September 1, 2016
On Labels and the Times We Are
Living In
Oh,
the irony. You are now reading the words of a copyright infringer. Shocking, I
know.
Some
time ago, I posted a review of Zhang Yimou’s Coming Home, and then as I usually do, I went to Google Images to
find the cover of the DVD. In truth, I didn’t put much thought into which
picture I saved and placed to the left of my review, and posting the review
would likely have been the last time I wrote about the film. But you know that
saying about life and its annoying habit of throwing you curve balls? Little
did I know that my little blog would soon be ensnared in a massive sweep of
websites connected to that very image.
Perhaps
a little elaboration is in order. Last weekend, I wrote a review of Disney’s Brother Bear and went to post it. No
sooner had I logged in than I was greeted by an ominous box explaining that my
post for Coming Home had been labeled
draft and removed from view. Even
more ominous was the announcement that I had violated the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, and, according to Blogger, was in danger of having my blog
suspended or deleted if such intrusions into other people’s rights continued.
Two days later, I would receive a second notice from Google itself.
But
wait, I thought. Surely there had been a misunderstanding. Can it really be a
violation of copyright law to put the cover of a Blu-ray disc in a movie review
that is on a blog intended to promote movies and has not been monetized?
Apparently, it can be, but it gets a little more complicated than that.
The
warning from Blogger and Google both referred me to a third-party website where
I could view said violation and see exactly what the complaint was. So I went
there, put in the complaint code, and was taken to a page with numerous
listings of links to websites that had apparently received the same notice, one
of which was IMDB. The list was long, in some cases over 300 items, but when I
looked for the reason for my now criminal label, I was met with a curious word,
unspecified. Unhelpful was more like it.
I
learned I had one more option: I could contest the charge against me.
Therefore, I clicked on a link to a form I would have to fill out in order to
explain why, in my opinion, it had all been a misunderstanding. The form is
long and, interestingly, requires you to give the party making the complaint
against you much more information than I was interested in revealing to a group
accusing me of intellectual theft. It also included some friendly advice about
consulting a lawyer if I thought I could claim fair use of the material. Needless to say, I haven’t done that. I
simply deleted the picture, and hopefully that puts an end to it.
It
does make me wonder, though. Had an actual person looked at my blog and
concluded that I did not have the right to use the image, or had a computer
program found it through some complex algorithm and simply labeled it a
violation? I suspect it was the latter. We are living in a rather impersonal
world, one in which some companies make a lot of money, employ a small number
of workers, and utilize complex formulas in their daily operations, What we
write is scanned and analyzed for shopping habits, interests, key words, and possible
violations of laws. Time was when someone actually had to read something to
make the claim that it had copied someone’s ideas. Now it appears companies
rely on computers for this. YouTube is even has a program that detects
background music in a video and can label it “unpostable,” without ever
considering the purpose of the video or whether it would qualify as fair use.
And
so my review of Coming Home has no
picture on it, and it’ll probably stay that way if only to serve as a reminder
of this odd event, one which highlights the mechanical world we live in and the
likelihood that it will become much more so.
No comments:
Post a Comment