How Pranksters Tricked Twitter-Scraping Sites Into Copyright Infringement (fortune.com) 63
An anonymous reader shares a remarkable story from Fortune's Data Sheet newsletter:
The story begins on Dec. 3, when an artist going by @Hannahdouken on Twitter posted an image of hand-drawn text reading, "This site sells STOLEN Artwork, do NOT buy from them!" And asked followers to reply that they wanted the image on a shirt.
They were testing a theory. For years, artists posting their work online have found the art turned into t-shirts and other merch without permission or compensation. The theory was that this was being done by automated bots that combed Twitter for images with such enthusiastic replies, and then automatically created merch on sites such as Gearbubble, copthistee, and Teeshirtpublic...
Sure enough, automated bots picked up @Hannahdouken's image and placed it on t-shirts...
They report that other Twitter users then took the stunt even further, including one who "had a theory: See if he could bait the bots into copyright infringement, and just maybe, a pricey lawsuit." So they produced a drawing of a particularly sassy Mickey Mouse with the caption "This is NOT a parody. We committed copyright infringement and want to be sued by Disney."
His version of the stunt succeeded spectacularly. First, the bots came out of the woodwork, drawn by hundreds of tweets from people saying they wanted the image on a t-shirt. Then other artists repeated the trick with infringing images including Pikachu, Mario, and the Coca-Cola logo....
They were testing a theory. For years, artists posting their work online have found the art turned into t-shirts and other merch without permission or compensation. The theory was that this was being done by automated bots that combed Twitter for images with such enthusiastic replies, and then automatically created merch on sites such as Gearbubble, copthistee, and Teeshirtpublic...
Sure enough, automated bots picked up @Hannahdouken's image and placed it on t-shirts...
They report that other Twitter users then took the stunt even further, including one who "had a theory: See if he could bait the bots into copyright infringement, and just maybe, a pricey lawsuit." So they produced a drawing of a particularly sassy Mickey Mouse with the caption "This is NOT a parody. We committed copyright infringement and want to be sued by Disney."
His version of the stunt succeeded spectacularly. First, the bots came out of the woodwork, drawn by hundreds of tweets from people saying they wanted the image on a t-shirt. Then other artists repeated the trick with infringing images including Pikachu, Mario, and the Coca-Cola logo....
Should've gotten 4chan on it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Should've gotten 4chan on it (Score:4, Funny)
Site suddenly filled with gay porn, loli porn, CP, Harlequin fetus, and so on.
Thats probably why these bots scrape twitter and not 4chan.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice! Like it. Very well done. (Score:5, Insightful)
Beat them with their own weapons.
Re:Nice! Like it. Very well done. (Score:5, Interesting)
My favourite part is that a lot of the sites are in China, so a lot of people are posting copyright infringement that *also* criticizes the Chinese government's policies ;) Things like Mickey Mouse saying that the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity with respect to Uighur Muslims, and that this is the official expressed viewpoint of The Walt Disney Company.
Re:Nice! Like it. Very well done. (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't know Supreme Pooh Xi was posting AC on
Re: Nice! Like it. Very well done. (Score:2)
Re:Nice! Like it. Very well done. (Score:5, Insightful)
My favourite part is that a lot of the sites are in China, so a lot of people are posting copyright infringement that *also* criticizes the Chinese government's policies ;) Things like Mickey Mouse saying that the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity with respect to Uighur Muslims, and that this is the official expressed viewpoint of The Walt Disney Company.
The question is: "Are they selling in China as well, or just overseas?" If they sell in China then Pooh shirts seem a no brainer.
Re: (Score:3)
The question is: "Are they selling in China as well, or just overseas?" If they sell in China then Pooh shirts seem a no brainer.
A human is involved in the process somewhere. They've been warned explicitly about Winnie the Pooh. But they don't give one fuck about copyrights, so they think nothing of Mickey Mouse. And most of them don't read English, so the text means nothing to them.
Re: (Score:2)
My favourite part is that a lot of the sites are in China, so a lot of people are posting copyright infringement that *also* criticizes the Chinese government's policies ;) Things like Mickey Mouse saying that the Chinese government is committing crimes against humanity with respect to Uighur Muslims, and that this is the official expressed viewpoint of The Walt Disney Company.
They need to get a whole bunch of winnie the pooh designs going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Impressive AI (Score:4, Informative)
I am impressed that someone figured out how to automate and crowdsource the creative process. Manual artists also manage to create shit or infringe copyright so the bot is not batting a bad average
Something doesn't quite add up here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something doesn't quite add up here (Score:5, Informative)
That's the one place where the artwork isn't stolen. That's the original artist's storefront. Apparently people really did want it on a tshirt, so she gave an avenue to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't that still be copyright infringement (in the Mickey Mouse case)?
Re: (Score:2)
For Mickey, sure. I was referring just to this one redbubble storefront, which I didn't see anything else infringing in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they figure that this phrase has the potential to turn into a meme. If they are also selling the Mickey infringement shirts, then it really doesn’t add up.
