Voat has received a DMCA takedown request on behalf of Black Rifle Coffee Company® regarding the following user account: @BlackRifleCoffeeCo.
The peculiar situation with this DMCA request is that the user @BlackRifleCoffeeCo permanently deleted their profile on 2018-10-10. Majority of the time this would suffice to satisfy a company like Black Rifle Coffee Company®, but they have persisted to have this user account completely wiped off of Voat (ghosted).
The problem we have at Voat with fulfilling this request, is that we don't have any way to permanently ghost an account. Since we value transparency, it simply isn't possible with the code we've written unless we go in and 'spez' the data itself.
In full disclosure, it appears this account was not affiliated with Black Rifle Coffee Company®, so they have every right to want it disassociated with their trademark. The unfortunate thing is that when I realized who this company was, I attempted to contact the CEO personally to discuss the difficulties with this on our end. I just figured, naively, that a 2nd Amendment company (BRCC) and a 1st Amendment company (Voat) could work out an issue the old-fashioned way. Needless to say, I was never able to 'get past the receptionist' so to speak.
The reason I am bringing this up is for a couple reasons.
-
We at Voat have gotten used to a free-for-all website, but that isn't actually true. We have to operate within the confines of the law, and DMCA takedown requests are a law we have to follow.
-
Any subverse or username that infringes on a trademark has to be taken down if we receive a valid DMCA request from the trademark owner.
-
Voat will publicly post all DMCA takedown requests in which we modify content (data) to satisfy.
Black Rifle Coffee Company®'s DMCA request to CloudFlare
Now to figure out how to do this.
If you guys have any ideas on how we can satisfy DMCA requests like this and still log that they occurred, I’m all ears. These situations are likely to only increase.
Edit 1
Voat has reluctantly complied with this request. Access to 'claimed infringement' has been disabled.
Edit 2
Since very few read:
TL;DR: Account was already wiped as user had deleted the account months ago (i.e. Voat did NOT delete any submissions or comments). Actions against Voat continued despite this. Voat made the account 'disappear' after posting this submission in order to fully comply with request.
In this particular situation, given the context and all things considered, this is the best option for Voat.
view the rest of the comments →
thewebofslime ago
Object, always. Every single time. (In this case, also mention that the account already voluntarily removed material in question.)
Have a standard template for objection.
Affirmative Defense #1: They did not "consider" Fair Use applicability before sending the notice. Black Rifle Coffee Company failed to actually consider whether this qualified as fair use or not and, instead, had a knee jerk reaction at seeing a close facsimile, but not exact replication, of their company name. Instead, they had a "knee jerk" reaction.
Affirmative Defense #2: The account was not a misrepresentation, but merely a similar username and usernames are not copyrighted.
Affirmative Defense #3: The account did not post any infringing material.
Affirmative Defense#4: Since Black Rifle Coffee Company did not take into consideration legally required issues before sending the DMCA, the DMCA notice they initiated was, ITSELF, A MISREPRESENTATION, and therefore, Voat is entitled to tany legal fees that arise from their misrepresentation of the issue.
A copyright holder who pays lip service to the consideration of fair use by claiming it formed a good faith belief when there is evidence to the contrary is still subject to Section 512(f) liability.
totes_magotes ago
One of the things of owning IP, trademarks, copyrights is that you do not have the luxury of considering fair use before you issue a takedown request. Otherwise some joe will (rightfully) point out that one case where you were wrong or failed to notice and your property rights are gone.
The correct approach is to file the request and get a paper trail for lawyers and courts should it come down to it. It is then up to the site operator and the other party to defend against that accusation.
Otherwise, your name goes the way of band-aid, q-tip, and (nearly there) velcro. Once your name is infringed enough and you don't do anything about it, you can no longer defend it from fraudulent use and the courts will reject your claims.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you (to a point). I hold a few pieces of IP and whatnot myself and if I caught someone abusing it, I'd issue a takedown immediately with all speed possible. If that failed, I'd send in the
clownslawyers. But those who work hard have the legal right to protect what they've created. If this is not something that is liked, petition the government to change it. Don't just ignore it. There's no difference between "abandon a law you don't like" and "selective anarchy." None.TheBuddha ago
Slight correction...
Trademark must be defended to avoid it going to generic status. Copyright needs no such defense. You can choose not to defend copyright on a case by case basis. Trademark is not the same.
TestForScience ago
^ Exactly. A small list of products/companies that lost their trademark and became generic:
Bubble Wrap
Dumpster
Kleenex
Escalator
Thermos
Chapstick
Frisbee
Popsicle
Laundromat
Jumbotron
Taser
Zamboni
Aspirin
Yo-yo
Kerosene
TV Dinner
Google (not joking, it’s why they’re Alphabet now)
Jacuzzi
Photoshop
Jeep
Rollerblade
Velcro
Plexiglass
Ping Pong
Zipper
Band-Aid
Xerox (A well known one)
Crock-Pot
Jet Ski
And many many MANY more
thewebofslime ago
Every single social media platform on the Internet has already set the precedent that usernames are not part of trademarks or copyright.
Federal law requires that you take into consideration fair use, because if you do not, then you can be liable for attorney's fees from the party you are harassing while they are participating in fair use. The answer here is to be aggressive so that this does not happen again to Voat and the userbase can help that by letting Black Rifle Coffee Company know that this type of behavior is totally unacceptable.
admin2 ago
DIRE WARNING : though very tenuous... the actual EXAMPLE the trademark infringement promoted... was coy and used a URL example... a URL is one of the ONLY places where a word mark lacking spaces in a url but present in a valid word mark... CAN HOLD LEGAL WEIGHT.
Example of very meagerly infringing urls :
www.fastbucks.com/BankOfAmerica/
www.products.com/OfficialNFLPatriotsSportswear/
notice the DOMAIN which is the only NORMAL area that historically can be infringing... is now part of a URL address itself... and URLS cannot have spaces (but can have %20 )so legally MAYBE, ever so slightly a URL with a non-space workmark that is not a valid word mark normally without spaces MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY problematic in a URL, but then again the url itself needs to show infringing CONTENT in addition, such as coffee for sale or coffee mugs for sale.
DMCA copyright was never attested in putt shown link example it was a USPTO (and possibly international) WORD MARK infringement warning. ..... but responding in a GUILTY MANNER only digs yourself deeper later for the lawsuit to come LATER. And it will come, no matter WHAT is done now.
But it will have no merit unless foolish responses are undertaken now.