login info join!
Forums > General Industry > Theft of Copyright Images To Porn Site Search   Reply
Photographer
ajsess
Posts: 5
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, US


I just recently had several of my MM Profile copyrighted nude photographs hacked and posted on what I consider a porn site..anonib.com. The posting  has caused emotional distress to my model (not an mm member) and despite my repeated requests to the website that the photos be deleted, and a threat of legal action, the site's response has only been to ban me from the site.. My photographs are clearly marked across the front with my copyright, and ,of course, the persons who posted them is not revealed, and will likely take a subpoena to ferret out.
I mention that investigating my own case, I note several other copyrighted photographs from MM photographers posted there also. We must be careful to protect the integrity of our models and our work from such offensive action by rogue websites.
Jun 12 12 07:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WCR3
Posts: 975
Houston, Texas, US


Jun 12 12 08:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
christiecreepydolls
Posts: 321
Los Angeles, California, US


Cease and desist.
Jun 12 12 08:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leonard Imagery - Men
Posts: 217
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


DMCA Takedown Notice - works very well - they won't like it when they don't have a website! smile I've had to take a number of sites down.

http://www.dmca.com/Takedowns.aspx?ad=d … QgodCRTUYA
Jun 12 12 08:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Kerrek
Posts: 1,389
Orlando, Florida, US


1. DMCA takedown notice.
2. That's not what hacking is.
3. Upset about nudes ending up elsewhere on the internet? Did you mislead her into thinking images can be made safe on the internet?
Jun 12 12 09:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darkroom Art
Posts: 630
JOBSTOWN, New Jersey, US


Who are the other MM members you saw stolen work from?
Jun 12 12 09:08 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


Leonard Imagery wrote:
DMCA Takedown Notice - works very well - they won't like it when they don't have a website! smile I've had to take a number of sites down.

http://www.dmca.com/Takedowns.aspx?ad=d … QgodCRTUYA

Next time just skip the drama and use a DMCA takedown notice.  They are quite effective.

Jun 12 12 09:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Micyl Sweeney
Posts: 7,442
Madison, Alabama, US


Geez I wish someone would make me proud and think that my images are worthy to steal. 

How come it only happens to those with less than 25 posts on MM forums?
Jun 12 12 09:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Erik Manwaring - Philly
Posts: 665
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Good luck - they are in Panama =/



Technical Contact

    Fundacion Private Whois

    Domain Administrator
    Email:n9hvnjy4fb47f1815d13@t02cduv4f7f99a255f64.privatewhois.net

    Attn: anonib.com

    Aptds. 0850-00056

    Zona 15 Panama

    Panama

    Tel: +507.65995877
Jun 12 12 09:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Damon Banner
Posts: 85,249
Hayward, California, US


The host where you can send your DMCA

http://www.balticservers.com/servers-tos
Jun 12 12 09:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Kerrek
Posts: 1,389
Orlando, Florida, US


Erik Manwaring wrote:
Good luck - they are in Panama =/

That's registration information of the site owner/operator, not the isp.

Jun 12 12 10:20 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


Erik Manwaring wrote:
Good luck - they are in Panama =/
Michael Kerrek wrote:
That's registration information of the site owner/operator, not the isp.

You are correct, but it appears that the ISP is not located in the U.S. either.  They may or may not respond to a DMCA takedown notice.

Jun 12 12 11:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mask Photo
Posts: 1,382
Fremont, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
You are correct, but it appears that the ISP is not located in the U.S. either.  They may or may not respond to a DMCA takedown notice.

iirc, even if you do send a DMCA, they can challenge it, be back online in no time, and you have 14 days to follow it up with a real lawsuit.
can't remember where I read that, so i have no citation, sorry. Probably on the ASMP site resources for copyright registration.

OP, were your images registered?

Jun 13 12 01:35 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Wysiwyg Photography
Posts: 6,326
Salt Lake City, Utah, US


Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Geez I wish someone would make me proud and think that my images are worthy to steal. 

How come it only happens to those with less than 25 posts on MM forums?

I have more then 25 posts and I have had an image stolen.