Re: (Score:2)
Redbubble and TeePublic are real, legit companies. Note that the scammers use similar site names, but you can google Redbubble and TeePublic as companies and not they both have wikipedia entries detailing the companies behind them.
Finally! (Score:1)
Finally - a use for Disney!
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Applicable TV quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Colonel John Hannibal Smith: I love it when a plan comes together.
Re:Applicable TV quote (Score:4, Funny)
Is it possible to out-internet the internet? (Score:1)
Yes. This guy just showed us how. Sir, you win the internet today.
Here's the thing.... (Score:3)
Just *saying* that a work isn't satire or parody doesn't mean that it isn't, or in particular that it will not be seen as such by the copyright holder.
And unlike with trademark ownership, a copyright holder has no obligation to pursue copyright infringement at each turn. If, in their evaluation, the work does not infringe, or is otherwise defensible against a copyright infringement claim for reasons of fair use or because it is satire or parody, then it's not infringing. Full stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Also considering Disney's reliance on the Chinese market for their films, any anti-china statements with its characters is likely to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true, however in the case of Disney, they tend to be very, very heavy handed with their copyrights. I remember back in the 80's when Disney went after daycares in Florida who had Disney characters painted on their walls. Most of these were small businesses, not any sort of chain or big company. Not to mention their role in getting copyright extensions over the years.
My wife used to work for a small business (owner, 2 employees, and some pick up event help) that would do high end kids parties. They would often do "Disney" themed parties with people coming in as characters, but they would be labeled as(but not billed as to the kids/for the party) for example, "Ice Princess" for Frozen, "Glass Princess" for Cinderella, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they where stupid as Disney can't copyright Cinderella as it predates Disney by over a century. Things to be careful off are the names of the seven dwarfs because the original story does not give them names. Frozen however is an entirely new story so yeah no Anna or Elsa without paying up. Pretty much everything else Disney can go screw themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's partially true, but it's an affirmative def (Score:2)
It's true that saying "this is not a parody" doesn't make it not a parody.
However, fair use parody is a an affirmative defense. Affirmative defense is a legal term meaning you have claim it to have the benefit of it. It's harder (but not impossible) to argue that it's fair use after you've stated that it's not.
The parent mentioned "parody or satire". The two are very different in copyright law. Parody is frequently fair use, satire is not. The distinction is that a parody, such as of a song, copies the
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a timing thing (Score:2)
That's kinda the difference between an affirmative defense and a negative defense. If you have a negative defense, you didn't commit the transgression.
On the other hand, an affirmative defense such as fair use is an JUSTIFICATION or EXCUSE for having done so. It's a reason you won't be punished for having done so.
A good example of an affirmative defense is the insanity defense. They aren't arguing that they didn't commit the murder. They are arguing why they shouldn't be punished.
Let's look at the homicid
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding "self defense" is a defense against the charge of homocide, and it is that way specifically because it is *not* considered homocide to kill someone in self-defense. Obviously saying it was self defense doesn't change whether or not one has actually killed a person, but when the defense is accepted, it does change whether they had committed an act that was actually against the law.
In the case of copyright, obviously offering a fair use defense doesn't change the fact that one had l
Re: (Score:2)
Then read the 18-word law again (Score:2)
> It's my understanding "self defense" is a defense against the charge of homocide, and it is that way specifically because it is *not* considered homocide to kill someone in self-defense.
I'm not sure what else to tell you other than maybe read the 18 words of the law again. Homicide is defined in Title 5, Chapter 19:
--
"A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual."
--
That's the definition of homicide. Do you see "except
Re: (Score:2)
As I said above in my reply to myself.... I was meaning "murder", specifically.
Also, only culpable homicide is a crime. Again, self-defense means that a charge of culpable homicide is not applicable. Justifiable homicide is by definition not a crime in the first place, any more than taking money out of your own bank account is robbing a bank.
Re: (Score:2)
> As I said above in my reply to myself.... I was meaning "murder", specifically.
That's more or less what murder meant at common law, sure.
> Also, only culpable homicide is a crime. Again, self-defense means that a charge of culpable homicide is not applicable. Justifiable homicide is by definition not a crime
I guess I you want to have your own set of laws in your head, that's cool. That's not the way it works in the US or UK.
Btw here is why (Score:2)
Btw, if you do decide to write your own legal code that way, be aware you'll be writing until approximately the heat death of the universe. That's because you'd be generating the Cartesian product of the laws in the US system.
