After I published that post, I got this in my e-mail:
It is a DMCA asking me to take down this image:
So, yes – a lawyer sent me a DMCA concerning a screen-shot image that she screen-shotted off the SPLC site. She did add some commentary to it, which could be seen as her creating a new work. As she calls it, the image is a “mock graphic”.
Intellectual Property (IP) law is really interesting that way.
However, since I was making commentary on the image, and not simply using it in place of an image that I would have to otherwise produce myself or pay for – the spirit and letter of the law is on my side.
But what makes this really insidious in my mind is that Gender Identity Watch and related sites (such as Name the Problem) re-publish others’ written material and images all the time.
You know – including pictures of smiling me!
This was most likely taken off my twitter – but could have also been taken from my facebook (before I reset my privacy settings after GIW linked it on their site) or my author page on Amazon. I quite like the picture, actually.
To me, this is just no big deal – unfortunately, for others, GIW posting pictures along side personal information can be devastating.
I highly doubt it would make sense to file DMCA notices concerning the pictures she plasters all over her site even though she does not own them. Just as the law protects me using screenshots and quotes of her shenanigans that I (and others) use to criticize her and her ideas; it gives her a level of protection against legal action when she uses those images and information to intimidate others.
Of the little I know of IP law, it is sort of a mixed bag that doesn’t always make a lot of sense. However, make no mistake, IP law is about protecting the financial interests of businesses who deal in intellectual property. It generally does not provide protections against miss-attribution or using someone’s personal image or identity or even ideas.