Jun 13 12 01:58 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2,350
Bristol, England, United Kingdom


I've seen a lot of MM pics on tumblr pages. When I looked at shibari images also, I found that some sites are pinching edgy images from "non-adult" sources...
Jun 13 12 04:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SME
Posts: 20,854
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US


Micyl Sweeney wrote:
Geez I wish someone would make me proud and think that my images are worthy to steal. 

How come it only happens to those with less than 25 posts on MM forums?

It happens to me all the time.  I just don't post about it here.  It's nothing to be proud of, I'm afraid.

OP, good luck.  I've given up on dealing with sites located overseas.

Jun 13 12 04:55 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,542
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Erik Manwaring wrote:
Good luck - they are in Panama =/



Technical Contact

    Fundacion Private Whois

    Domain Administrator
    Email:n9hvnjy4fb47f1815d13@t02cduv4f7f99a255f64.privatewhois.net

    Attn: anonib.com

    Aptds. 0850-00056

    Zona 15 Panama

    Panama


    Tel: +507.65995877

And if you believe THAT ^^^ I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale .... cheep

Studio36

Jun 13 12 05:03 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
WIP
Posts: 15,200
Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom


MM does not allow porn so not sure what these stolen images would be doing on a porn site.
Jun 13 12 07:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AM Photography
Posts: 697
Independence, Oregon, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
MM does not allow porn so not sure what these stolen images would be doing on a porn site.

The term "Porn" is rather hard to define, to one person an artistic nude is porn, to another person it takes an actual sexual act before it is porn. MM may not allow "porn", but your kidding yourself if you think that there aren't any images onthis site that fall within the gray area.

Jun 13 12 07:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 11,781
Olivet, Michigan, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
MM does not allow porn so not sure what these stolen images would be doing on a porn site.

Porn sites often have non pornographic images.  As bait, for variety, or whatever.

Jun 13 12 08:08 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Erik Manwaring - Philly
Posts: 665
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Michael Kerrek wrote:
That's registration information of the site owner/operator, not the isp.

Yes that's true.  The information I posted was the Owner/Operator of the Site.  Usually this is the person you would contact about problems with a site.

The ISP comes after that.


Here's more information on the ISP - located in Lithuania:

Name:    anonib.com
Address:  77.79.4.100

IP address:                     77.79.4.100
Reverse DNS:                    anonib.com.
Reverse DNS authenticity:       [Verified]
ASN:                            25406
ASN Name:                       SPLIUS-AS (Splius Cable Network, Siauliai, Lithuania)
IP range connectivity:          1
Registrar (per ASN):            RIPE
Country (per IP registrar):     LT [Lithuania]
Country IP Range:               77.79.0.0 to 77.79.63.255
Country fraud profile:          High
Country (per outside source):   LT [Lithuania]

Jun 13 12 10:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Erik Manwaring - Philly
Posts: 665
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US


Spli, LLC
Summary. 74, LT-78140 Siauliai
Company. No. 145221538
VAT payments. Code LT452215314
LT797180000003467874
JSC Bank of Siauliai Bank

Tel.: 8-700 12125 Fax.: 8 700 12129

E-mail:    administracija@splius.lt
Jun 13 12 10:37 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Matt Schmidt
Posts: 3,643
Greensboro, North Carolina, US


Jun 13 12 11:47 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:
You are correct, but it appears that the ISP is not located in the U.S. either.  They may or may not respond to a DMCA takedown notice.
Mask Photo wrote:
iirc, even if you do send a DMCA, they can challenge it, be back online in no time, and you have 14 days to follow it up with a real lawsuit.
can't remember where I read that, so i have no citation, sorry. Probably on the ASMP site resources for copyright registration.

OP, were your images registered?

Counter-takedown notices are pretty rare.  On the other hand, takedown notices are common.

Jun 13 12 11:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eralar
Posts: 1,778
Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada


Good chance with a take-down notice. Just went to the site... big warning from McAfee for security, and children nudity on the first page sad .

