TheMadScientist - 6:34 am on Apr 10, 2010 (gmt 0)
I did a Google image search on their domain name and found several of my images (with my watermark on it!). I sent them the list with the url's of my images on their server.
`(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing,
`(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or
`(iii) if upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, the service provider acts expeditiously to remove or disable access to, the material;
`(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, where the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and
`(C) in the instance of a notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.
Not sure how a DMCA complaint has to be to the letter when it is noted images are hosted on the server bearing a watermark designating other ownership, which IMO should be 'apparently infringing' to the host and means according to the above [A(ii) & A(iii)] they are required to remove them upon knowledge they are there to retain DMCA protection.
IMO The host was made aware of circumstances where infringing activity is apparent, and even if they do not know for a fact it is actual infringement they must err on the side of caution and remove the material to retain DMCA protection. IMO They were made aware infringing activity was (is) apparent and did not react as A(iii) states they must. Personally, I'd send them an e-mail with the URLs and cc an attorney...