[Keyframe]

Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

[naiv]

Copyright and trademarks don't seem to be his strength, I doubt that he licensed the pictures on http://distantfutu.re/page/team.html .. But because he grew up "in the 70s/80s", these are public domain to him.

[pbhjpbhj]

Does he need a license to use those images in Reunion (or wherever his server is)? It looks like it could be a fair-use under USC too? Styling yourself as DeNiro in Taxi Driver might even class as parodical and so be an allowed use?

But your general point in your first clause stands.

[ColinCera]

This is not fair use. No court has ever held that it's fair use to reproduce copyright images because you think they look cool, you think they're funny, you think they illustrate some point you're trying to make, etc. And using an image of DeNiro as your avatar does not even begin to approach a legally acceptable form of parody.

Just because hardly anybody ever gets sued for using copyrighted images as avatars, as humorous blog illustrations, and so on, doesn't mean that they couldn't be sued — and the copyright holder would unquestionably prevail.

[pbhjpbhj]

Using the US courts 4-factor analysis where in particular do you think this use - of a low-pixel screencap transformed as an avatar - fails?

Do you happen to know the jurisdiction applicably here, as it's behind Cloudfront the location of the servers are hidden. Clearly there's the .re domain. It might be considered that Cloudfront's proxying causes a US jurisdiction claim of infringement to be pertinent no matter where the files are hosted, but that moves rather to my point that it's not a simple analysis and so the vilification of the alleged infringer seems unwarranted at this time.

>No court has ever held that it's fair use to reproduce copyright images because you think they look cool //

Low-pixel copies of images have been allowed for various purposes. Are you saying this particular issue has been addressed by the courts, I'm not aware of it, could you post the details? Thanks.

[__P]

"Fair-use" is a legal defence, when you get sued. Just like 'self-defence' is a legal defence if you murder someone.

It does not mean you have the right. (Like in countries like Korea, or Australia, where you do have the right).

[dragonwriter]

US Copyright "Fair Use" is basically a statutory exception that closely follows the parameters of what courts found were Constitutional limits on copyright restrictions imposed by the First Amendment free speech/free press rights, so, no, despite the fact that it is procedurally a statutory exception, it also does reflect the existence of a more basic right that the statute would have no power to infringe even if it didn't encode the exception explicitly.

[pbhjpbhj]

I'm sorry but you're quite wrong. Fair Use under the USC is an exception allowing, primarily personal [but by no means exclusively], use of otherwise copyright material. Eg fair-use covers limited educational exceptions, incidental infringements (you take a photo and it happens to have a copyright protected work in that isn't the feature of the image), etc., etc..

Fair Use is a legal defence against a claim that you have tortuously infringed someone's copyright. The reason it works is because under Fair Use exceptions there is no tort committed, that is why you get off. It's _not_ the court saying "well you committed a tort against them but it was only a small one" it's the court saying that under the USC there has been no tort committed.

If someone died whilst you were defending yourself, you don't "get off" it's ajudged to be (and considered in the relevant code or statute) acceptable, you didn't murder them. If you murdered them and you win on a legal-defence of "self-defence" then there was a miscarriage of justice.

There are many good guides, http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/what-is-fai... - note in particular the penultimate para on balance. Even some commercial uses are judged "fair use" just as educational or library uses aren't always allowed. For example Google are allowed to show thousands of DeNiro images on their site under a fair use exception (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Google_Inc.).

IMO the de minimis use of single, low-pixel size, established cultural images for avatars where there is no actual commercial harm to the image maker and perceivably no commercial gain in the meets with the balanced consideration of the 4 characteristics of fair-use material.

[I've no idea where the page is hosted nor the copyright system in place in the Reunion islands (which may or may not be relevant), do they use French law, are they signatories to the Berne Convention or TRIPs???]

[__P]

Apologises, I was a bit flippant, I merely meant fair-use wasn't a 'right'. It was instead a 'defence'. Saying it was like self-defence, was incorrect. You are correct.

But my point is, it is unlike other countries where it is a right (i.e. you cannot be taken to court at all for it).

[rrrx3]

Agreed - the whole thing reads like a giant whine, to me. The author has zero concept of what he's done wrong, which is astounding to me.

[TuringTest]

The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime?

The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes? It's like learning to drive in a country where driving schools didn't exist and the full extent of traffic laws applied to you. How possibly could the author learn what he was doing wrong?

[claudius]

There was no crime (at least no criminal prosecution of one form or another) and no punishment. There was a violation of the contract the OP agreed upon and the other party decided to make use of their right and terminate that contract. That other party has no obligation whatsoever to continue to uphold the contract or not make use of the clause which allows them to exit. The other party is also under no obligation to provide someone some leeway to “learn the ropes”. Lastly, the ropes which the author failed to learn are founded in civil and criminal law, not in the ToS of the other party specifically. Since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse to violate said law, there is particularly little reason for anyone to give the OP any sort of leeway to learn obeying the law.

