They aren't trying to squat on the name. They wanted to remove copies of their own photographs and picked the cheapest lawyer they could find, who proceeded to blast out bullshit notices in their clients' names. Likely because anyone more competent would be entirely outside their budget.
If there is anything to learn here, it's that...
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because there are zero protections for false claims (tell me what I don't already know), and,
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because the cost to actually find, takedown, and potentially prosecute infringements of your work is astronomical.
It is a law that makes everyone miserable, except Google, who gets to push papers around and wash their hands of everything.
The thing is, even the media cartels hate this system, because it requires they go and manually hunt infringement. They don't want to pay that cost. They want something like YouTube's Content ID where they send one notice and all the platforms do what they say (or perish). That's why there was such a big push for yesterdecade's SOPA/PIPA and today's EUCD Article 17.
It somewhat encourages companies to act this way by making it the safest path, but it absolutely does not force them to. Service providers are not required to act on invalid dmca requests.
Consider wikipedia which regularly rejects most [1] of the dmca notices it gets because it cares enough to actually read them and ignore the ones that are bullshit.
It’s almost as if US legal systems actively facilitate cultural appropriation, particularly with DMCA generally being applied by brute force. Using US copyright law to protect an influencer’s appropriation of a 3000 year old name to market their narcissism is exactly a case of that.
Not as if it’s a unique name either. Artëm is common for men in Russia and Ukraine.
It facilitates the violation of human rights. It created a system that does more to harm speech than it does to protect it's proliferation. The large corporations who profit the most from this "law" are the least in need of it's protections and it's bizarre that they're entitled to raise the specter of FBI investigated criminal penalties for what should be a civil matter.
The cultural appropriation, to the extent that it does occur, is simply profitable within this framework. It's more like cultural maceration, the guts are thrown away, and the brightly colored chitin is all that remains.
> an influencer’s appropriation of a 3000 year old name
Most of the results for "artemis onlyfans/instagram" are Caucasian. Meaning it is overwhelmingly likely that the model in question is a descendant, at least in part, of literal Artemis worshiping pagans, and is thus not committing any appropriation.
That is a good idea for a perception campaign against this kind of practice. Calling it "Cultural Appropriation" might trigger more people on the progressive side to get involved...
If there is anything to learn here, it's that...
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because there are zero protections for false claims (tell me what I don't already know), and,
- DMCA 512 is wholly inadequate for creators because the cost to actually find, takedown, and potentially prosecute infringements of your work is astronomical.
It is a law that makes everyone miserable, except Google, who gets to push papers around and wash their hands of everything.