So yesterday I found out that Randy Queen (artist of DarkChylde) filed a bunch of DMCA takedown notices to Tumblr to remove posts of his covers on this blog (the entire posts, not just the images). I’ve also gotten messages from other users that he’s had their stuff removed too (redraws, etc that have been featured here). Non-critical Tumblr posts of his art/covers and those praising his work appear to be unaffected.
I’m writing this to let other people who run sites that might have criticized his work ( thehawkeyeinitiative, bikiniarmorbattledamage, boobsdontworkthatway, repair-her-armor, comicartcorrections etc) know that he seems to use DMCA takedowns to remove pages that are critical of his work. And, to be prepared that he might have Tumblr remove your posts without warning (there was no prior communication of any kind, or conventional requests for removal).
Also, if you’ve submitted redraws of his stuff to these sites, you might want to ask them to put them private for now (if he complains about a submission you’ve made, Tumblr will count it as a complaint against your account).
To date, Mr. Queen is the only artist who has taken this kind of action - other artists and publishers seem to understand Escher Girls & other similar sites are fair use and criticism, and that fan discussion, positive or negative, is important and helpful to their business. (In fact, the creators I’ve interacted with are either fans of EG, or expressed disagreement but know that it’s fan criticism.)
If anybody is curious about what his DarkChylde art looked like and why they were featured on this blog you can find them here.
(Don’t harass him on his Facebook or Tumblr by the way. I’m not interested in having a feud with him, just letting people know what’s going on.)
Update: He has now filed a DMCA takedown with Tumblr to remove this post. This post is still up on Escher Girls, but every single reblog of it has been removed.
Marketing 101: This is not how you deal with critiques of your work, especially if there is no profit being made by the person you are filing against.
Lenz V. Universal Music: A. Fair Use and 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
When interpreting a statute, a court must begin “with the language of the statute and ask
whether Congress has spoken on the subject before [it].” Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v.
American Train Dispatchers Ass’n, 499 U.S. 117, 128 (1991). If “Congress has made its intent
clear, [the court] must give effect to that intent.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 336 (2000). Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning
of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted
The Supreme Court also has held consistently that fair use is not infringement of a work … is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. Even if Universal is correct that fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright.
4 group https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/lenz_v_universal/lenzorder082008.pdf
In the end , you look like a dick.