TL;DR: Don’t trust companies with important stuff if you are not certain to have appropriate forms of recourse if they decide in a way you don’t like. Don’t ignore civil and criminal law because they’re just “rules”. Read the terms of service if you agree to them.

[danielweber]

The majority of the post was "it's their fault that they didn't stop me!"

When his first app was suspended, Google should have given a better response when he asked what he did wrong. But to just continue forward doing the exact same thing he was doing before was asking for trouble. If Google wouldn't give him a clear answer, he should have asked his friends or the community.

[TuringTest]

According to the timeline, all the applications that got his account suspended were already in place when he got the first notice. So it's not as if he continued doing the same thing - he was sacked by inaction, and the warnings didn't contain sufficient notice that more action (removing the other applications, which hadn't got a warning yet) was required on his part.

[aceperry]

His friends consisted of "99.9% of everyone I know uses iOS", are probably contemptuous of Android. Which seems to be a common attitude amongst the apple fanbois. I don't think his friends could've helped him.

[Cthulhu_]

> The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime?

Well yeah, repeated trademark infringement / impersonation; if Google wasn't strict about that kinda thing, the owners of those brands would sue them for millions, just as much as they were with Youtube. They're similarly strict with Youtube videos for that matter.

[pbhjpbhj]

"Khan Academy TV - youtube.com/user/khanacademy"

Is that impersonation? Basically his app let you have a "bookmark" that opened a YouTube provided channel.

Sure he seems to be naive about the trademark issues (but interestingly never mentions how much money was made, if any) but Google were highly flawed in their customer service/developer relations [as usual]. The trademark issue isn't entirely clear cut (but I wouldn't want to try and defend it in court) as it's descriptive of what it is. There's an exhaustion of rights angle too - like being able to sell Nike shoes and call them Nike shoes as long as they are really from Nike. My point I suppose is it's not entirely without complexity.

Google, how hard is it to have a pro forma response that says "You can not use other business names or trademarks, which you don't have a license for, as part of your app name.".

[GFischer]

To continue your analogy, it would be more akin to selling Nike shoes in your store, and calling your store Nike Store Seller, and using Nike's logo prominently in your store.

I'm sure Nike wouldn't like that, even if you were actually selling Nike shoes.

I agree that Google wasn't exactly communicative (they never are).

[TuringTest]

Wouldn't it more like having a Nike stand in a store called Google's Play App Store, with a small sign noting "this is not an official Nike stand"? (the developers name and notice).

I understand that Nike wouldn't want the unauthorized usage, but an app is a product, not a store.

[sjs382]

>The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime?

Yes.

>The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes?

The novice mistakes were made without bad faith, I agree. This is why his first app was suspended.

The reason he was banned however, was continuing to ignore warnings. He has no concept of what he did wrong—he's not someone I would want to do business with, either.

[avz]

It's a misrepresentation to cast the account suspension as if it was a punishment for a crime.

Google has the right to terminate a business relationship with partners who violate their terms and conditions and ignore their warnings.

Developer account with Google is not a birthright. The provision of it is a business relationship conditioned on following certain rules which the author broke multiple times and despite warnings.

[nl]

How is one supposed to learn the ropes?

Maybe listen to one of the many warnings he was given?

[pbhjpbhj]

Warning, your post is in breech of my policies, the policies of HN, the law local to you or some other policy that applies due to jurisdiction that applies to the server, you, me or HN.

Please correct this error immediately or your account will be terminated. /s

[mattstocum]

He was warned. Repeatedly. What the hell else did he want? An overt act of divine intervention?

[wolfgke]

What he wanted is stated clearly in the article:

"I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information. So, I just left the app in the suspended state and never attempted to update it since I really didn’t know what I needed to change".

[rmrfrmrf]

Some developers have a serious problem with understanding that there are times when an app's problems aren't about checkboxes on an issue tracker. The entire spirit of this app is about infringing on intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the app is so basic that it provides zero value to simply bookmarking the YouTube channel in your browser. The entire concept is so terrible that he had to hide behind an appeal to emotion (i.e., "b-bu-but my kids needed it!") just to sell it.

"Maybe I'm naive" is truly the understatement of the century here. This guy credential-izes himself out the ass (developer since 1991!), yet still can't grasp the concept of copyright infringement? At a certain point, you, as an adult, need to learn to swim or stay 20ft away from large bodies of water. This guy belly-flopped right in and dropped straight to the bottom. Then, Google pulled him out and he went right for the diving board again. This guy was clearly hopeless from Google's perspective and in no way worth the trouble he would cause (assuming that this is truly naivety and not some sort of sympathy trolling). Good riddance.

[MetaCosm]

What astounds me -- I think -- is his honesty. He overstates and overestimates his value... but... he wrote it as it is.

I read his account and think he is a goddamn idiot... basically a self-indulgent, petulant child. I think it shows a profound disconnect with reality, he legitimately thought that if he told the story... people would be on his side.

I am deeply curious about his mental state... he considers himself victimize, he considers disclaimers meaningful, he really can't understand why people would take offense at his shallow, low value wrapper trading off the names and content of other people.

