So, as it turns out, maybe it doesn’t really pay to take the high road. Then, less than ten minutes later, Disney sent another DMCA takedown notice, had Facebook remove the post, and had the man who uploaded banned from Facebook for three days. Disney wrote them back telling them it would be okay, and they put the picture back up with permission, telling their followers that it just went to show that “it pays to take the high road.” The couple who ran the fan group, though, took a diplomatic approach and politely asked Disney for permission to put the picture back up. One pointed out, “It’s not unreleased if you can walk into Walmart and buy the damn toy!” while the Electronic Frontier Foundation had their lawyers weigh in to point out that Disney absolutely did not have the legal right to ask them to take the picture down. They put through a complaint accusing them of leaking an unreleased product, thereby saving the world from the horrors of finding out what a children’s toy looks like slightly before the scheduled release date.įans weren’t thrilled. Disney didn’t want anyone to know what it looked like until it came out. The action figure he’d bought, it turned out, wasn’t supposed to go on sale until the next day. (Note: The image above is not the photograph in question.) And, to his surprise, he nearly got the whole Facebook group sued. In 2015, a member of a Star Wars fan group on Facebook bought a Rey action figure at Walmart, took a picture of it, and put it up on the site. Another YouTube user got a copyright claim from the record label Rumblefish because a bird’s chirps in the background of his video sounded a bit too much like one of their songs.ĩ A Photograph Of A Star Wars Action Figure That was a pretty big deal for Digihaven, because that meant that he couldn’t make money off of uploading YouTube videos anymore-which, as hard as it is for those of us who are over 30 to believe, is a legitimate way that people make money these days.ĭigihaven’s case was sorted out pretty well as soon as it hit the news, but he’s hardly the only person to get in legal trouble for animal noises. It’s not entirely clear why EMI Music or YouTube’s algorithms became convinced that a purring cat sounded like the dance hit of the summer, but they were confident enough about it that they immediately pulled the video off of their website and demonetized his entire channel. EMI Music had filed a formal complaint against him for plagiarizing one of their songs-which must have been a strange song because the video was a just an hour-long looped clip of Digihaven’s cat purring, which he’d uploaded the previous year.

A YouTube user got a letter from the video site in 2015, telling him that one of his uploads was being removed.

Angry birds 2 claim your gem letter