|
Forums >
General Industry >
Theft of Copyright Images To Porn Site
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 Jun 12 12 08:44 pm Link Cease and desist. Jun 12 12 08:51 pm Link DMCA Takedown Notice - works very well - they won't like it when they don't have a website!  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 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 Who are the other MM members you saw stolen work from? Jun 12 12 09:08 pm Link Leonard Imagery wrote: Next time just skip the drama and use a DMCA takedown notice. They are quite effective. Jun 12 12 09:11 pm Link 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 Good luck - they are in Panama =/ Technical Contact Fundacion Private Whois Domain Administrator Email:[email protected] Attn: anonib.com Aptds. 0850-00056 Zona 15 Panama Panama Tel: +507.65995877 Jun 12 12 09:14 pm Link Jun 12 12 09:23 pm Link Erik Manwaring wrote: That's registration information of the site owner/operator, not the isp. Jun 12 12 10:20 pm Link Erik Manwaring wrote: Michael Kerrek 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. Jun 12 12 11:25 pm Link ei Total Productions 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. Jun 13 12 01:35 am Link Micyl Sweeney wrote: I have more then 25 posts and I have had an image stolen. Jun 13 12 01:58 am Link 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
Post hidden on Sep 10, 2017 07:29 pm
Reason: other Jun 13 12 04:55 am Link Erik Manwaring wrote: And if you believe THAT ^^^ I'd like to talk to you about a bridge I have for sale .... cheep Jun 13 12 05:03 am Link 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 c_h_r_i_s wrote: 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 c_h_r_i_s wrote: Porn sites often have non pornographic images. As bait, for variety, or whatever. Jun 13 12 08:08 am Link Michael Kerrek wrote: 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. Jun 13 12 10:31 am Link 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: [email protected] Jun 13 12 10:37 am Link Jun 13 12 11:47 am Link ei Total Productions wrote: Mask Photo wrote: Counter-takedown notices are pretty rare. On the other hand, takedown notices are common. Jun 13 12 11:49 am Link 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  . 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 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 Jhono Bashian wrote: Meanwhile *this thread* languishes on the photography forum without any responses: May 16 13 08:57 pm Link 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 A Sight Worth Seeing wrote: 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. May 18 13 05:43 pm Link 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 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 A Sight Worth Seeing wrote: 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. 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. May 19 13 09:20 am Link c_h_r_i_s wrote: 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. May 20 13 12:53 pm Link Is there a list of Photographers/ Models for the Do Not work with ?? May 27 13 12:12 pm Link ModelChani wrote: Those lists never work. They create more problems than solutions. May 27 13 01:13 pm Link |
