GoPro wont allow poor reviews.
GoPro have been taking legal action on anyone who does a bad review of their product.
Forcing publishers to remove articles from websites due to trademark violation of the use of the words “GoPro” and “Hero”.
GoPro want to only allow camera reviews that have been done only when they are authorized by the manufacturer.
What does this say about the company or the product they sell?
What does this say about the company or the product they sell?
It says that they will have to step up the marketing or they will go down in a ball of flames?
Been readin more on this!!!!!
http://fstoppers.com/gopro-issuing-dmca-notices-for-use-of-gopro-and-hero
NOTE: This post has been updated with an official response from GoPro. GoPro is recently gaining attention from their battle with online retailer DigitalRev. DigitalRev lashed out at GoPro for an apparent attack on their use of GoPro’s name and images in a review, but the story went deeper than that. After talking with GoPro’s team, GoPro may have had every right to issue that DMCA.
ORIGINAL STORY PUBLISHED 03/20/13 at 10:59 AM PST
A DMCA notice works with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) United States copyright law that is meant to protect different brands from being infringed upon. The general idea of it is to protect different people from using unauthorized copyrighted material for their own use. However, this is typically done with the use of copyrighted images, music or video, and not with a trademarked brand name.
This was initially brought to our attention through DigitalRev, who recently compared the latest GoPro Hero3 to Sony’s latest, the AS15. The review, posted back in January just recently received a DMCA notice from Patrick Hayes, the brand manager at GoPro requesting the review be taken down. Perhaps the strangest part of it all is that the review highly recommends the Hero3 Black edition is the clear winner between the two. The notice sent to DigitalRev is as follows.
I think there’s a little more on this than meets the eye!!!!! Apparently DigitalRev (The site that was ordered to remove its review) was reselling/advertising GoPro without Authorization?????
Dunno if there has been any other site that has been issued with the same thing?????
interesting!!
There is always more to the story than first appears 
Now can you research and find out what happened to Zahir Raihan for us please?
Word has it he was last seen operating a Kwik-E-Mart in Springfield USA!!!!!
Nobody knows to seem which Springfield it is though?????
It’s a well known action GoPro have been doing for years. Acting as controlling and conniving dictators in the industry.
They play hardball in the business world to make money with little consideration to the customer and even less to those moving the product.
Shortly after GPH3 was released Gizmodo did a poor review but changed it’s tune overnight, replacing the review with a reworded and favorable one.
GoPro have set unfair trade restrictions on GPH3, some places can’t sell certain models while others can sell the whole lineup, surf shops have different distribution lines to motobike shops which are different to skate shops.
If you have a snow/skate/surf shop your in all kinds of mess and if you trade an online store YOU CANNOT SELL GoPro!
Yet they threatened action on someone advertising their product ??
And selling it without authorisation.
The World Wide distribution manager tried to have me listed as an official seller but due to the operation restrictions couldn’t.
I sell GoPro but don’t want to advertise because of the corrupt nature of the company. Niether do I even want to sell customers their product.
It’s my dealings with the company that give me such negative feelings toward the product. A product that could be so much better for, not just the customers, but the industry.
They can’t even stand behind the product they sell.
burton reserves it’s restricted line for shops that sell the most for them. It’s also against the rules for those shops to sell restricted product online too.
Is it surprising that Gopro prefer dealers who run their advertising vs ones who don’t?
They did advertise the product.
My understanding of the story is (and similarly to Gizmodo) - they reviewed GPH3 in the negative then received a threatening letter. Instead of changing the review (as Gizmodo did) this group posted a copy of the letter to allow people to be aware that GoPro have a policy of not allowing negative reviews be written by anyone.
If a product review is authorised by the manufacturer it can hardly be called a review, it’s advertising.
Because this group aren’t authorised sellers GoPro can not harm them much more than proceeding with a futile legal battle for the use the words “GoPro” and “Hero” in a review !!!! These guys were not scared off.
In Australia Burton products have in the past been poorly dispatched. Often some stores only receive large sizings of a whole seasons gear. Everything that comes into this country comes through the same distributor. This doesn’t happen with GoPro.
