Google has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA), that some of your webpages allegedly infringe upon the
copyrights of others. The URLs of the allegedly infringing webpages may be
found at the end of this message. The notice that we received, with any personally
identifying information removed, may be found at http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1186
Please note that it may take several weeks for the notice to be posted on
the above page. For this reason, we have attached a copy of the notice for
your reference.
The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for online
service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. We are in the
process of removing from our Google Web Search results the webpages that allegedly
infringe upon the copyrights of others. If we did not do so, we would be subject
to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits. See http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=254 for
more information about the DMCA, and see http://www.google.com/dmca.html for
the process that Google requires in order to make a DMCA complaint.
Google can reinstate these webpages into its web search results upon receipt
of a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of the DMCA.
For more information about the requirements of a counter notification, and
a link to a sample counter notification, see http://www.google.com/dmca.html#counter
If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your
own legal counsel. If you have any other questions about this notification,
please let us know.
The affected URLs are listed below: http://www.achart.ca/york/scenes.htm
http://www.achart.ca/york/headmaster.htm
The Google Team
Attached notice: The copyright work at issue is the page of photographs
that appear on http://www.achart.ca highlighted on the page and marked in
the list of items on that page dated 1950 Scenes from school life. I have
asked the webmaster to remove this page from his website but he refuses,
having put it there without my permission although he states in the first
sentence that I have done so. He has not produced any proof that I gave
him permission. The photograph (sic) on that page are my copyright. The
only way he will remove them is if I pay 300 Canadian dollars. I am not
prepared to do that. A colleague of his telephoned him and asked him to
cooperate because I had given him much information for the previous page
of text called "1949 A headmaster's
life at the school" which I sent him on behalf of my husband who has
poor eyesight and cannot read now. He is nearly 93. That page is copyrighted
with a colophon but this man did not add a colophon to my page when he
put it on his website without my permission. If I had wished to do (sic)
have it posted on his website I would have added a colophon to make sure
it was copyrighted, too.
I may add that I was informed about the comments he made about me on that
telephone call which were extremely unpleasant and very abusive but, of course,
I was not able to overhear them myself.
I enclose the obligatory passages you require in your message to me although
I am resident in the United Kingdom and the website concerned is in Canada. "I
have in good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above
on the allegedly infringing webpages is not authorised by the copyright owner,
its agent or the law. I swear under penalty of perjury consistent with the
United States Code Title 17, Section 512, that the information in the notification
Is (sic) accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorised to act
on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed." (Mrs)
Vera Low [Signed]
This submission is in response to Google copyright complaint #52615532 dated
3 April 2006. In accordance with advice of legal counsel, the writer of this
response has no intention of filing a counter claim. Instead, this rebuttal
is offered without prejudice.
The alleged infringement of copyright as defined in the complainant's statement
of complaint is without foundation in fact. Be it noted that the complainant
makes reference only to the photographs appearing at URL http://www.achart.ca/york/scenes.htm,
not to http://www.achart.ca/york/headmaster.htm.
The facts of the case are as herein stated.
1. On the complainant's sole initiative, an exchange of correspondence
between the complainant and this writer began in the fall of 2005.
The exchange resulted in the complainant agreeing to facilitate the
answering of questions addressed to said complainant's spouse, a former
headmaster and educationist. In the opinion and experience of this writer
(see Item 6 following), the answers provided to questions asked and
all subsequent information provided constitute an interview over which
the complainant can exercise no copyright ownership.
2. The complainant provided all photographic images to illustrate
the writing project to which the complainant was privy and fully involved.
In the communication following, the complainant freely acknowledges
the provenance of the photographs to which copyright ownership is now
claimed and which is central to the complainant's objection, viz,
From: Vera Lowe [mailto:v.lowe@btinternet.com]
Sent: October 29, 2005 6:58 PM
To: 'A. W. Cockerill'
Subject: RE: Photographs etc. etc.
I am busy with the photographs and will put
them in one folder if that would be useful. There are about a dozen
but you could choose those you want because a few are very similar.
They are press photos, I have to say, so whether it is a problem with copyright, I am not sure,
but the UK ones are War Office press and the Paris ones are French press.
[Italics added.] One might get away with that!! (Vera Lowe).
Comment: The contradiction between the above
passage and the claimant's declaration of copyright ownership is obvious,
unethical in its significance and verging on the deceitful. War Office
press photographs are available to the public. Physical ownership of
War Office press photographs does not constitute ownership of copyright
by the holder. Further, the complainant's statement '...you could choose
those you want...' confirmed agreement to unrestricted use of the images.
3. The distinctive emblem or colophon of which the complainant
writes is not the complainant's provenance. To the contrary, the colophon
is this writer's creation and, therefore, ownership. The complainant's
help is acknowledged in both pieces. The articles are no different from
those published in any information medium and, as such, copyright ownership
of 'distinctive emblem' and presentation are vested in the creator.
4. The 'removal fee', which is non-sequitar to the grievance,
is legitimate compensation for the time spent in creating and posting
the material in question and was set to dissuade this complainant from
constant carping.
5. As equally divorced from the case as the removal fee, but germane
to the nuisance caused, is the complainant's self-confessed and unfortunate
history of tetchiness towards editors in the handling of material submitted
to them for publication. Such statements as "We are not in the business
of seeking publicity for self-glorification. It may be old-fashioned but we
are the sort of people that like to acknowledge other people’s contributions
to a cause as well as our own" betray the same attitude as the
missionary Dr. Albert Schweitzer whose penchant for 'backing into the
limelight' was a matter of public notice.
6. As to my credentials as a writer and editor, please see the
attached. Having conducted head of state interviews (see, http://www.achart.ca/publications/interview.html)
one is very well aware of the provisions of the International Copyright
Convention of which the U.S.A., Canada and the United Kingdom are signatories.
This writer contends that the concerns of this complainant are in the
nuisance category. Further, the complainant was advised that a letter
written in French could not be published because its copyright was owned
by the writer or the writer's heirs, which demonstrates the exercise
of editorial judgement.
7. The www has much in common with other forms of information
media: books, journals, newspapers. Correspondents are well aware that
anything communicated to the media is subject to publication. Visitors
to the website in question, http://www.achart.ca website, are advised
to this effect.
The writer has no objection to Google sharing this response with the
complainant. It will in any case be posted in the regular correspondence
feature of the website. One hereby affirms that the subject pages of
the complaint are the writer's copyright ownership as well as in the
public domain for use by others with the usual courtesy of attribution.
