by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Instead of griping about growing flood of takedowns, why doesn’t Google change its approach?
Poor Google….bad, bad copyright holders….that’s essentially the subtext beneath headlines that scream, “Google received over 75 million copyright takedown requests in February-The company is processing over 100,000 links each and every hour.” My response–why not try a different approach?
The massive volume of takedowns that Google deals with every hour is a sign of its failure, not– as some would have us believe–overzealous rights holders. Dealing with the copyright notices is a byproduct of Google’s business model and its continued refusal to take meaningful action against the rampant piracy enabled by its products (search, blogger, drive, etc).
As Google’s empire has grown over the years, its teflon-resistant coating to all things copyright has thickened. Year after year, the company has spun the truth about its role in propagating online piracy by demonizing piracy’s victims. The 97% that send valid takedown notices are dissed, while the 3% receiving erroneous (or incomplete) notices are somehow portrayed as victims??? It’s a ridiculous posit, but one Google has repeatedly burnished so as to be accepted as truth.
Why not try to “do a better job” reducing piracy and protecting creators?
Just last week the folks at Google trumpeted their latest initiative to do a better job to minimize takedown and monetization mistakes on YouTube. If the company really wants to do a “better job” why not assemble a “team” to figure out better ways to deal with the rampant (and growing) problem of copyright abuse throughout its products? Google could employ a team approach to refine and improve its DMCA takedown system company-wide.
Market forces could work to encourage compliance with copyright law
If processing 100,000 takedowns every hour is a burden, why not do something concrete to reduce those numbers? I’d suggest starting with pirate websites that appear at the top of the reported domains list each month. Take a look at those domains and you’ll find that one reason Google receives so many takedown notices is due to the fact that many sites hosting pirated content ignore copyright takedown requests. To protect their work from thieves, creators have little recourse but to move down the food chain and turn to Google to remove the infringing links. If only Google applied some appropriate (temporary) pressure, perhaps it could influence a change in these site’s non-compliant behavior.
Why not temporarily block top offenders? Pirate sites could risk losing traffic for failure to deal with takedown requests
What type of pressure am I talking about? I’m suggesting Google create a team to focus on the domains at the top of the complaint list. Google purports to down-rank these domains already, but those claims don’t match up with reality. The company should go further to investigate, and temporarily block, the top offenders from Google’s search results.
If Google blocked the top domains reported for piracy for 30 days, site operators might be induced to better respond to copyright complaints, or risk losing crucial Google search traffic. In essence, it could be a self-regulating, temporary punishment leading ultimately to a correction…
- Domain blocked
- Domain cleans up its act
- Complaints to Google decrease
- Domain drops out of top offender list
- Domain’s links restored to Google search
If a site operator continued to ignore takedown requests and the domain remains atop of the complaint list, the block could be extended to 90 days, then 180, etc. The initial blockade could be reviewed by a human team, but once added a site is in the queue, Google’s much vaunted algorithms could likely handle such a process.
How many domains on the list should be considered? Taking a look at the monthly report it seems that domains with more than 100k reported months might be a place to start. That would mean the top 100 offenders would be blocked for (at least) 30 days. I’m sure a reasonable cut-off point could –I’ll leave that to the Google team to figure out specifics.
If a carrot and stick approach like this were implemented by Google, perhaps it would nudge (some) sites into respecting copyright law while simultaneously reducing the number of complaints it handles. Create a middle ground where the rights of creators are balanced against the dubious “free speech” mantra Google so often wields to justify (lack of ) response to online piracy. If, according to Google, “whole-site removal sends the wrong message to other countries by favoring over-inclusive private censorship over the rule of law,” then why not at least try a more moderate approach?
Of course Google’s modus operandi is to deflect, not seek compromise, and its flacks will undoubtedly argue the company dare not become copyright police. Meanwhile, in other spheres, Google manages to be pretty effective using technology to detect online child porn activity. Of course piracy is not child porn, but there’s really no excuse for Google not to employ its tech largess to find a path forward to dampen online piracy (and takedown requests).
If Google were to initiate such a reasonable approach, one that could encourage voluntary compliance with copyright law, both the company and rights holders could benefit.
Websites hosting pirated content might begin responding to copyright takedown requests, rights holders would not be forced to turn to Google for takedowns, and the company wouldn’t be processing 100K takedowns per hour. It would be a win for creators, Google and consumers.
Isn’t it worth trying something different? Would Google be willing to consider a new approach to a growing problem? Given its stubborn obstinacy, probably not–but it never hurts to ask. I’d happy to team up with Google to help find that middle ground.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Google sets up roadblocks at every step of the DMCA process, doesn’t provide DMCA agent’s email address, and requires senders to login to a Google account
As the U.S. Copyright Office solicits public comments for its study to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the safe harbor provisions contained in section 512 of the (DMCA) Digital Millennium Copyright Act it’s worth examining how Google–the Sugar Daddy of pirate purveyors– openly skirts the law to obstruct the process at every turn.
Of course Google would have you believe it’s the victim when it comes to enforcing the DMCA. Its flacks regularly bleat about the millions of DMCA notices the company processes each week–a small price for profiting (indirectly) off the lucrative myriad of online exchanges it provides for pirated content. As I’ve written before, Google’s millions of takedowns is a “mess of its own making.”
What about those on the other end of the pipeline–the victims whose only recourse is to send a DMCA notice in order to have their (stolen) movies, music, books, etc. removed from Google websites? For these creators, Google’s DMCA process becomes a maze of twists and turns that, more often than not, leads back to the beginning.
Pity creators who have to send Google a DMCA takedown notice.
-
Google doesn’t provide the email address of its designated DMCA agent (as required by law)
-
Google requires users to send takedown requests via online forms
-
Google makes finding the correct form a laborious 9 step process
-
Once the correct form is found, Google requires DMCA senders to login to a Google account
-
Google doesn’t provide clear URL on pirated files forcing rights holders to drill down further into the abyss to find the correct URL to report the pirated file
Most websites–say for example Vimeo--post copyright or DMCA links at the bottom of each page.
Vimeo makes it easy to find DMCA contact information and online form
Does Google, king of the internet, follow Vimeo’s example? Don’t be silly.
In sharp contrast to Vimeo’s example, Google’s apparent goal is to make the DMCA takedown process as onerous as possible. (Note the irony since, with its profitable products, Google has mastered the art of making user experience as seamless as possible).
Unlike Vimeo, on Google sites there’s no handy copyright link at the bottom of every page and unlike Vimeo, there’s a myriad of online DMCA forms rather than one. I realize Google offers a number of products, but for simplicity’s sake, why not use ONE form and direct users to check a box for the specific product involved? Of course that would be make the DMCA process too easy, an achievement Google has no interest in pursuing.
Instead, Google has a set up DMCA process that forces users to embark upon a time-consuming quest–a journey that only the determined will complete.
If you start you takedown efforts on Google by looking for an actual DMCA contact you’ll come up empty. The Google contacts page merely drops you have at the first stop on its never-ending DMCA merry-go-round.
Unlike Vimeo’s clean and direct approach, Google does everything possible to muddy the waters and make sending a DMCA takedown notice a difficult thing to do
At first glance, the cornucopia of options seems overwhelming. Never mind the fact most links essentially lead to the same starting point. Ironic that Google reps love to bandy the the word “transparency” about except when it comes to its own takedown process. Again, those this seems an appropriate location for it, contact info for Google’s designated DMCA Agent, required by law, is not posted. (*See more on that later in post).
An example of what it takes to send takedown notice to report pirated movie hosted on Google Drive
To gain a better understanding of just how unnecessarily convoluted Google makes its DMCA procedure, follow along as I describe the the steps a filmmaker must take in to remove a pirated movie from a Google site.
As an example I’ll use a stash of pirated films hosted on Google Drive I recently discovered. More than 200 lesbian films have been uploaded to a private Google Group that boasts 1275 members. Included among the pirated titles is a copy of the recent release ‘Carol,’ a film still in theaters by the way. The pirated films organized alphabetically and can be streamed, downloaded or shared to another Google Drive.
To begin the process of removing one of these pirated films one has to find the correct online form to send. As I noted above, to do that you must first find (using Google search) this “legal troubleshooter page for Google. Again I ask–why not an easy-to-find link at the bottom of the web page?
From that page one must select “submit legal request.” Next, respond to a series of 7 questions before ending up at the proper form—But wait, Google requires that you have a Google account and login in order to access the form. Can that really legal?
Google makes you login in to access online DMCA form. Is this even legal?
Let’s say eventually (once you create a Google account and login) you end up at the right DMCA form, guess what? You’re still not finished. You’ll need to have the correct URL to report. That seems simple enough…you already copied the URL from the address bar of the pirated stream so that’s the link to report, right? WRONG! That would be too easy.
If you did report that URL nothing will happen. You must READ THE FINE PRINT on the DMCA form silly. Apparently the URL that appears in the address bar that appears–when you click a film to watch it in a new window– is NOT really the link to the pirated movie. It’s actually the URL for the Drive folder and, as the fine print notes, this type of URL is “unacceptable.”
The URL on this pirated copy of Carol is not the URL to use in a DMCA notice
So how to you find the right URL to report? Google doesn’t offer up any tips on that front. To find an actual link specific to the pirated movie requires some further detective work. Return to the page with the pirated stream and poke around. There’s nothing that says “here’s the video link” but after clicking various clickable things you may, if you’re lucky, eventually discover that by navigating to menu bar and sliding your cursor over the three dots–an option for more actions appears.
Don’t follow your instincts and click “report copyright infringement” or you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze
From there if you click report abuse you’ll arrive at yet another page with a new URL. You’re asked to click the type of abuse….Warning, if you select report “copyright abuse” then ruh roh, you end up back at the beginning the DMCA maze that Google has so conveniently created to impede and confuse you once again.
Don’t listen to your instincts or think logically…In this case you’d better just copy the URL on the page and head back to the online form you already found….Confused much? Yeah, me too and that’s exactly how Google likes it. Another way to find the real link is to click another not-so-intuitive menu icon that let’s you “pop-out” the video. Basically nothing changes except a new window opens with a new URL (see below).
Another way to find a hidden URL to a pirated movie it to click on this icon…who knew right? It’s beyond ridiculous.
It’s an absurd maze, but for Google, it’s clearly no accident. The more confused and frustrated rights holders become, the less likely they’ll actually complete the DMCA process. Even if you do finally send a takedown notice, it’s often a crapshoot as to whether the content gets removed in a timely fashion.
Google has designed cutting edge online tech, but its DMCA procedures are something out of the Dark Ages. That’s no accident.
To say Google’s takedown procedures is an obstacle course is an understatement. Circling back to the beginning, why can’t I just send an email to Google to report the illegal link(s) like I do with Vimeo? Google’s response would most likely (again) be to pull out the whine machine and prattle on about the massive number of DMCA notices it receives. So what? There’s technology that can cope with pirate links report via email. Kim Dotcom’s site Megaupload was able to, so does Vimeo, so did Hotfile and Rapidshare and….well you get the picture. It ain’t that hard.
Does Google skirt requirements to qualify for “safe harbor” protection under the DMCA?
Since I began this piece with a mention of the Copyright Office’s ongoing review of 512c, it’s worth focusing in on a particular provision of it. *The DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision exempts service providers from liability for infringements if certain requirements of the law are met, including publication (on its website) of the name, address, phone number and electronic mail (email) address of its designated DMCA agent:
(2) Designated agent.—The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:
(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.