I think a DMCA is not something they will fear, unfortunately. The whole site is being sold as the "Best Anonymous Board Image"... nice place for child pornography and stuff like that.
Jun 13 12 12:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jhono Bashian
Posts: 2,428
Cleveland, Ohio, US


OP your dealing with companies in other countries who are only interested in making money.  They laugh at your request because there is no U.S. jurisdiction. Theses shell companies are run by local mafia's, gangs, and other IT savvy groups.
Jun 13 12 12:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mystic Flow Studios
Posts: 389
Hilo, Hawaii, US


Jhono Bashian wrote:
OP your dealing with companies in other countries who are only interested in making money.  They laugh at your request because there is no U.S. jurisdiction. Theses shell companies are run by local mafia's, gangs, and other IT savvy groups.

Meanwhile *this thread* languishes on the photography forum without any responses:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=891745

Let's stop whining, put our heads together, and SOLVE the problem!


≥≥≥

EDIT: OMG, I didn't realize that posting just one response to an old thread would result in it's moving up to the top of the forum! My apologies for having done that with multiple threads. I had mistakenly figured that, with the older threads, my late responses would only show up when someone searched for copyright-related threads. This is embarrassing! In retrospect, I should have made one post somewhere that listed all of those various related threads. SORRY!

May 16 13 08:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A Sight Worth Seeing
Posts: 125
Fresno, California, US


Send the DMCA notice to the upstream provider if they're in the US.  The ISP buys bandwidth from somebody, and it usually traces back to a US entity.

Some quick tips:
For windows users, go to the command line (windows-R and then type cmd).  Then type "nslookup".  Then type "set type=all".  Then type the domain name you're interested in.  In this case, I typed "anonib.com" and got the following data back:

****

> anonib.com
Server:  google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address:  8.8.8.8

Non-authoritative answer:
anonib.com      internet address = 141.101.123.86
anonib.com      internet address = 141.101.113.86
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.240.86
anonib.com      nameserver = art.ns.cloudflare.com
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.242.86
anonib.com
        primary name server = art.ns.cloudflare.com
        responsible mail addr = dns.cloudflare.com
        serial  = 2013051307
        refresh = 10000 (2 hours 46 mins 40 secs)
        retry   = 2400 (40 mins)
        expire  = 604800 (7 days)
        default TTL = 3600 (1 hour)
anonib.com      nameserver = ruth.ns.cloudflare.com
anonib.com      MX preference = 0, mail exchanger = mail.anonib.com
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.241.86
>
****

Their name server is cloudflare.com.  When I do a "whois" search on cloudflare.com, I get:
****
Registrant:
CloudFlare, Inc.
   665 Third Street
   Suite 207
   San Francisco, CA 94107
   US

****

Easy enough.  They're in the US, they will have a DMCA agent.  Let's find it at the US copyright office:  http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agent … dflare.pdf

It is a little bit confusing the first few times you do it, but DMCA notices are really easy to send and most of the time there is an upstream provider with a US address.  PM me if you have questions.

Note: This does not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such.
May 17 13 12:20 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Send the DMCA notice to the upstream provider if they're in the US.  The ISP buys bandwidth from somebody, and it usually traces back to a US entity.

Some quick tips:
For windows users, go to the command line (windows-R and then type cmd).  Then type "nslookup".  Then type "set type=all".  Then type the domain name you're interested in.  In this case, I typed "anonib.com" and got the following data back:

****

> anonib.com
Server:  google-public-dns-a.google.com
Address:  8.8.8.8

Non-authoritative answer:
anonib.com      internet address = 141.101.123.86
anonib.com      internet address = 141.101.113.86
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.240.86
anonib.com      nameserver = art.ns.cloudflare.com
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.242.86
anonib.com
        primary name server = art.ns.cloudflare.com
        responsible mail addr = dns.cloudflare.com
        serial  = 2013051307
        refresh = 10000 (2 hours 46 mins 40 secs)
        retry   = 2400 (40 mins)
        expire  = 604800 (7 days)
        default TTL = 3600 (1 hour)
anonib.com      nameserver = ruth.ns.cloudflare.com
anonib.com      MX preference = 0, mail exchanger = mail.anonib.com
anonib.com      internet address = 190.93.241.86
>
****

Their name server is cloudflare.com.  When I do a "whois" search on cloudflare.com, I get:
****
Registrant:
CloudFlare, Inc.
   665 Third Street
   Suite 207
   San Francisco, CA 94107
   US

****

Easy enough.  They're in the US, they will have a DMCA agent.  Let's find it at the US copyright office:  http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agent … dflare.pdf

It is a little bit confusing the first few times you do it, but DMCA notices are really easy to send and most of the time there is an upstream provider with a US address.  PM me if you have questions.