Even though GoPro stated that only GPH3black Surf Edition would be sold only through surf outlets they then proceeded to give them to competing resellers and distribution agents and they increased the rrp after advertising campaigns began - after the surfshops placed the required 24unit advance orders, some only doing so in the belief they would get more traffic through their shop because they stocked GoProSurf and places like JBhifi wouldn’t.
I personally know 4 shop owners that until offered this would not sell GoPro product. Then GoPro stabbed them in the back.
Been readin more on this!!!!!
http://fstoppers.com/gopro-issuing-dmca-notices-for-use-of-gopro-and-hero
NOTE: This post has been updated with an official response from GoPro. GoPro is recently gaining attention from their battle with online retailer DigitalRev. DigitalRev lashed out at GoPro for an apparent attack on their use of GoPro’s name and images in a review, but the story went deeper than that. After talking with GoPro’s team, GoPro may have had every right to issue that DMCA.
ORIGINAL STORY PUBLISHED 03/20/13 at 10:59 AM PST
A DMCA notice works with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) United States copyright law that is meant to protect different brands from being infringed upon. The general idea of it is to protect different people from using unauthorized copyrighted material for their own use. However, this is typically done with the use of copyrighted images, music or video, and not with a trademarked brand name.
This was initially brought to our attention through DigitalRev, who recently compared the latest GoPro Hero3 to Sony’s latest, the AS15. The review, posted back in January just recently received a DMCA notice from Patrick Hayes, the brand manager at GoPro requesting the review be taken down. Perhaps the strangest part of it all is that the review highly recommends the Hero3 Black edition is the clear winner between the two. The notice sent to DigitalRev is as follows.I think there’s a little more on this than meets the eye!!!!! Apparently DigitalRev (The site that was ordered to remove its review) was reselling/advertising GoPro without Authorization?????
Dunno if there has been any other site that has been issued with the same thing?????
Then his
DigitalRev’s Concern:
Please note that this is not a correction of factual error. We understand that this is probably your own opinion and if so we totally respect it. However we believe that GoPro has absolutely no right to issue the DMCA concerned or indeed any DMCA, because there is simply no trademark or copyright infringement anywhere. If it is GoPro’s opinion that they have every right to issue that DMCA, we would definitely like to challenge that assertion in a court of law (if we can afford it that is).
And
very fact that the DMCA is handled by ISP on a “guilty until proven innocent” basis requires companies to use it with integrity. Yes you can sue for damage, but how many websites can afford suing a large corporation? It is precisely this reason that DMCA bullies exist because not many people can afford taking them to court for damage. The fact that we have received no communication at all from GoPro before been sent a DMCA via the ISP sets a very bad precedent for how larger companies should deal with third party websites
Importantly..
Phrase in Question 1:
DigitalRev lashed out at GoPro for an apparent attack on their use of GoPro’s name and images in a review
But most importantly
they’re falling victim to GoPro’s scare tactic.
GoPro continually change their approach throughout the exchanges from who the letter is meant to be toward and what the reason for the letter is and whether there is an authorised seller or not.
They sent the letter to DigitalRev Internet Service Provider not the actual website in question.
That info was before they talked to GoPro!!!!!
NOTE: This post has been updated with an official response from GoPro. GoPro is recently gaining attention from their battle with online retailer DigitalRev. DigitalRev lashed out at GoPro for an apparent attack on their use of GoPro’s name and images in a review, but the story went deeper than that. After talking with GoPro’s team, GoPro may have had every right to issue that DMCA.
And you don’t have to be a Brain Surgeon to work out that DigitalRev’s Review of the GoPro3 Black wasn’t the thing at issue, when it was chosen as the winner in the sites comparison!!!!!
the review highly recommends the Hero3 Black edition is the clear winner between the two.
They were unauthorized to sell GoPro, as per the letter that GoPro (Softlayer) sent to DigitalRev!!!!! The letter mentions absolutely nothing about any reviews!!!!!
DigitalRev are just sore losers cause they thought they could continue making money out of GoPro, when GoPro didn’t want them as an associate!!!!!