Rusty, you should go to L-school and go get yourself a job at Cravath. You would fit in perfectly.

Now, I am flummoxed.

The problem with this thread is that Chapter 12 of the DMCA applies only to technological measures that protect a copyrighted work. It does not apply to the removal of a copyright on a photo.

Section 1201 states: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." It applies to those who attempt to remove the copy protection on CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs, and computer software. Here, no one removed a technological measure, so the chapter does not apply at all, and your sole remedies are set forth in chapters 4 and 5 of the Copyright Act.

Sorry to burst this bubble!

No worries @ bubble ... it is a point that certainly needs to be addressed. Violators will try everything to argue/exonerate their actions.

If I digitally place a watermark, logo, name etc. as a technological means to render the image not to be used by others in an unauthorized manner ... and you remove it as a means to bypass my technologically applied efforts to prevent such unauthorized usage ... it seems pretty clear to me.

Z-man, nice argument. If it were 2010. It's 2012 and someone already paid likely mid six figures to take it through the circuit court level and have the argument rejected. You want to pony up the $$$ to try in another circuit, good luck.

What is the cite?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/102163p.pdf

Your welcome.

Thank you ...

I particularly appreciate the court's ability to clarify the directness of the plain language and the separation of 1201 & 1202 to stand alone given that there is no language that binds them (which is why they were presented in separate sections ). This is a critical point that likewise applies to those who are trying to bind Chapter 12 to Chapters 4&5 without such specific language contained in the statutes to bind or make them contingent upon the other(s).

Again ... thank you very much for that link. That is the "teeth" that we need to realize that Congress (our representatives) has written law that is in our corner regarding those who remove our copyright/identity/ownership information/etc., (typically, but not conditionally) in order to hide their infringements (which is different from the infringement itself) ... and that the court can uphold it in the plain language that it was written. This is exactly what I was hoping to see from the court, including the court's analysis of how/why the defense's argument was predicated upon faulty logic of the plain language and hierarchy established by the arrangement of the statutes.

A salient point here being that the defense will try anything & everything to buffalo/persuade the court with a better argument than the plaintiff. An argument can sound viable if you allow it to be predicated upon faulty logic. It is imperative that the plaintiff be able to successfully present to the court that the defense's argument is faulty (as explained by the court's reference to plain language & hierarchy). The court will not make the argument on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must be able to do that for himself (i.e. the need for a GOOD attorney). The court can then recognize the faulty aspects of the defense's argument (as presented by the plaintiff) and not be persuaded by it.

In short, the court has told the defense ...

"Nice try, but learn how to read".