GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com

Started Mar 22, 2013 | Discussions
Klay Regular Member • Posts: 468
GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com
2

Seems kind of silly use of the DCMA to assert that the use of a product name in a review is a copyright violation.  If this was the case, dpreview.com could not exist.

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-doesn-t-like-their/ODUyNjU2ODc_A

-- hide signature --

http://leelaycock.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-bien/
'No point in steering now.' -- Doug McKenzie

 Klay's gear list:Klay's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D300S Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more
Cane Veteran Member • Posts: 6,900
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com

That's pathetic, and their backtracking is just as bad. I will never buy one of their squares after this pathetic stunt.

tsk1979 Senior Member • Posts: 1,160
Imagine the precedent

Camera gets a negative review? Well file a DMCA takedown.

I guess there need to be severe penalties attached with abuse of DMCA. But its not going to happen. Bribe^H^H^H^H^H errrr lobbyist money goes a long way

-- hide signature --

Tanveer
My galleries - http://tanveer.smugmug.com,
My photography page on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography

 tsk1979's gear list:tsk1979's gear list
Nikon D7000 Sony Alpha a7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +5 more
Rdefen Veteran Member • Posts: 3,509
Re: Imagine the precedent

I guess there need to be severe penalties attached with abuse of DMCA. But its not going to happen. Bribe^H^H^H^H^H errrr lobbyist money goes a long way

I agree.  Now you just have to convince Congress to beef up the law because the courts don't seem to be listening.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/01/17_usc_512f_is_1.htm

GodSpeaks
GodSpeaks Forum Pro • Posts: 12,749
Patrick Hayes at Go*ro must be a marketing genius

Seriously.  To do something like this instead of thinking about all the negative publicity this will generate, not to mention all the ill will.  And for what?

Way to go Go*ro.

Strongly suggent bombarding this genius with a lot of nasty messages and phone calls.

Woodman Labs, Inc d/b/a GoPro
Patrick Hayes
Brand Manager
+1 (415) 738-2480 x7282
+1 (415) 814-5373 fax

-- hide signature --

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'
- Rayna Butler

 GodSpeaks's gear list:GodSpeaks's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Panasonic FZ1000 Nikon D800E Sony Alpha DSLR-A850 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 +46 more
Sammy Yousef
Sammy Yousef Veteran Member • Posts: 4,604
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com
1

Another company added to my "don't bother with this evil company" list.

-- hide signature --

Sammy.
My forum postings reflect my own opinions and not those of my employer. I'm not employed in the photo business.

Adrian Tung Veteran Member • Posts: 3,278
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com

This is really ridiculous. I was considering a GoPro for some personal stuff, but now I guess I should go shop elsewhere.

 Adrian Tung's gear list:Adrian Tung's gear list
Nikon Coolpix A Canon EOS 10D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Sony Alpha a7R Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM +12 more
OP Klay Regular Member • Posts: 468
Re: Imagine the precedent

Camera gets a negative review? Well file a DMCA takedown.

I guess there need to be severe penalties attached with abuse of DMCA. But its not going to happen. Bribe^H^H^H^H^H errrr lobbyist money goes a long way

-- hide signature --

Tanveer
My galleries - http://tanveer.smugmug.com,
My photography page on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography

Actually, I think it was a positive review....

 Klay's gear list:Klay's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D300S Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more
Sante Patate Veteran Member • Posts: 5,908
They cannot be serious -
3

- literally.  They are required under the DMCA to have a "good faith" belief that the published material is infringing, and there are penalties for making a claim not in good faith.  Simple words and phrases like Go Pro and Hero cannot be copyright, and even if some copyright material was quoted in the review there is an ocean of case law saying that would be fair use, and there is not the slightest possibility that the use of the words "Go Pro" or "Hero" in print breaches trademark law (a review on a website cannot be mistaken for a video camera).

So I find it very hard to believe that such an obviously baseless claim could be made in good faith.

edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 3,438
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com

""The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an 
authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store. As part of our program – we ask merchants who are selling our product to use authorized images. That is why DigitalRev was contacted. But – our letter did not clearly communicate this and that is something we will correct.""

Apparently this was the official response

quadrox Senior Member • Posts: 1,112
Complain to gopro and share your experiences!

I have use the support email form on the gopro site to complain about this abuse. I received a canned response stating the the takedown notice was sent because they were not using officially approved images in their webstore, and not related to the review.

I sent a response back pointing out that the takedown notice clearly refers to the URL of the review and not the webstore, further explaining that DMCA does not apply to trademark issues and that even if their explanation was true, the issue could have been solved amicably without a takedown notice. I am eagerly awaiting a response to this.