(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
I’m sure Google has a massive team of lawyers at its disposal, but from my lay reading of the law it seems that something is amiss. If Google has to provide this contact information in order to qualify for “safe harbor” from liability, shouldn’t it follow the law and provide an “electronic mail address” for its designated agent its website right? Perhaps I’m not reading the law correctly?
Finding pirated movies via Google search is easy. Finding contact information for Google’s designated DMCA agent isn’t.
Even though, from my lay perspective, the DMCA seems to be pretty explicit in requiring that contact information for a service provider’s designated agent contact to be readily available on “its website” Google fails to comply. Try searching for Google’s designated DMCA agent and you’ll come up empty despite using several variations. Google algorithms seem primed to offer up stolen goods….but for information pertaining to the DMCA, not so much….
Use Google search to find the email address for its designated agent and you’ll come up empty
If you search for Google and DMCA you’ll end up back at the beginning of the DMCA maze, Google’s “Legal Removal Requests” page.
The law states an email address is required…does that mean its required for anyone BUT Google? Perhaps its there somewhere, but hidden in a thicket of clicks or maybe Google’s lobbying largess has caused mass blindness. Maybe folks at the U.S. Copyright Office should look more carefully at Google’s compliance with the letter of the law and not depend on the word of Google’s PR team.
For the record I did manage to find the email for Google’s copyright agent by using the U.S. Copyright Office’s index for designated agents. Here’s a link to Google’s information and for the record, the official email is [email protected]. Note the caveat that says it’s faster to use the URL above which, by the way, takes you back to the beginning of the takedown maze. Sorry, but I’ll take my chances with email from now on…..
The easiest way to find Google’s designated agent is via the U.S. Copyright office…not via the pages of Google
If we want to talk about updating the law for the 21st century, why not start with enforcing it and demand that Google develop a DMCA takedown system that is efficient, transparent, and follows the requirements of the law.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Photography
Respecting and Protecting Embedded Photo Metadata should be a priority
The relationship between the tech industry and content creators off all stripes has long been strained when it comes to the issue of protecting copyright. Whether it’s asking Google to do a better job excluding search results that lead to pirated content, or demanding that Facebook take action against ongoing “freebooting” of videos, conflicts over copyright continue to fester.
Given that Silicon Valley’s best and brightest seem adept at developing new ways of sharing (and appropriating) content to generate billions in profit, one has to ask–why not apply some of that technical wizardry to better tackle digital content theft?
There have been some examples of technology being used to effectively thwart theft– YouTube’s Content ID System being perhaps the most obvious example. While certainly far from perfect (that’s a whole other story) YouTube’s CMS system does provide rights holders with a technological tool to safeguard their video and/or audio on YouTube.
Click image to go to IPTC
Social Media Sites Photo Metadata Test Results
Moving to other forms of online sharing, the picture is not quite so encouraging. Take a look at various social media sites for example. Sharing photos is a popular and growing, trend worldwide. Fine, if the photo you want to share is your own–but what about all those photos that are copied and posted without permission?
While it’s impossible to prevent–there are ways social media companies could do a better job ensuring that the copyright information (embedded as metadata) is protected upon upload. This embedded information not only provides credit to the originator of the work and other relevant details about the photograph, but also provides the creator with a means of tracking its use online.
The International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC), an association of more than 50 international news organizations, works to “simplify” global information distribution. Its mission is to develop and promote efficient technical standards to improve the management and exchange of information between content providers, intermediaries and consumers.
Social media sites are doing poor job preserving copyright metadata embedded in photos
Earlier this month the IPTC recently released a study which examined whether popular social media sites retain a photograph’s embedded metadata upon upload. The study mirrored one done in 2013 and the results are not promising.
Only one social media site, Behance, received favorable results for retaining and displaying embedded data. A few systems retained embedded metadata but failed to use it when displaying metadata on the web site. Ten sites removed at least some metadata when images were downloaded to a desktop environment.
Michael Steidl, Managing Director of IPTC, commented on the results:
If users provide captions, dates, a copyright notice and the creator within their images, that data shouldn’t be removed when sharing them on social media websites without their knowledge…The quality assurance of these sites might not be aware that their software strips metadata inadvertently.
Is it really inadvertent? After all, Silicon Valley develops technology that can do just about anything…but somehow, using technology to preserve metadata is beyond its capabilities? Somehow I doubt it.
David Riecks, a photographer and metadata consultant worked on the test for the IPTC. He offers a kinder, gentler response:
Because many of the social media sites are essentially free, users become the product, and not necessarily the customers…Users are often not aware of these practices. There should be a sweet spot between these social sites preserving all metadata and removing it all. I’d like to see more engineers working together to find solutions.
Time for Tech to take metadata protection seriously
The tech industry certainly has the wherewithal to implement metadata protection into its user’s social media workflow. So why doesn’t it? Probably because, as a sector that’s long flouted copyright in the name of innovation, leaving a trail of bread crumbs that identifies the actual creator isn’t in its best interests. Silicon Valley’s free pass allowing it to ignore creators’ rights should have expired long ago. Copyright and innovation need not be mutually exclusive concepts in our burgeoning digital eco-system.
While preserving metadata is a somewhat geeky concept, the topic should be as much a concern to creators as is piracy. If the tech industry is serious about pledges to protect copyright, it must be held accountable on this front.
The IPTC has developed an industry standard for embedded metadata and summarizes the data’s value this way:
In the online world there can be many copies of a single image or video file, and with millions of images or videos on the internet, metadata is essential for identification and copyright protection. We should ensure this metadata travels with the content as a digital label, and remains with it over its lifetime.
The metadata associated with an image or video can provide information about:
- Copyright and other rights associated with the image
- Contact information of copyright holders and licensors
- Image content
- Artworks, buildings and people portrayed in the image
- Search terms (keywords)
- Technical details of the photography
Rights restrictions for use of the image
- Rights granted under a licence to use
Metadata adds business value to the artistic value of any media content. Preserving it will help maintain the value of your business.
In 2011 an IPTC working group developed guidelines, the Embedded Metadata Manifesto, which describe best practices for embedding and preserving metadata in digital media files. From its website:
Photographers, film makers, videographers, illustrators, publishers, advertisers, designers, art directors, picture editors, librarians and curators all share the same problem: struggling to track rapidly expanding collections of digital media assets such as photos and video/film clips.
With that in mind we propose five guiding principles as our “Embedded Metadata Manifesto”:
- Metadata is essential to describe, identify and track digital media and should be applied to all media items which are exchanged as files or by other means such as data streams.
- Media file formats should provide the means to embed metadata in ways that can be read and handled by different software systems.
- Metadata fields, their semantics (including labels on the user interface) and values, should not be changed across metadata formats.
- Copyright management information metadata must never be removed from the files.
- Other metadata should only be removed from files by agreement with their copyright holders.
Preserving metadata for public domain images valuable too
The preservation of a photograph’s embedded metadata is also valuable for cataloging imagery available in the public domain. It was exciting news when the NY Public Library recently announced that more than 180,000 digital, high-resolution images would be made available for public use, downloadable via its digital collections site. In order to fully appreciate the collection, its worth understanding the great amount of effort that put into preparing the images for release. Librarians spent years digitizing various works and cataloging the images (using metadata).
Each image’s embedded metadata will not only link to the library’s catalog, but provide future generations an invaluable link to the history of each item. William Fenton explained the workflow in an article for PC Magazine, NYPL Digitized 187K Images, But That’s Not the Whole Story:
Digitization begins, but by no means ends, with scanning items. An atlas might travel from the maps division to the digital imaging unit, where photographers capture the highest-quality electronic representation. Then staff catalog, process, and physically relocate the item. The metadata services unit helps connect that data to the digital asset and to ensure the connections to the original cataloging record remain intact. Concurrently, the copyright and information policy group evaluates the atlas and attaches copyright information using something called a rights statement.
All that information—the digital asset, metadata, and copyright—travels to the applications development team, which creates the infrastructure that enables data to flow into an open-source repository called Fedora. That information is represented in the library’s Archives portal as well as the Digital Collections platform.
In a digital world increasingly overwhelmed by digital content, the need to preserve an image’s roots should be more valuable, not less so. Whether copyrighted, or in the public domain, more care needs to be taken to preserve embedded metadata in digital images so that the those who create them–and those who use them–can understand (and appreciate) where it all began. Metadata provides a crucial roadmap to this end. Just because it’s often hidden from view, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
Commerce Department white paper supports creation of copyright small claims process
Today the Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force (which includes the USPTO) released its long anticipated white paper on “Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages–Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy.” Among its findings is support for a copyright small claims process to adjudicate infringement claims. The Copyright Alliance issued a press release summarizing the report:
Remixes: The IPTF found that there was an insufficient record to support the creation of a compulsory license or a new exception for remixes uses and therefore rejected both ideas. The IPTF did recommend three goals to make it easier for remixers to understand when a remix use qualified as fair use and when a license was necessary.The IPTF found that there was an insufficient record to support the creation of a compulsory license or a new exception for remixes uses and therefore rejected both ideas. The IPTF did recommend three goals to make it easier for remixers to understand when a remix use qualified as fair use and when a license was necessary.
First Sale: The IPTF recommended that there be no changes to the first sale defense in section 109 of the Copyright Act.
Statutory Damages: Statutory Damages is the area where the White Paper suggests the most change. The Paper recommends three changes to the Copyright Act:
• Including a list of factors for courts and juries to consider when determining statutory damage awards;
• Expanding the innocent infringer standard to allow its application even when there is a copyright notice on the work; and
• Allowing courts to award damages on something less than a per-work basis in the case of online services offering large numbers of works.
Momentum for copyright small claims process is growing
Last, but certainly not least, the paper’s finding support a Copyright Office proposal issued in September of 2013 for creating a small claims process to adjudicate copyright claims outside the federal court system. This is particularly good news for independent filmmakers, musicians, authors, and the like who don’t have the deep pockets required to legally enforce a copyright claim. From page 99 of the white paper:
…the Task Force supports the creation of a streamlined procedure for adjudicating small claims of copyright infringement and believes that further consideration should be given to the proposal of the Copyright Office to create a small claims tribunal.581 The proposal would provide for a cap on awards of statutory and actual damages, limited discovery and counterclaims, assertion of all relevant defenses (including fair use), optional attorney representation, and awards of costs and fees against frivolous litigants.582 Among other features of the system suggested by the Copyright Office, participation in small claims proceedings would be voluntary and would be administered by a centralized tribunal in a single location.583 One recommendation of particular relevance to our review here is that the Copyright Office proposal would cap statutory damages awards on both a per work and per case basis.
I wrote about the need for some type of copyright small claims “court” last spring when Richard Prince* ripped-off Instagram artists, Instagram rip-offs by Richard Prince show why we need a small claims copyright court now. At the time I noted:
…establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit. Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.
This white paper is good news for the creative community as it appears that we may finally see real progress toward a viable copyright small claims process that would give indie artists a fighting change to defend their work from online opportunists.
As Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid noted in a statement released to the press.
“…in crafting copyright policy, we recognize that all interested parties must work together – including creative sectors, technology sectors, user groups and the public – as partners toward the same goal; and our collective goal is a thriving internet ecosystem that incentivizes creators to produce and disseminate new works to the public…
*I should note that the aforementioned Richard Prince is currently being sued copyright infringement in federal court by Donald Graham, an Instagram photographer. Graham filed suit on December 30th of last year.
There have been other examples industry developing voluntary best practices in the war against piracy–Why not Google?
