. When it's a simple matter of self-created and self-hosted content, the DMCA is straightforward. But when there's licensing and sublicensing, as with Imgur, and third-party development of scripts with potentially non-exclusive licenses, it enters a legal grey area, and getting it wrong has very harsh consequences.

Click to expand...

I have a lawyer with the case. No need to worry there, I already seeked legal advice and this is the steps being taken. I am fully protected but thank you for your concern.

THANK YOU

SMMnet said:

I have a lawyer with the case. No need to worry there, I already seeked legal advice and this is the steps being taken. I am fully protected but thank you for your concern.

Click to expand...

That's odd. The very first piece of legal advice every lawyer gives is 'do not speak publicly about this case'. And there are plenty of good reasons for that.

If all your comments were approved by your lawyer first, then you should be fine. But if they weren't, you should probably send a link to this thread to your lawyer for review, because some of the things you've said here could absolutely cause trouble if any of the cases go to court.

Stavro said:

That's odd. The very first piece of legal advice every lawyer gives is 'do not speak publicly about this case'. And there are plenty of good reasons for that.

If all your comments were approved by your lawyer first, then you should be fine. But if they weren't, you should probably send a link to this thread to your lawyer for review, because some of the things you've said here could absolutely cause trouble if any of the cases go to court.

Click to expand...

It's ok. Thank you though seriously, I am glad to see you are concerned. I will be sure to keep you updated!

SMMnet said:

I don't need legal advice atm.

Click to expand...

But you said you have a lawyer...

SMMnet said:

I have a lawyer with the case.

Click to expand...

Stavro said:

But you said you have a lawyer...

Click to expand...

Someone licensed to give legal advice.. I will be taking legal advice from them is what I was implying.

SMMnet said:

Someone licensed to give legal advice.. I will be taking legal advice from them is what I was implying.

Click to expand...

And I wasn't attempting to give advice, I was giving you a suggestion on what advice to seek.

Stavro said:

And I wasn't attempting to give advice, I was giving you a suggestion on what advice to seek.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry about that. I took your comment wrong. I apologize. Thanks for the tips. It's hard to take some comments as a positive viewing when we have people like @mickyfu who is jealous.

Thanks Stavro for that.


EDIT: Jealous is not the right word. But you bash on everyones post. Do you like that name title?

SMMnet said:

Oh I'm sorry about that. I took your comment wrong. I apologize. Thanks for the tips. It's hard to take some comments as a positive viewing when we have people like @mickyfu who is jealous.

Thanks Stavro for that.


EDIT: Jealous is not the right word. But you bash on everyones post. Do you like that name title?

Click to expand...

The word you're looking for is "cynical".

That's good mate..
I will also check out that tool, I don't know how it's scanner works tho.. the AI behind it.. it is interesting to know that piracy sites are still up.. they don't even receive the DMCA takedown notice often.. it means the tool doesn't scan the all sites or a lot of pirates have found a loophole to bypass it's scanner ..

Stavro said:

But you said you have a lawyer...

Click to expand...

The vast majority of people with "lawyers" have lawyers on what's called a "retainer." The lawyer is their lawyer. When their client brings a legal problem to them, the lawyer is somewhat familiar with their client's business and general legal issues. Generally only large corporations have lawyers on full-time staff. It's usually not worth it to the client or the lawyer. I've worked in a corporate business law firm, I have never heard someone tell their client "do not speak publicly about this case," and certainly when their is no case.

I've also never heard of a lawyer telling their client to let them review and approve everything they say publicly before they say it. That would be ludicrous. Corporate lawyers charge $125+ every time they pick up the phone or send an email. Imagine having to pay $500 just to make a thread on BlackHatWorld while your lawyer reviews the concern, considers the legal issues, does the applicable research, consults with an expert or co-worker, and replies. It's nonsense.

This idea that SMMnet is somehow guilty of fraud and going to be under criminal investigation is beyond ridiculous. We are on a BlackHat website. Nearly every service in the Marketplace could be construed as breaking the law under the right interpretation. If we discourage everyone from writing anything that could be used against them if they became the target of a criminal or civil legal investigation, this forum would be dead.

SocialManager said:

I've also never heard of a lawyer telling their client to let them review and approve everything they say publicly before they say it.

Click to expand...

Businesses will have prepared statements regarding legal issues, and those prepared statements are written and/or reviewed by their lawyer. If a business owner just blurts out public statements about upcoming cases, most lawyers will drop them as a client.

SocialManager said:

This idea that SMMnet is somehow guilty of fraud and going to be under criminal investigation is beyond ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I was speaking hypothetically, IF the claims did not abide by all the DMCA rules.

Fraudulent DMCAs are not an uncommon negative SEO tactic, and I was making sure that OP wasn't doing anything that could potentially make someone think he was in that category.

Makemeproguys said:

That's good mate..
I will also check out that tool, I don't know how it's scanner works tho.. the AI behind it.. it is interesting to know that piracy sites are still up.. they don't even receive the DMCA takedown notice often.. it means the tool doesn't scan the all sites or a lot of pirates have found a loophole to bypass it's scanner ..

Click to expand...

Thank you. Not sure how it works either... Very interesting, I agree. But, in my case, they got the DMCA takedown notice. I did it the DIY way and it walks you through step-by-step. They actually generate a legit .PDF document for you, and also provide you with the hosting contact information, and their copyright department. They act fast, good luck with yours!

Stavro said:

Businesses will have prepared statements regarding legal issues, and those prepared statements are written and/or reviewed by their lawyer. If a business owner just blurts out public statements about upcoming cases, most lawyers will drop them as a client.

Click to expand...

You just continue to make statements that do not line up with reality. This idea that most lawyers will drop clients who make unprepared or unauthorized statements is ridiculous. Lawyers have ethics they need to follow, and a client making a misstep would not give cause to drop them as a client. They may even find themselves the subject of an official complaint if they did that.

If a lawyer specifically asked a client not to say something and had good reason to do so, and the client insisted on consciously disobeying them, sure they could consider dropping them, but a lawyer can't just wake up and see a client wrote something on a forum and say they aren't going to represent you anymore because it wasn't pre-authorized. Even when clients specifically disobey lawyers, it's rare to have them dropped unless it is repeated or very serious.

Again, we refer back to having lawyers on retainer. Lawyers on retainer are not actively giving advice or direction to their clients. The client is paying a retainer with the expectation that when they approach the lawyer for advice or representation, that lawyer will be there for them. A lawyer would need an extremely good reason to drop them, and learning that the client made a bunch of public comments previously would not be enough.