Note: This does not constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such.

This is a zombie thread, but your post requires a reply.  I think you misunderstand the DMCA and specifically a takedown notice.  The issue is that ISP's were getting sued for infringement because people and companies were storing copyrighted images on their servers.   Since they had no way of knowing that the material was there or that it was infringing, they were concerned about the cost of defending litigation. 

In response, Congress included in the DMCA language which said that a host could not be held responsible for infringement so long as they respond promptly to a DMCA takedown notice.  In other words, if you find a site that has infringing images, you may send the host a takedown notice.  If it is a site like MM where users are uploading, the DMCA notice would normally to them first.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with bandwidth nor does it have to do with name servers.  The reason is that the backbone provider has no liability for infringement nor does the registrar nor name service.  Those people are not hosting infringing material and are not subject to a DMCA takedown notice because they have nothing to take down.  In your example, all you have done is to determine who provides name service and possibly registration service.  They have  no liability nor responsibility.   

A DMCA takedown notice is an instrument designed to protect hosting services and websites which host intellectual property.  It is not intended to protect photographers, although it is a convenient way to have infringing images removed.

Not all websites have ISP's.  I do not.  If a website is hosted directly by the website operator, there is no place to send a DMCA takedown notice.  In that case it serves no purpose at all.

So, based on your example above, Cloud Flare is simply the registrant.  You haven't determined who actually hosts the site and therefore don't know who would properly respond to a takedown notice.

A "Whois Search" will often not produce the name of the actual ISP.  It is designed to disclose the registrant and the location of the name servers.  To find out the actual ISP to serve, you often have to find out where the site is actually hosted and then who to serve.

May 18 13 05:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A Sight Worth Seeing
Posts: 125
Fresno, California, US


Some good points there on the technical side.  My experience with DMCA notices comes mostly from advising companies on the receiving end, and looking from that side, a properly formatted notice is an action item and normally gets pretty high priority.  A lot of DMCA response is about risk management and I don't think a lot of service providers get too much into statutory interpretation before initiating a takedown.  Things get complicated if there is a counter-notice, but that almost never happens.

The DMCA's limitation of liability provisions prevent service providers from being held liable for contributory infringement based on knowledge of infringing activity obtained from third parties.  If the host learns about the infringement on their own, the DMCA isn't going to protect them.  The US Copyright Office describes the liability protection at page 11 of this document http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The Copyright Office document provides a lot of background, but the bottom line is that a service provider who has actual knowledge of infringing activity happening on its network may have liability as a contributory copyright infringer.  17 USC § 512(a) deals with upstream providers who meet certain criteria (like not having a copy of the material on servers that they control), and provides them with immunity (but leaves them subject to lawsuits for injunctions).  17 USC § 512(c) deals with hosting companies.  Many entities now use a CDN, or content distribution network, to speed distribution of content; the CDN would normally not be eligible for 512(a) immunity, but would fall under 512(c).  Similarly, the company providing the connectivity for the infringing entity (so the website's host) normally has some level of control over the servers (most small websites are hosted on a third party's servers for example).  Those would also be 512(c) entities.  So the upstream provider is very often more than a pure bandwidth provider and has DMCA liability.

Whether a company providing DNS services is eligible for immunity is an interesting question.  I haven't researched whether a court has addressed this or not, but my guess is that it would probably be a 512(d) entity (information location provider).  In the absence of the DMCA, a DNS provider knowingly facilitating maintenance of an infringing site would likely be the subject of contributory copyright infringement claims.  Once put on notice in a DMCA compliant way, it seems pretty likely that counsel for a DNS provider would not want to take the risk and would just disable access to the material.

