Geller certainly doesn't own the copyright - which makes it even worse (for him).
He is trying to silence any critical opinion of him.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA#Example_of_DMCA_Takedown_Provision
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by my registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed.
Uri has now perjured himself, assuming he is not the copyright owner of that video.
eff.org/legal/cases/diehl_v_crook/
Mr. Crook thought he owned all pictures of him. He was very wrong.
Section 512(f) shows the penalties.
wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65173,00.html
is the EFF winning penalties in a case against Diebold claming copyright on some documents, similar to the old Scientology trick.
eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-ip.php
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000512----000-.html
(f)
Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Thus, billable time used to take down the information, legal costs, and billable time used researching the issue to defend yourself.
The only issue is finding who owns the copyright on the image. Now, if you were using the video segment under fair use, and then showed and highlighted a part, you may or may not own that segment. I honestly don't know.
However, if one were to construct a long segment with much production, using fair use clips to illustrate a certain person's 'talents', one would certainly be the copyright owner.
Hey, kids! Let's put on a show!
(Insert standard apology about links)
Long, long, longtime lurker, by the way. Just didn't have anything to say until something I was sure I could help with came up.
Edited to add:
In cases such as this where 'we' are third parties to the case, it really is not as effective as being a first party. Standing issues. If you would like Mr. Gellar hoist by his own legal petard, it is best to be a first party.
