Domains v subdomains getty letter

[annalise]

I just re-read the letter I received and it says the supposed infringing photo was on the main domain, when in fact the photo was on a completely separate subdomain.

Is this a significant error they have made? What should my approach be for responding to their claims?  They provided screen shots of the subdomain page where the photo was located.

[lucia]

Subdomain? The ownership is the same so the same party would be involved in any infringement. If infringement occurred on the subdomain and they sent it to the owner of the domain, Getty would send the letter to the correct entity.   

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

Agreed, this would not matter, what matters is if the image is actually on your servers or linked to an outside source.

[lucia]

annalisa--
I thought of an exception. If you are doing something like wordpress.com and the subdomains are bloggers then getty might be able to sue the bloggers. However, in the case of wordpress.com, they have the good sense to have a DMCA in place. Otherwise, wordpress.com could be sued for stuff on the subdomains. But if you have a domain and let visitors create their own subdomains, and have also set up a DMCA, getty shouldn't sue the domain owner for something on a subdomain. They should send you a take down notice. Then you demand the blogger or user take stuff down from the subdomain (or take it down yourself as you will have control.)

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

In regards to the DMCA takedowns, it would be up to the ISP to remove the image /content, then notify the user, at which time they can contest it, if they so desire..

Using ELI as an example when Matt's hosting provider got the notice, they took it down, notified Matt, and Matt fired back the counter-claim/notice, after 10-14 days if no suit is filed, the ISP puts the content back online.

DMCA is good in the respect that it really forces the person submitting the notice actually follow thru with a suit, and if they do they better have everything in order, cause then they are also open to a bogus takedown notice which can carry heavy fines/fees.

[Matthew Chan]

Actually, my hosting provider was very nice about it.  They actually didn't remove the content.  They informed me that I needed to remove it.  I obviously complied quickly because I didn't want the entire ELI website taken down. Additionally, they didn't have administrative rights to the ELI Forums.  Had they stepped in themselves, it is likely they would have ended up shutting the entire ELI Forums until I got the counter-notification letter in.

If I had been on Godaddy, ELI would have been hurt far worse by then DMCA complaint than it did.

Using ELI as an example when Matt's hosting provider got the notice, they took it down, notified Matt, and Matt fired back the counter-claim/notice, after 10-14 days if no suit is filed, the ISP puts the content back online.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

My apologies for spreading bad info, I obviously misunderstood the process the first time around. Being a hosting provider myself if I were to get a takedown notice, I would remove the offending content, as the ISP I have access to everything, whether or not they give me admin rights. Naturally i would not shut the entire site down, but rather just remove the piece in question, I would then notify my client of the take down, and go from there. This would eliminate me from having to wait for the client to take action, while at the same time preserving my safe harbor..