As a practical matter, in terms of getting infringing material taken down, if you can find an entity upstream from the infringing material that has a designated DMCA agent listed with the US Copyright Office, they're going to respond to a DMCA-compliant notice by taking down the material or disabling access to it.  So while it is interesting to try to figure out the quirks of the DMCA, the practical implementation piece is pretty straightforward from a copyright holder's perspective:  If the infringing party is relying on somebody who has gone to the trouble of designating a DMCA agent, send a notice.  It is almost never worth the trouble and legal cost of getting into a fight with a copyright holder over whether the DMCA applies, how the immunity works, etc.  I've advised a lot of companies over the years on DMCA matters, and the one thing that hasn't changed is that upstream providers don't want to risk contributory infringement liability, and want to get infringing activity off of their network.  From their perspective, there is a risk in taking down material because they don't want to be sued for improperly taking material down; a DMCA-compliant notice triggers a statutory immunity and the provider can take down the allegedly infringing material without risk.

Damn, just looking at all this, the DMCA really is a complex thing.

None of this should be interpreted or used as legal advice.  It is complicated, it depends on a lot of subtle facts, and there are strategic elements that a lawyer will advise you about that I haven't touched on.
May 18 13 11:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
A Sight Worth Seeing
Posts: 125
Fresno, California, US


I should add, good point on the registrant identity.  Stopping at the registrant was probably me being lazy.

I did do a tracert, and the final hop before the actual IP address of the server is 69.22.130.146:

that reverses out to as13335.xe-8-0-5.ar2.sjcl.us.nlayer.net

Nlayer.net is a "cloud services provider" (http://nlayer.net/Investors.aspx).  They may be the upstream host.
May 18 13 11:56 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


A Sight Worth Seeing wrote:
Some good points there on the technical side.  My experience with DMCA notices comes mostly from advising companies on the receiving end, and looking from that side, a properly formatted notice is an action item and normally gets pretty high priority.  A lot of DMCA response is about risk management and I don't think a lot of service providers get too much into statutory interpretation before initiating a takedown.  Things get complicated if there is a counter-notice, but that almost never happens.

The Remainder is Redacted for Brevity

No worries.   A DNS provider could never be held responsible for infringement since they have done no copying or publication.  They are simply too far removed.  Their role is to simply assign an IP address to a domain name / host.

I do agree with you though.  DMCA is a complex statute. It is a wonderfully convenient way to get infringing images taken down, it is just centered on the ISP, not the photographer.

You are right though, the service provider you located might well respond to a DMCA takedown notice.

The only exception I am going to take to what you are saying though is the highlighted sentence in the quote below:

The DMCA's limitation of liability provisions prevent service providers from being held liable for contributory infringement based on knowledge of infringing activity obtained from third parties.  If the host learns about the infringement on their own, the DMCA isn't going to protect them.  The US Copyright Office describes the liability protection at page 11 of this document http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

The important thing to know is that to be liable, the host has to have actual knowledge of the infringement.  They cannot be held liable until they have such knowledge.

A casual notification by a third party isn't the same as a DMCA takedown notice, but so long as they remove the material promptly upon learning of the infringement, they are still not liable.

May 19 13 09:20 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
afplcc
Posts: 5,971
Fairfax, Virginia, US


c_h_r_i_s wrote:
MM does not allow porn so not sure what these stolen images would be doing on a porn site.

It's pretty common for porn sites to have "teaser" shots (of a model in lingerie than nude) with a tag line of "become a member to see what she does with 3 guys" (or some other kind of comment).  It doesn't matter that they don't have any shots of her engaging in pornographic acts, the idea is to entice people to pay the membership fee.  And while we can argue that the nature of the shots hasn't changed, from the model's perspective she's gone from boudoir or art nudes to being promotional material for a porn website advertising slutty teenagers who'll do anything for money.

Ed

May 20 13 12:53 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
ModelChani
Posts: 6
Corpus Christi, Texas, US


Is there a list of Photographers/ Models for the Do Not work with ??
May 27 13 12:12 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 34,702
San Francisco, California, US


ModelChani wrote:
Is there a list of Photographers/ Models for the Do Not work with ??

Those lists never work.  They create more problems than solutions.

If someone puts you on a list, how do you know that it wasn't they that was the problem?  Maybe they wanted to put the photographer on the list before they put the model on.  What if they both list each other?

So, no, there is no such thing.

May 27 13 01:13 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers