Is 10% the B& threshold on insanejournal too? LJ seeems awfully trigger-happy in general, and the TOSsing away of the whole of scans_daily was a massive overreaction. By contrast, at least in the policies on their main page, IJ seems to want to actually read and verify 17 USC 512 take down notices and the like.
At InsaneJournal we believe in freedom of expression. We will not censor content unless it obviously violates United States law and we receive an offical takedown notice. We do not self-police the site.
Emphasis mine but wording all theirs right on the main mage.
The one example of a Marveloid take-down notice I saw in the s_d fiasco was marginal at best. 17 USC 512 (c)(3)(A)(iii) has a very clear "or" in it and "single online site" is defined elswehere as (in this case) livejournal.com itself (or more appropriately imageshack and photobucket) and not the scans_daily community. The notice listed some examples of unauthorized copies of Marvel work in a way that fails on either side of the "or" conjunction, and was clearly trying to stretch what could be understood by "representative list". It would be reasonable (per 17 512 (c)(3)(B)(ii)) for LJ to have said: "sorry, you need to specify exactly what's infringing; please provide actual URLs of things which are yours, not URLs of pages which link to things which are yours". I'm hoping that's what IJ would say in similar circumstances: "we aren't the appropriate party for notices here, take it to the image hosters".
(Note though that the nontrivial number of images hosted on pics.livejournal.com, if listed in a valid take-down notice, should be suspended per the letter of the law; the discussions themselves, and the community, should never have been a target; the remedy for images hosted elsewhere is to send take-down notices to those elsewheres, not to pressure IJ or LJ or whoever to suspend the whole community or delete whole postings. If I were the target of one, I would seriously consider counter-noticing a take-down that listed a posting, even if some or all of the images embedded in the text and discussion were unauthorized copies, on the grounds that Marvel et al have no standing with respect to original text I write myself, or which my correspondents write in the comments.)
If you're a resident of ON, QC or BC. and you get a strongly worded letter, or email, from a publisher or publisher's agent, I'd be really keen on knowing how they dot their i's and cross their t's with respect to the peculiarities of copyright and fair dealing law in Canadadada, and which in-province lawyers they use (if any).
My strident claims to fair use as a fundamental right in my various comments focusing on U.S. law is even stronger with respect to Canada, and much of what I've said was actually made explicit by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 (which is reproduced here), another well-developed ruling by McLachlin CJ (my hero!) that will be referenced worldwide, and was even clearly written with that in mind (e.g. paragraphs 20 & 22). [Aside: note that the law book publisher plaintiff decided to sue the body that trains and licences lawyers and regulates the legal profession in Ontario. Brilliant idea! They're bound to be a much softer target than, say, the (much richer!) University of Toronto or Queens University, right??]
Hopefully some future majority government in Ottawa won't try to narrow fair dealing with an Act of Parliament directly or in legislation relating to an international treaty. Bev Oda (federal Minister for International Cooperation) is about the opposite to a natural ally to the sorts of things we do on scans_daily...
Lastly, a recommendation for you: Michael Geist's blog about copyright &c. in Canada. If you and rabican write down a press release, you should drop a copy on him. Your nationality and residence makes it cancon enough, I think. :-)
(Reminder: I am just a pseudonymous person on the intardnet, IANYL, and I am not in Canada. Salt to taste.)