You'd be to first define murder or homicide, whichever you choose to call it:
Murder is killing another unless:
Self-defense
Defense of another
Accident
Medical / life support
Abortion
Etc etc
Battery is touching another unless:
Self-defense
Defense of another
Accident
Medical / life support
Aborti
Re: (Score:2)
My is that if one has a legitimate defense for some otherwise criminal act that somehow makes it not prosecutable, it doesn't change what they literally did, but it does mean that no law was actually broken. If you copy something, but fair use is applicable, then you actually haven't actually committed copyright infringement in the first place. Similarly, if you use a trademarked term, but nomative use happens to be applicable, then you haven't actually infringed on the trademark either.
Any cloudiness
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea. If you ever have a state of your own and implement that system, let us know.
Come to think of it, trespass helps understand (Score:2)
Come to think of it, thinking about murder gets emotions going. To understand the reason we donit this way, trespass is probably a better example.
Suppose you ran through someone's yard to get away from an attacker. We *could* try to think about that possibility and every other possibility when defining "trespassing". Obviously we'd miss some. Especially knowing who writes the laws. It's a lot easier to just say "yeah they trespassed but nobody cares because they had a darn good reason".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the trespassing example you gave would be one where a violation had occurred, but nobody cared.
But I wasn't just talking about where someone had apparently done something wrong and nobody cared. I was talking about situations where someone might appear to do something wrong but they had an objectively legitimate defense to the point that not only would they not be prosecuted, but that the criminal label is not even ultimately applicable. Whether someone happens to believe that it was wrong is irr
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, you are aware, aren't you, that the law exists independently of what you think might be a good idea? It's written down and you can read it in order to know what it says. There is no need to ponder what might be good laws, in order to understand what the law actually is.
> But I wasn't just talking about where someone had apparently done something wrong and nobody cared.
Is it wrong to run away from an ax murderer? Across somebody's yard?
> Parody is another defense for infringement.
Yes, it is. N
Re: (Score:2)
No, you haven't.... you've copied without permission, and you have a defense for why the copying was not actually infringement in the first place, even though by default it would be, and even if it may be initially *believed* that that you've infringed. This is not the same thing as trying to claim fair use, but something may still be infringing, which can certainly also happen.
Now THAT is interesting. Lenz v. Universal Music (Score:2)
You linked the statute and what you pointed out there is very interesting. The statute does not say it's a defense, it indeed says it's not infringement. So you're right, it's not infringement, under that statute. It looks like SCOTUS acknowledged that in in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
Previously, from the 1700s until 2015, the courts treated it as an affirmative defense. I like reading old cases, so I'm accustomed to reading "fair use defense". In Lenz SCOTUS ruled (actually noticed) that since the 19
Re: (Score:2)
I was, to be honest, getting tired of the back-and-forth and figured the only way you were going to believe that I wasn't making shit up is if I provided explicit links to that effect.
It's my understanding that the "fair use defense" has, since its inception, always provided an *exception* to infringement, and so effectively a defense against an *allegation* that one had infringed on copyright, not, as you apparently have read it, merely a reasonable excuse to have actually infringed which might make it
Re: (Score:2)
> it's my understanding that the "fair use defense" has, since its inception, always provided an *exception* to infringement, and so effectively a defense against an *allegation* that one had infringed on copyright, not, as you apparently have read it, merely a reasonable excuse to have actually infringed which might make it non-actionable.
Does your understanding include a distinction between affirmative defenses and negative defenses?
One well-known legal textbook explains it well in Chapter 4, Justific
Re: (Score:2)
People who might assert that "fair use" is some sort of "affirmative defense" or admission to copyright infringement, even if they are lawyers, do not change what the text of the law actually says.
That said, if the wording of the portions of copyright law that cover fair use previously suggested otherwise, then this is news to me, and I'd kinda like to know what it had previously said. I can only cite what I know, which is that for as long as I've been aware of it, fair use is an explicit *exception* t
Re: (Score:2)
> That said, if the wording of the portions of copyright law that cover fair use previously suggested otherwise, then this is news to me, and I'd kinda like to know what it had previously said.
To the best of my knowledge, it was common law (court cases) until the 1976 statute.
> Now to that end, I know that I have seen many people, including even legal professors and lawyers, who have tried to say what was said above about copyright.... that claiming "fair use" is some sort of "affirmative defense"
Inde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And unlike with trademark ownership, a copyright holder has no obligation to pursue copyright infringement at each turn.
This fact is overlooked too often, and it is really effing annoying. It's why LucasFilm can go after some uses of their IP, and still allow fans to make non-commercial Star Wars projects (same with Capcom & Megaman, SEGA and Sonic the Hedgehog, VALVe, etc)
Re: (Score:2)
No goatse? (Score:2)
Come on these guys are amateurs if they can't get the bots to pick up the goatse guy.
User generated campaign (Score:2)
How exactly did this "succeed"? (Score:1)
No legal action was taken against the bot producers, indeed they are probably selling lots of these images as novelty t-shirts and making the same profit they get from theft of legit artists.
We already knew bots were stealing content this way, nothing new was learned and nothing was accomplished to slow them down let alone stop the activity.
Surely our multi-trillion $ government is on it (Score:1)