Godaddy Applies Chilling Effects On Twitter Embed Feature (FEAT: TRACY PARK)

To the DMCA abuser, that wishes to apply chilling effects to free speech.  Twitter has an embed feature, check out the following image: twitter-embed Here is an example of what that plain text code looks like:

 <blockquote><p>Parkland Institute Promotes Derrick Jensen <a href=”″></a></p>&mdash; xtofury (@fiXX_Revolution) <a href=”″>October 23, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src=”//” charset=”utf-8″></script>

When you click on embed you are given some plain text code.  Images, if there are any, are hosted on twitter. Behold the frivolous DMCA complaint:

Copyright Claims Department GoDaddy ——–ORIGINAL NOTE———– Subject:Subject: Notice of infringement: Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:22:41 -0700 The following is a copyright infringement notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Canadian Copyright Act. This is the second notice of infringement against this website. I appreciate your prompt response. Site that infringed copyright: Copyrighted image file location: Embedded (third paragraph from top) Page that contains the infringing use: Original photo on the copyright holder’s website: Image name: Zoe Blunt by Ellen Atkin Description: The copyrighted photo is my Twitter avatar and the owner of does not have permission to publish it. The image is a portrait with a leafy dappled background. Photo taken August 4 2013 by Ellen Atkin. Exclusive rights purchased from Atkin by Tracie Park on August 7 2013. Additional details: Ryan Elson, the owner of the website at, is a serial copyright infringer. He is a defendant in the Supreme Court of BC over his repeated misuse of my work on wordpress<dot>com. This new infringement will be noted by the court. Below, please find links to the Notice of Civil Action in the case of Tracie Park vs. Ryan Elson, BC Supreme Court 12-4008. Notice of Civil Action page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 I have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I affirm, under penalty of perjury, that I own and hold copyright to this image, and that these statements are true and accurate. Signed Tracie Park Electronic signature of the copyright owner, or a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive copyright that has allegedly been infringed. Date signed: September 19, 2013 Address for service Robin Gage, Underhill Boies Parker Law 816-1175 Douglas Street Victoria, BC V8W 2E1 Phone: 250-813-3569 Email:

Have a look at what else this malicious person does which (in my opinion) is frivolous and vexatious.  Rather than address the argument with anything factual, chilling effects are evidently exploited – to shut down debate and make it one sided. It’s pretty simple when you look at Canadian law that people are allowed to do research online without worry of such copyright complaints, have a look at the case law established with CCH vs. Upper Canada Law.  Specifically the following:

Fair dealing

The third issue dealt with the scope of “fair dealing” and more specifically what constitutes “research” under s. 29 of the Copyright Act. McLachlin noted that fair dealing was to be regarded as an “integral part” of the Copyright Act rather than “simply a defence”. The fair dealing exceptions were characterized as a user right, and must be balanced against the rights of copyright owners.[17] When claiming “fair dealing” the defendant must show that 1) the dealing was for the purpose of either research or private study and that 2) it was fair.[18] In interpreting “research” the Court stated that it “must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained.”[19] Consequently, it is not limited to private and non-commercial contexts. Therefore, the library made the copies for research purposes.

In the United States, the law is also fairly clear on the issues involved:

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.

US copyright law does not apply, since the court where the case was filed is Canadian, and both parties are Canadian, the jurisdiction is evidently Canadian. Tracy Park likes to use big words such as “exclusive rights”, etc.  Here’s an example of embed in action regarding US law. Here is godaddy’s response:

Discussion Notes
Support Staff Response
Dear Sir or Madam,Thank you for your response. As a website hosting provider, we are required by law to disable access to hosted sites upon receipt of a complete copyright complaint.GoDaddy’s Trademark and Copyright Infringement Policy can be found at the following URL: you wish to re-activate the site on our servers, the following 2 options are available.Option 1:———Remove the content that is the subject of the copyright complaint.In order to reactivate the site in question we will need you to provide the following information in a single email response:A. An electronic signature. (This can be a scanned copy of your physical signature, or as simple as typing your full name.) B. Identification of the material in question. C. A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the material has either been removed or promptly will be removed.Option 2:———Complete a counter notification.Submit a complete counter notification regarding the works in question in accordance with our Copyright Infringement policy. You will need to reply via email and include all of the following elements:A. An electronic signature. (This can be a scanned copy of your physical signature, or as simple as typing your full name.) B. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled. C. A statement under penalty of perjury that you have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled. D. Your name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the judicial district of Arizona, or if your address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which GoDaddy may be found, and that you will accept service of process from the Complaining Party or an agent of such Party.Please note that by submitting a counter notification your hosting services will be suspended for 10 business days per the Counter Notification Policy. understand that the very nature of these situations often involve a dispute over the content and/or the underlying infringement claim. As a web hosting provider, it is not our position to act as the arbiter of intellectual property disputes or to judge who is right or wrong in a claim of infringement. Please let us know which option you decide to pursue via email to We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you, Copyright Department GoDaddy
Customer Inquiry

If I really must remove it then please send me an email (confirming this for my own records), then call me.  I also contacted customer service immediately to have them put a note on my account.  She is bound by the twitter terms of service and therefore has to comply with twitters features.  Simple as that.


Ryan E”

Having no other choice but to be victim of Godaddy’s chilling effects, I decided to remove the image, contact the electronic frontier foundation, and let other people in media know what is going on. I will also be contacting twitter to report on the terms of service violation as the @blunt1 account is Tracy Park’s (here’s proof): proof-twitter-is-tracy-parks I recorded the phone conversations with Godaddy customer support as well:   Here’s a message I left with the Electronic Frontier Foundation:


I also ran into this glitch (yeah right) over twitter: direct-message-twitter It seems there’s a problem with social media centralization, the chilling effects applied to free speech are absolutely ruthless. Thank you so very much EFF for the quick reply:

Hi Ryan – Dave Maass here from the Electronic Frontier Foundaiton. I do media relations. Your situation sounds very, very interesting and I’d like you to email staff attorney Mitch Stoltz at to set up a time to talk next week. First though, I need to explain the process here. I understand you are looking to write a story but are also seeking legal assistance. Those are two different processes for us and it would probably not be appropriate to talk to you for your story and to give you legal advice at the same time. So, when you talk to Mitch keep that in mind. He can explain further. Dave

I very much appreciate it (and don’t worry, I will only publish in the capacity as a journalist from now on if I am told that the reply that I am receiving is for that purpose) :) Either way this stems from an ongoing issue which I have documented extensively  on this website. Just in case this site is temporarily brought down, I have downloaded the entire site and will be setting up a mirror on  I have been offered hosting services by a Free speech advocate who is a fan of my content, and also located in another Jurisdiction — Just in case.

One thought on “Godaddy Applies Chilling Effects On Twitter Embed Feature (FEAT: TRACY PARK)

  1. Time to sue Go Daddy into web hell I think.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

five × = 5

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>