Please participate in the complaints to gopro, and please also share your own experiences with gopro cameras. So far I have seen many negative reviews come out since this issue started, so please share your own honest experiences!

 quadrox's gear list:quadrox's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +2 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 3,438
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com
OP Klay Regular Member • Posts: 468
Review URL?

I wonder why they specified the URL of the review? Seems like the official response is more "official backpedaling".

 Klay's gear list:Klay's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D300S Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more
RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 27,307
news and editorial use

Copyright infringement is not possible when something is used for news or editorial use.

Allan Olesen Veteran Member • Posts: 3,391
Re: Complain to gopro and share your experiences!
1

quadrox wrote:

I received a canned response stating the the takedown notice was sent because they were not using officially approved images in their webstore

So they sent a DMCA takedown because the webstore was not using their product photos?

How can not using a photo be a copyright violation?

quadrox Senior Member • Posts: 1,112
Re: Complain to gopro and share your experiences!

Allan Olesen wrote:

quadrox wrote:

I received a canned response stating the the takedown notice was sent because they were not using officially approved images in their webstore

So they sent a DMCA takedown because the webstore was not using their product photos?

How can not using a photo be a copyright violation?

No, they claim that when using a photo, the photo must be an officially approved photo, i.e. you are not allowed to use your own photos. This claim is still preposterous and clearly goes against fair use, be it copyright or trademark.

 quadrox's gear list:quadrox's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 7D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM +2 more
edispics
edispics Veteran Member • Posts: 3,438
Re: Complain to gopro and share your experiences!

Again, the GoPro explanation is: "The letter that was posted next to the review on DigitalRev was not sent in response to the review. Obviously, we welcome editorial reviews of our products. This letter was sent because DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller of GoPro products and they were using images and had incorrect branding and representation of our product in their online commerce store."

DigitalRev has a section with their reviews of products. It also has an online store. GoPro claim their issue is with using unofficial images in the DigitalRev store, not in the review. They further point out that DigitalRev is not an authorized reseller. Implication is DigitalRev can use whatever they want in the review, but not when they are selling a GoPro product.

Of course GoPro are their own worst enemy since the takedown notice referred to the review, not the store.

Being curious about digitalrev.com I checked and discovered it is another one of those offshore companies based in Hong Kong, selling photo gear, including (according to GoPro), unauthorized GoPro equipment.

KBurns
KBurns Regular Member • Posts: 466
Re: They cannot be serious -

"Go Pro" and "Hero" are not copyrighted.  They are registered trademarks.  Some companies defend their registered trademarks quite vehemently.  There is one US importer that will not knowingly allow you to use their registered trademark if and when you try to sell a used item you own that carries their registered trademark.  They search ebay continuously to prevent this supposed trademark infringement.

jvkelley Contributing Member • Posts: 849
Re: GoPro waves the DCMA at a review done by digitalrev.com

Wow, they claimed copyright infringement because DigitalRev used their own copyrighted images rather than using the images copyrighted by Go*ro.

-- hide signature --

J.V.

 jvkelley's gear list:jvkelley's gear list
Canon PowerShot S50 Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +3 more
Sante Patate Veteran Member • Posts: 5,908
They are all too serious.
2

KBurns wrote:

They are registered trademarks. Some companies defend their registered trademarks quite vehemently. There is one US importer that will not knowingly allow you to use their registered trademark if and when you try to sell a used item you own that carries their registered trademark. They search ebay continuously to prevent this supposed trademark infringement.

Selling a used item does not infringe trademark rights.  Extinction by first sale has been US law for decades. Of course, that applies only to a photograph of the item for sale or a written description of it; using the trademark in a way that could imply that the seller is a representative of the manufacturer is and always has been infringement.

Unfortunately, successive US administrations have strengthened the law to protect the "rights" of IP owners, both domestically and internationally.  Some examples are just silly, like allowing Apple to patent "A square box with rounded corners".  Other are malicious, like data exclusivity in the pharmaceutical industry (to put that in photographic terms, it means that if you own a Canon camera and the manual contains helpful information about, say, exposure metering, it would breach Canon's copyright to use that information when you were photographing with a Nikon camera).

It is not surprising that in this climate we are seeing attempts by IP owners to push the boundaries of law and erode the rights of purchasers, whether to re-sell products, to modify them, review or comment on them - as in the Go Pro case - or use them in new work (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/oct/26/william-faulkner-sony-midnight-paris).

Everyone needs to take these cases seriously, and resist extension of IP rights.  The camera companies are watching, and it is not a large step from where we are now to manufacturers claiming that second-hand sales and third-party lens and accessory use are illegal, and to requiring purchasers to make on-going payments to retain the right to use a camera.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads