That is cheeky. I wonder if they have done the same with the other titles they have recently added.
Man and a Colt / Un hombre y un colt (Tulio Demicheli, 1967)
Man and a Colt / Un hombre y un colt (Tulio Demicheli, 1967)
OK so I just checked and am answering my own question here. They have copied and pasted synopses from our pages for every one I just checked. (California, Hole in the Forehead and Black Jack). I can only assume they have done the same with all of them. Were you aware of this Seb?
Ha! So they’re basically using ENNIOO’s opinion as a synopsis?
Ha, ha I own the copyright on that…I want my cash
No I wasn’t. Damn. Ok $$$ time I am contacting them
Update: I submitted one copyright complaint to see what happens. I want them to either remove all texts that violate our/your copyright, or they need to pay us. I have a good lawyer for these things I will activate if they do not comply.
I like Amazon but this is ridiculous
In all seriousness I am contacting a lawyer. We also need an SEO/reputation expert give us an assessment as to whether them using our texts hurts us (possibly because google might think we copied it from them). And we might have to collect some legal money if Amazon won’t easily admit thwir wrongdoing
I think you are right to get legal advice. Even if no actual harm to our reputation it must be a simple infringement of copyright. 26 plus cases of copy and paste is flat out plagiarism. If nothing else they should cite their source and give us some publicity/link/kickback on views. Hopefully you can come to some mutually beneficial agreement whereby they can use our expertise and we can gain something reasonable in return.
It’s possible the infringement was done by whoever is submitting these titles to Amazon as the streaming rights holders (or should I say supposed streaming rights holders?).
I think it may even be more probable that this is the case. For example, the Blue Underground releases, such as Mannaja, have synopsis text taken from the back of the BU dvd/blu-rays, usually edited to exclude parenthetical info.
That info I think was provided by BU when submitted for streaming, rather than taken from IMDB or SWDB. It’s not even what is submitted to the DVD release page, so I don’t think it was ported over from the dvd page on Amazon.
Yeh - i’d imagine it’s like YouTube where Google turns a blind-eye until someone complains and then they block it.
It’s possible, but in any case that’s their problem to sort out. First I’m gonna get a lawyer’s take on this situation and then I will report back
fwiw, IMDB has the same synopsis listed for Man and a Colt, that’s the only one I’ve seen so far that also takes from SWDB.
Ok so first we should be absolutely sure that it wasn’t us who took it from them!
Actually it is not the first time that such things happened. Weren’t there already DVDs which used on their cover stuff from this site, or from the German Dirty Pictures forum?
I’m, pretty sure this happened before, but I don’t remember the details.
There are Thai dvd’s that copy the description on the back verbatim from swdb. Those dvd’s themselves are also bootlegs, btw. Also Australian dvd’s, if I reme correctly.
YouTube doesn’t turn a blind eye to that. If you upload something copyrighted, it’s usually monetized by the rights holder.
But really, should we be worried about this. It’s not like there’s any damage. I make vaporwave, btw, so I ‘borrow’ a lot of stuff
No you are right. First however, let us make 100% sure that we werent the ones copyin the synopses textx from somewhere else first
I think we’ve gotten rid of the Weisser stuff, but there are still some texts from sites like All Movie (not sure if they are still around?), Most of these have been altered though. A lot of the original synopses that were copied from other sources have been replaced by Sherp, Phil, myself and others, but some may remain.
Amazon owns IMDB so somebody might submit the synopsis to IMDB first and Amazon takes it from there. And if you submit anything to IMDB you give them the rights to use it in any way they wish. Obviously you can’t give rights to what you don’t own in the first place but IMDB doesn’t know that and I guess they can get away with it
_If you do post content or submit material, and unless we indicate _
_otherwise, you grant IMDb a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, _
_irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, _
adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and
** display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant IMDb **
_and its sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in _
_connection with such content, if they choose. You represent and warrant _
_that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that _
_you post; that the content is accurate; that use of the content you _
_supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any _
_person or entity; and that you will indemnify IMDb for all claims _
_resulting from content you supply. IMDb has the right but not the _
_obligation to monitor and edit or remove any activity or content. IMDb _
_takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted _
by you or any third party.
as long as they agree to remove the information if demanded in certain way… http://www.imdb.com/copyright_agent
I would think Google is intelligent enough to know where the content came in the first place. Well, at least maybe if the site the content originated from is big enough and had actually been indexed before the copy of the same information.
But I guess smaller unknown sites might basically get annihilated… I have one database type of site which I’m pretty sure was the first in the world to have all the information that was on it, including the photos and posters and then someone else copied it and now at least all the image searches point only to that other site.
Then again Amazon & IMDB are somewhat big sites compared to SWDB… and Google does quite suck in some ways…
So at least I finally have a recommendation for a lawyer who has tussled with Amazon before.
We still need a bullet proof list of texts where it is beyond doubt that we wrote them and they copied them. @Phil_H emailed me a preliminary check but that is not yet something i could forward to a law firm for an initial review