Copyright Troll Randy G Taylor from Copyright Defense League on video

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

There are a few more...
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCopyrightRegistry?feature=watch

[SoylentGreen]

Interesting sales pitch.

I noticed that he used language such as you can "claim your image on C-Registry".
Which implies that doing so provides some sort of "legal" protection, or "legal standing".
It clearly does no such thing.  Only the Copyright Office can do that.  Even then, most people fail at using it properly.

This "C-Registry" does have definite uses for copyright trolling extortion practices.
Anybody... me you, Buddhapi... any of us could sign up for C-Registry, "claim" some random image, and then attempt to extort monies from the end user under the guise of "infringement".
Again "C-Registry" cannot prove ownership, infringement, or even that a picture is actually copyrighted... it could link to any bogus number at the copyright office.

I should also mention that if Randy Taylor is storing all of these images cataloged on "C-Registry", then he is personally committing copyright infringement on a huge scale.

Anyway, "C-Registry" appears to be a clone of PicScout's "ImageExchange", and also a clone of google's Image Search.
None of these can provide a shred of proof regarding allegations of copyright infringement.
It's back to the same old thing; "you're using our images", and "we don't have show you any proof, just pay us".
Fail.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

well hells bells, now I may have to go get me an account just to see how these images are stored...

[SoylentGreen]

this is relevant to my interests...

S.G.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

That was an interesting video and a good find thanks for sharing it!

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Heres a little snippet from C-registry's terms of use you have to agree to if you sing up...interesting to say the least..

YOU grant The COPYRIGHT REGISTRY:

For the purpose of globally and universally distributing INFORMATION in the broadest, most unlimited means possible,

  A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display INFORMATION throughout the world in any and all media without limitation, and

For the purpose of providing global and universal ACCESS to view your CONTENT in digital form,

A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to access, view, host, cache, route, transmit, store, perform and/or display CONTENT, and

For the purpose of including your CONTENT in reports and documents issued by The COPYRIGHT REGISTRY that relate to Digital Millennium Copyright Act Take Down orders, copyright ownership and authorship of CONTENT, conflicts of ownership and authorship as stated in the Website, and other printed and digital forms relating to INFORMATION,

A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to cache, use, reproduce, copy, resize, crop and/or publish CONTENT, and

For the purpose of enabling YOU and users to embed VERIPIXEL in CONTENT to announce that CONTENT is copyrighted and to enable use of The COPYRIGHT REGISTRY to identify the claimed righterholder(s) for said CONTENT,

A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to copy, modify, adapt and distribute CONTENT for the sole purpose of embedding VERIPIXEL in said CONTENT, and

For all purposes,

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

Wow! That is amazing on so many levels. First that he has the balls to say that you give me

A nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to....

on every item and then that people actually do it.

[SoylentGreen]

Great information as usual, Buddhapi!!  My Jaw is hanging open, aghast...
These terms of use sound a lot like they were lifted from Facebook's old terms of use regarding photos.

I don't think that he can do what he intends to do without actual written contracts.
The terms "perpetual" and "irrevocable" raise my eyebrows.
Additionally, no mention is made of what "content" is, or what "information" constitutes.  Either one can be text and/or images.
No stock image agency will sign with his venture with wording like that.  Is this guy some kind of scam-artist? 

Sorry if this has come up before, but can a (non-attorney) send DMCA notices on behalf of a third party?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I will post later in regards to what they deem "information" and "content", as it is spelled out. Much like a lawsuit anybody can submit a DMCA takedown request, however in doing so, by signing it you are stating that you are the owner of the content, and open yourself up to perjury. I have a working theory of all of the players and how it all operates, hopefully I'll find time today to post it.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Definitions from C-Regisrty.us Terms and Conditions:

CONTENT ? "Content" will mean copyrighted and not copyrighted intellectual property, including images, video, music, audio, movies, illustrations, graphics, icons, logos, and other 2D and multi-dimensional time-based, sound-based and image-based media, in whole or in part (herein referred to as "CONTENT").

INFORMATION ? "Information" will mean individual and aggregated data, in various combinations of text, audible and visual presentation, including but not limited to URLs and dates of use of CONTENT, claimed ownership and authorship of CONTENT, identity and contact information of users of The COPYRIGHT REGISTRY and claimed rightsholders of CONTENT, and other information relating to CONTENT, whether provided by YOU, third parties, automated processes or other means (herein referred to as "INFORMATION").

(this is directly from their site, someone writes really bad code.)

[SoylentGreen]

The problem with Randy Taylor's venture, as I see it, is that any random person can sign up for his service.
Then, that random person can "claim" an image on the Internet, and then give Taylor "a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to cache, use, reproduce, copy, resize, crop and/or publish" those pictures.
I assume that the plan is that the random person can "troll" or "extort" money from people, based on Randy Taylor's lame registration system as "proof" of ownership.

This is counter to the concept of registration with the actual copyright office.  The copyright office can give one prima facie proof of ownership.
Official papers are signed before the image is actually published, or very shortly thereafter. You can make a registration before anyone else has copies of the work; a very important point.

My understanding that non-exclusive rights can be conveyed on another entity verbally.  You wouldn't have much proof in any dispute, however.
But, Taylor's system offers neither verbal (spoken) agreements, nor are any contracts signed.

If he uses/modifies images that are "claimed" under false pretences, he'll be trolled and possibly sued many times over.
Apparently, he's been working on this for years... we're finding major faults in the system in five minutes.
I wouldn't be too surprised if it's used only for trolling, and fails eventually.

Maybe I should post my comments on his youtube channel?

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

I was thinking along the same lines...I could sign up, claim to own all of Tylors images, and before you know it, Randy Taylor would find himself in a lawsuit with Hawaiian Art Network...actually Masterfile images would be better, they like to file suit more so than HAN...a perfect example of "what goes around..." I don't see many photogs signing up for this, they are very protective of their rights and clearly his terms is a rights grab.

[SoylentGreen]

Agreed.  It would actually be pretty east to troll Randy Taylor with this.
I could register some my right-managed photos with the copyright office, for example.  50 of them is a good number.
Next, make up a fake name at some BS address.  "Claim" the images under the fake name with Taylor's "C-Register"/"Stock PhotoFinder".
Now, I can come out of the wood-work using my real name, and send demand letters to Taylor at 10k apiece.
That's... 5 million dollars.  lol.

As far as actual proof of ownership, registration with the Copyright Office is the only option... everything else is literally junk.

S.G.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

no to mention, that his "veripixel" thingamabob adds some sort of color coded pixels to the image, so he would also be liable for "altering copyright management information" on top of the infringement... Yo Randy you might want to bail on this idea...I see potentially more butt hurt coming your way...you can thank us later!

[Oscar Michelen]

This is crazy.  I don't know who would ever put up their actual images on this thing. He appears to be trying to create his own private copyright office while also getting the right to use the images. It would be interesting to see how he describes this "registration" in any trolling letter he sends out.