Today’s digital world is fraught with social media practices that can present critical problems for artists and copyright holders, and DMCA safe harbor provisions only make the problem more complex. Since the advent of websites like YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook, an artists’ work is more visible than ever. But its also far more prone to being used in ways that the artist didn’t bargain for, and often times, the artist doesn’t realize that he gave his rights away the instant he uploaded the image for his own social media purposes. And while there are certain steps an artist can take to protect their creative products from illegal sharing on the internet, including taking legal action, understanding DMCA safe harbor provisions means you’ll have more bargaining power if you find yourself in this situation.
Say you’re a video artist and you’ve just uploaded your latest creation to YouTube, and one of your fans posted the video on his Facebook page. That video has been viewed on his page thousands of times, and you’ve lost revenue from the amount of clicks you’re normally paid through an agreement with YouTube. Understandably upset, you ask Facebook to take down the offending users post, and they comply. But taking down the post simply isn’t enough – you want to be compensated for lost wages.
Or maybe you’re a painter who uploaded an image of one of your latest works to your Instagram account. One of your followers liked the artwork so much that he uploaded the image to a print-on-demand website like Etsy, Café Press, and Society 6. Suddenly your artwork was appearing on mugs, t-shirts, and pillows, and you had absolutely no idea until a friend alerted you that someone in his office had a coffee cup with your painting on it. You contacted the company to let them know that they weren’t authorized to be using your image in such a manner, and that the original poster infringed on your copyright. They agreed to no longer offer the image for printing services, but you wondered how much money you could have made if you had just put your own images on a t-shirt.
The artists in both of these instances had little opportunities for re-dress thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that was enacted in 1998 to shield internet service providers from copyright infringement liabilities. It may sound completely absurd, but lawmakers figured the best way to ensure a free flow of information on the internet was to protect website hosts from incurring any debilitating costs from litigation. While in most countries the DMCA safe harbor is somewhat limited, in the U.S. it’s a pretty big canopy under which ISPs hide from copyright lawsuits.
DMCA Safe Harbor: How Does it Work?
The DMCA safe harbor was designed to protect passive internet companies from incurring any liability if copyright infringement was found to have occurred on their website. But what exactly does “passive” mean? In the past, this has been defined as an ISP who allows user to freely upload and share content, without reviewing the content for its legality or otherwise ethical value, or charging any kind of premium for the benefit.
Thus, websites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and more often allow infringing material to be posted to their websites, leaving the burden of policing users who illegally share images on the copyright holders.
The DMCA safe harbor may seem wide-reaching, but the law does require internet providers to take certain measures should it come to their attention that copyright infringement did in fact occur. This includes taking the offending material down, and instituting methods of detecting infringing material from the moment its uploaded. But generally speaking, internet providers have a lot of leeway under the DMCA.
So how would you, as an artist whose copyright rights have been infringed upon, defend yourself against an ISP that’s hosting your copyrighted content? First, you would need to find the offending material – not always an easy task. Then can you file a take down notice with the company, and they are required to comply within a reasonable time frame. But the definition of “reasonable” can vary from company to company, since those parameters haven’t been defined by a court of law.
Once you’ve filed a take down notice, the company must comply and remove the allegedly infringing content, as well as notify the original poster that their content has been removed. At that point, the infringer can defend himself and file a counter notice, insisting the content be re-posted without having to prove any legal justification whatsoever. At the point, the internet provider must comply, and only when a formal legal judgment or settlement has been reached by the two parties can the content be removed once and for all.
At this point, the artist has entered murky territory. Copyright is a no fault law, meaning that even if you innocently infringed on someone’s copyright, you can still be held accountable. In this case, that means you definitely have a claim against your infringer.
But the cost of litigation can often be extravagant, and requires weighing the benefits against the pitfalls. What if the offending poster is insoluble? Hard to find? Wealthy and ready to defend your claim vigorously? Between finding an attorney, negotiating where to litigate, and filing court fees and costs, it’s likely that a lawsuit will be far more trouble than it’s worth.
Why DMCA Safe Harbor Negatively Burdens Artists
The fact that an artist has to take so many steps only to potentially end up exactly where they started is a major reason why the DMCA safe harbor simply doesn’t look out for artists. Essentially, copyrighted material can be disseminated against your will, while major corporations simply throw up their hands and say, “Sorry, there’s nothing we can do.”
To begin with, don’t share or post content that hasn’t been registered with the Copyright Office. It’ll be much easier to make a demand from the offending poster if you have the proper documentation backing you up. Although a copyright is automatic at the time of creation, registration allows the copyright holder to receive $750- $30,000 per infringement, and the infringer is responsible for the copyright holders’ legal fees. With registration for copyrights costing just $35, it’s worth making the investment in order to protect your work.
Another option is to watermark your photos so that they can’t be stolen. Digital watermarks, such as those provided by Digimarc, apply an invisible layer on top of your images that holds various types of metadata. This layer cannot be removed from the image, and can be read by software regardless of where the image resides; whether on the web, in a magazine or on a mug. On the Internet, that watermark can be used to track the image, alerting users to infringement. A takedown notice can then be sent for any discovered infringement.
Whether you’re helped or hurt by DMCA’s safe harbor, it’s clear that such wide protections for internet providers are bound to create plenty of confusion as social media sharing becomes more and more popular. In fact, you may even wonder whether copyright laws need to be overhauled in order to put more burdens on big companies. Or perhaps you’re glad the system is in place, because if you accidently infringe on someone’s content, you’d like the opportunity to defend yourself before it gets to court.
Whatever you think about DMCA safe harbor, let us know in the comments below.
157 Comments|Getty Images is one of the largest purveyor of stock photos in the world and aggressively protects their copyrights. With the Internet being an ocean of visual imagery ripe for the picking, many stolen images are from one of the Getty Stock Photography sites. It's so easy to copy photos from...
136 Comments|Should anyone find themselves a recipient of a Getty Demand letter, this article includes a sample response letter that might be helpful.
82 Comments|Today's artists and creative entrepreneurs use blogging as a necessary tool to demonstrate thought leadership and capture a dedicated audience and internet following. For artists and photographers, finding photos aren't usually a problem – they're just using their own. But what about lifestyle, fashion, and food bloggers, who tend to...
77 Comments|When the Copyright Act was first enacted in the United States, the copyright duration was only 14 years. Today Copyright duration can last over a century in some cases. Why such a drastic change? Some say it is all due to a cute little mouse named Mickey. Copyright duration had...
70 Comments|Buying visual art, such as an oil painting, and we may have joint ownership along with its creator. So what did we really buy?
- Can You Copyright an Idea?Understanding the difference between idea and expression is crucial to ensuring your creative work has sufficient copyright protection. […]
- Using Orphan Works (Copyright Holder Can’t Be Located)If the owner of a copyrighted work cannot be found, can I use it? It may be possible if you analyze the orphan work properly. […]
- The College Art Association Guide to Fair UseFair use is a common art law issue that arises for artists. Here, we review the College Art Association's Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts. […]
- Is Facebook Censorship Legal?Facebook censorship policy is becoming more prevalent as it attempts to clean up fake news posted to the platform. But how does that affect Facebook users' right to Free Speech? […]
- Who Own Archaeological Treasures and ArtifactsThe treaties and laws around archaeological treasures and cultural heritage sites makes it difficult to know who owns the artifacts from the discoveries. […]