[tedks]

>The entire spirit of this app is about infringing on intellectual property rights.

How is this true in any sense? Adding a frame around a YouTube channel is basically an RSS reader.

The value is that you now have an icon on your home screen instead of having to go through a browser. That's valuable. I value that. I'd use that app.

[Eiriksmal]

My beef with this article is that he knew something was wrong, hence his questions basically asking, "Which of my many actions violated copyright law?" And tattles on himself when he admits everything about his "app" revolved around unfair use of others' copyrighted material: "I 'borrowed' your icon and your name when I created my 'app.' Is that wrong?"

[Dylan16807]

If you tell me I've done 'something' wrong I can make an enormous series of increasingly-tenuous possible justifications in my mind, but that doesn't mean I have any clue if I've actually done something wrong or if there was a mistake in evaluation somewhere.

[mattstocum]

And that's all well and good, until you read the rest of the chain of events leading up to that. He had an app suspended, and was given a clear reason why ("The suspension email stated that I was trying to impersonate another company, and that this was forbidden"). Whether or not he agreed with the logic is immaterial. Then a second app gets suspended for the same reason. Any sane individual would take the rest down at this point. It's clear Google considered what he was doing a violation of their rules. But he just kept on trucking a long.

God had already sent him two boats, waiting for the helicopter is the act of a mad man.

[hxw]

I have never submitted anything to Google Play, but there has to be some sort of guidelines for what you can submit and not?

Or he could have just searched the web - "(...) searching the web I find dozens of similar stories"

[tim333]

There is a guide and it's pretty clear: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...

"For example, if your app displays the brand, icon, or title from another app [...] your apps can be suspended and your developer account terminated."

[agrotera]

I was trying to feel some kind of sympathy for the guy and though that maybe the terms and conditions may have been full of jargon and hard for someone without a legal background to understand. That's about as clear as can be.

[jasonlotito]

If one person does it, it's a whine. When Airbnb or Uber does it, it's fighting back against the establishment.

Not suggesting he was right, but you can't be apart of this community without noticing these things.

[jamesbrownuhh]

Releasing an application called "Top Gear TV" is remarkably naive on its own (it's one of the BBC's biggest worldwide commercial franchises) - doing it with 10 other major properties just turned something that was only a matter of time, into an absolute inevitability.

[hoektoe]

did his apps display ads over/with the content provided by third party? Did youtube ads still play in the viewer?

Either way, don't really approve of his arguments

[icebraining]

Here's a copy of the app information, copied by some app discovering site: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c...

[danielweber]

Technically it's a very nice idea. I'd love to, say, funnel my younger son into the Schoolhouse Rock channel without him going off and watching teenagers swear at Angry Birds.

But he completely botched the execution.

[palakchokshi]

he used their logo too? That is just wrong. the OP seems like a naive developer who doesn't grasp even the basics of trademarks and if he does then he has complete disregard for them and should be banned for life.

[Renaud]

On top of that, you can only use a .re TLD if you are a EU citizen or a company that resides in the EU...

http://www.afnic.fr/en/products-and-services/the-re-tld/

[cookiecaper]

This is pretty unfair. It's super common to get country TLDs just because they make your service or site sound cooler. I think it's well-accepted that such rules are meaningless at this point.

[Renaud]

They shouldn't be. When we registered a .re TLD we were asked to provide a business license to prove that the business in question was local. Desirable local TLDs get taken by squatters and opening them to the world at large dilutes the meaningfulness and availability of that TLD to local businesses who need the recognition.

[ryan-c]

There are companies that will set up a local shell company for you to own whatever TLD you want.

[Loque]

From that website; http://distantfutu.re/page/team.html

Two Founders, Two PR people and One Engineer....

Good structure :¬P

[jbigelow76]

You'd think at least one of the PR people could have handled this fiasco. This would be their time to shine!

[Anderkent]

>I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Well, yeah, that's the point of the article. That google never made it clear what he did wrong, so that he could fix it.

[wolfgke]

> I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Google not making it entirely clear in their hellbanning email what he did wrong makes the hellbanning double unfair in my opinion.

[Someone1234]

They did make it clear and it is in the developer agreement the OP agreed to when signing up.

https://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html

> Impersonation or Deceptive Behavior: Don't pretend to be someone else, and don't represent that your app is authorized by or produced by another company or organization if that is not the case. Products or the ads they contain also must not mimic functionality or warnings from the operating system or other apps. Products must not contain false or misleading information in any content, title, icon, description, or screenshots. Developers must not divert users or provide links to any other site that mimics or passes itself off as another app or service. Apps must not have names or icons that appear confusingly similar to existing products, or to apps supplied with the device (such as Camera, Gallery or Messaging).

The OP's apps clearly violate the "title, icon" provisions above. Google even sent him an email about it listing the exact reason in the email, but yet that too is still not enough?

What is it people in this thread want? Do Google personally need to go around OP's house, sit him down, and explain through the developer agreement line by line?