Safe harbour violations.

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

william212

New Member
Hello. Can anyone tell me who administers the safe harbour relevant to the "red flag" requirements of an organisation not acting when informed of a copyright violation.

Who should be contacted to have an organization or website removed from the safe harbour protection.

I hope this is clear enough for you., Many thanks. William.
 
Thank you for your quick response. Two entities are involved, one a Host based in Missouri and a website also in the USA.
Re the part below, both the host and the website have been informed and even answered so they are aware of the issue.

This involves the continued posting of a photograph that is of me and I took it using a timer so I am as I understand it the owner of any copyright.

I was wondering if a refusal to remove the offending copyright material after being informed about it can be used to have their protection under the safe harbour section removed.

This is the part that is of interest; "The second way that an OSP can be put on notice that its system contains infringing material, for purposes of section 512(d), is referred to the "red flag" test.[12] The "red flag" test stems from the language in the statute that requires that an OSP not be "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."[18]

The "red flag" test contains both a subjective and an objective element. Subjectively, the OSP must have knowledge that the material resides on its system. Objectively, the "infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances."

At this stage a take down request would not be safe as personal details would be published and after seeing what these people are capable of I would not feel comfortable with them having my personal details. Threats have been received previously.
 
I have had a look at the links you kindly supplied. However they seem to deal with the US, EU acts.

I am not in the USA (though the other parties are) nor am I in Europe.

I am unsure as to whether these acts above apply to organizations based in the USA, or there is separate legislation that deals with the USA.
 
As I said, or intimidated this legislation is vague at best outside the US, or often in the US.

Your issue is bifurcated further because a foreign court would have great difficulty enjoining a US based (especially smallish entity) from doing anything.

You'd have to travel to the US to potentially avail yourself of any legal remedy. That makes these suits COST prohibitive.

The other issue at play here is what are your damages?

Do you actually own any interest in the photo in question?

By posting on most of these sites, that vests ownership in the site, in many cases.

You need to read the site's policies, and accept the fact that many laws are illusory.

If you requested a takedown, gotten no where with the request, my recommendation would be to move on. Why? People KILL , RAPE, ROB, or do heinous things with regularity and rapidity; knowing full well the consequences for such actions, yet they persist.

Laws are generally ineffective in prohibiting or remedying conduct easily, and obtaining small victories often causes one to bear great costs.

I'd say forget this and move on, no one cares but you, and you've been PAUSED and MUTED!!!!
 
Last edited:
"You'd have to travel to the US to potentially avail yourself of any legal remedy. That makes these suits CST prohibitive." True and I understand this thanks.


"Do you actually own any interest in the photo in question?" I totally own the photo and I have NEVER posted it on the internet. It was stolen from my PC by a hacker using a keylogger.

He is currently using it without my permission as his avatar to impersonate and post derogatory posts about me.
I have been successful in closing down some of the blogs and sites he has set up to defame me.

Other webmasters seem to have been compromised And allow such blatant defamation and impersonation.

"By posting on most if these sites, that vests ownership in the site, in many cases." I agree, PROVIDED that the poster has the rights to the photograph, in this case the poster has NO rights to post it. it was never his nor did he have any copyright to it in any way.

I would get a lawyer to act as my agent, but I understand that my real name must be used and so can be posted in public by Chilling effects, is this the true?

As an example, after gaining the real name and address of a lady who also exposed them ( They are self confessed hackers and scammers) they did a photochop on the cover of a magazine and sent it to her employers and others as well as posting it on the internet, ( I have a copy if needed) hence I will not allow my name to be posted in the open. Another guy whose details they got has his image chopped onto the cover of a made up kiddy porn magazine and this too was forwarded to his employer etc. I did not store a copy as I do not want KP on my PC.

As you correctly state there are some real low lifes on the internet.
 
Last edited:
william212 said:
To help explain things can I post the name of the host and the website?
Click to expand...


No, please don't do that.

We don't allow that for several reasons.

I understand, and offered you suggestions.

You can also consult with an attorney in your country.

As I said, your remedies are few, if any exist.

No one cares about that law, so it's generally ignored, even if you're a big shot or a muckity muck.
 
Thank you for your time and advice it is appreciated. I will keep checking in just in case anyone has any ideas. William.
 
If no one has any additional ideas (doubtful they will), your best bet it to talk to an "attorney" in your country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top