Retired Forums > Hawaiian Letters & Lawsuits Forum
Vincent K. Tylor vs. Vermont Woods Studios - Round 2
Matthew Chan:
It appears that a correction made to the original post. The first letter was received in 2012, not 2010.
Matthew Chan:
Another interesting nugget in this case relates to Typepad. I have an interesting email snippet allegedly from Typepad.
Typepad is a hosted service, so we try to make it difficult for users to remove content on accident. That means that the folders that images are uploaded to via the Insert Image tool are hidden to prevent accidental loss of content. It's a protective measure we've put in place.
WTF! Are you kidding me? To permanently delete files, you have to go through tech support? This has HUGE negative ramifications for Typepad users. What this means is that even if a user DELETES an image that might infringe a copyright, Typepad DOESN'T ALLOW IT! The images are still exposed and shown to the public. Only Typead tech support can delete these files with a "backend tool." Deleting an image file on Typepad simply means it is "hidden" from the user as a "protective measure" according to Typepad, NOT truly deleted.
This is actually quite problematic for anyone who wants to be copyright-compliant. I did a Google Search on Typepad and could find no reference to this "undocumented feature". In fact, Typepad should be avoided until they correct this potentially lethal copyright compliance trap.
In fact, I would say that Typepad could potentially be partially responsible for this or any copyright-related fiasco and the Vermont Woods may want to consider legally subpoenaing them or otherwise compel them to cooperate.
Typepad is endangering all its users by not informing their community of users that when they delete their files, they are not truly deleted. They are simply "hidden" from their view. That is a huge misrepresentation on their part that subjects their users to unnecessary and inflated copyright claims for alleged "non-compliance".
lucia:
--- Quote from: Matthew Chan on August 05, 2014, 02:19:48 PM ---WTF! Are you kidding me? To permanently delete files, you have to go through tech support? This has HUGE negative ramifications for Typepad users. What this means is that even if a user DELETES an image that might infringe a copyright, Typepad DOESN'T ALLOW IT!
--- End quote ---
I think one big issue with typepad here is that any hypothetical infringement after the Typepad user thinks they deleted the image is at least "not willful". Moreover, it is provably "not willful" because they can prove they deleted, and I suspect nearly any judge or jury would read Typepads confusing system and conclude that the defendent took steps to remove the image, thought they had worked, failed but did not know they failed. We could argue about whether any infringement continued at all-- but even if one argued it did, at that point, the infringement is "not willful".
This matters a lot because if the defendant's infringement is "not willful", the statutory minimum is only $200 and judges do sometimes give statutory minima in copyright cases.
It's also worth noting that the Facebook like in the suit appears to merely be a hotlink of the Typepad link. Assuming this is so and the Typepad link is not willful, the Facebook one is also not willful because it's really only 1 image on 1 server, not 1 image on 2 servers.
Jerry Witt (mcfilms):
This is the THIRD at-bat for VKT against Vermont Wood. At what point would it be advisable for Peggy to investigate bringing a malicious prosecution counter suit?
Matthew Chan:
Jerry has a good point. How many times can VKT use different legal representatives and attack Vermont Woods over an alleged single incident? How many radically different arguments can VKT make on jurisdiction? It appears to be an abuse of the federal judicial system and copyright enforcement systems.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version