Jordan Capri - Queen of Cute (No Copyrighted Material)

[steelydan53]

Open letter to the Mods

So jordancapri.com, owned by Lightspeed, is now on the Forbidden Subjects list:
"Added July 28 2008
jordancapri.com .... Jordan Capri"

However, in your words:
"Discussions that concern these women ARE allowed, however attachments,
links, requests and offering copyrighted content IS NOT and they WILL BE DELETED!"
I was very careful to avoid posting anything that could be considered the copyright of Lightspeed, and yet you deleted the entire thread!

Does this heavy-handed approach mean that you won't even bother to consider the contents of a post before you destroy it?

There is plenty of material out there -- images and video -- that doesn't breach Lightspeed's copyright.

1. There are photos shot by private individuals who met the model in real life, or while attending events or shows. Lightspeed does not own them. They are published on MySpace, FUBAR, etc.

2. There are photos in the private collection of Niko Bimini that he has published on MySpace. Richard Buss posts material on his Bunnyranch blog site. Both of these guys are former assocates of Steve Lightspeed.

3. Steve Lightspeed posts material for associates on the 'public' wemasters' forum, GFY. This includes individual photos, animated GIFs, free galleries and links to YouTube videos. He uses teasers and "leaks" to advertise his paysites. It's in his interest if a site like this one helps with distributing his publicity material to potential customers. He is smart enough to understand how to use "viral" distribution.

4. The home page of jordancapri is in the public domain. Links to images published there do not breach copyright, although an uploaded copy would.

It is obvious that the distribution of material 'stolen' from paysites means a loss of revenue to the site owner. We are forbidden to continue that practice, and that is understood.

On the other hand, the spreading of authorised, legally obtained, public domain publicity material can only be good for Lightspeed, as we will be doing his job for him.

What is your view on this?

[MARKK]

[

Hi steelydan53!
First that as you can see I'm not a mod, then that I agree with you.

Sometimes (or should I see most of the times?) when the board gets a complain from the copy rates owner of the material, in the rush to avoid problems the whole thread is cancelled, but then, if you start it again, so long you don’t post forbidden material the thread stays without problems. This has happened before.

So I guess that in this case or the moderator did not check if your new posts were or not copyrighted or he thought that all Jordan Capri’s pictures are owned by Lightspeed. Which is not the case-

I can not see any other reason why your new thread has disappear. But if the published material is not Lightspeed’s there’s no reason to cancel anything and if part of the material is under copy rights, then this material should be cancelled, but not the whole thread. Or this is at least my point of view.

[sackett]

Jordan Capri has been put on the Forbidden List, and her pictures deleted, for legal reasons. (remember our latest down time???)

Now...we could have gone thru the entire thread and deleted just the pics, leaving the conversations...but the con...would have b.....ather staccat....direction.



If you want to discuss Jordon Capri, you can start a new thread in the Members Section....but....NO MORE PICTURES!!!

.....until someone with more know-how on the legalities says differently.

And....IF or when Jordon Capri public domain pictures are once again allowed on our fine board...think of the fun you'll have once again posting and sharing your favorite pornstar's pictures.

In other words, there are 18,000 porn star threads, trust us, if Jordon, or any porn star's, thread disappears, it's for the good of the board.

[gryphondo]

Does this heavy-handed approach mean that you won't even bother to consider the contents of a post before you destroy it?

That's laughable. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No worth while content that is within the rules is ever indiscriminately destroyed here. Everything that is done here, be it perceived as heavy handed or otherwise, is done for the good and the health of the board and is done with careful consideration.

ThePlanet (our hosting provider) has blocked this server due to this email.
Theplanet has sent us a ticket which we didn't noticed.
That was the reason why famousboard.com was offline.

MATTHEW P. COLLINS
Attorney at Law
PO Box 191062
Atlanta, GA 31119
404-214-6070
Fax: 678-669-1518
July 19, 2008


VIA EMAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

ThePlanet Internet Services
Ms. Andrea Almeida
1333 Stemmons Fwy, Suite 110
Dalla, TX 75207


Claimant Information:

Matthew P. Collins
Attorney for Lightspeed Media Corporation
PO Box 191062
Atlanta, Georgia 31119
Telephone: 404.214.6070
Fax: 678.669.1518


RE: Images contained on the following pages:
http://www.famousboard.com/jordan-ca...,start,30.html and any pages linked from this page with more images of Jordan Capri.


Ms. Almeida:

I represent Lightspeed Media Corporation and I am writing regarding the images contained on the above referenced web pages, which are owned and copyrighted by my client. Pursuant to Federal law and under penalty of perjury, I state that the information in this claim is accurate and that I am the authorized representative of my client and that I have full authority to bring this complaint on behalf of my client, the owner of these images.

This Notice of Claimed Infringement is sent to you pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 101 et.seq. of the Copyright Act of 1976 (as amended) as well as the notification provisions contained in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 512). This notice of claimed infringement is sent to you as you are listed as the agent for copyright infringement claims.

This notice is to inform you that the images referenced above are used in an unauthorized manner and said use has not been authorized by the owner of the copyright, Lightspeed Media Corporation. Moreover, this notice is to inform you of the unlawful acts of copyright infringement being committed by the posting of these images on the above referenced web site for which you are the service provider. Moreover, my client is the copyright owner and has not given permission or authorization for the use of the images by the above referenced web site(s).

Your customer& #8192; s unauthorized use of these valuable photographic images constitutes copyright infringement, as prohibited by the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and is in direct violation with the international rights of my client. Similar conduct has been expressly forbidden by such reported federal cases as Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Fla. 1993); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, 968 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D. Tex. 1997).

Each intentional unauthorized use of an image belonging to my client subjects your customer to potential liability for statutory damages and your failure to act expeditiously to remove the copyrighted images may subject you to liability as well. Said liability, under 15 U.S.C. 504 and 505, can include up to $150,000 per work, plus any costs and attorney''s fees incurred by my client in pursuing legal recourse against you and your customer.

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately comply as follows:

1. Remove the above referenced pages where the copyright images are displayed

2. Reply to this email stating exactly what time and date the images were removed from the site.

At this time, you are on notice that your facilities are being used to infringe the copyrights of Lightspeed Media Corporation, and therefore you also risk being held liable for any further infringements by your customer.

Nothing in this letter shall be deemed to waive or limit any of the rights or remedies of my client all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Until this matter is satisfactorily resolved, we reserve the right to take such action as deemed advisable to assert our statutory right to recover damages, lost profits, attorneys'' fees, and any costs of recovery, and to otherwise take all available and reasonable steps to protect our interests, including but not limited to preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and I hope to hear from you today.

Sincerely,


/s/
Matthew P. Collins
Attorney at Law
PO Box 191062
Atlanta, GA 31119
404.214.6070
Fax: 678-669-1518

[sackett]

Echoes can be such a pain in the butt. :P

Thanx for throwing in the legalities, Gryph....I was waiting for someone with seniority(ie. OLDER) over me to post that.

I find it amusing that we delete a thread, put it on a Forbidden List, and people diss us for it. I mean, Steely Dan knows EXACTLY why it was done, and posted why it was done, and still harshes on us for it.

A)JC is on the Forbidden List. No more PICTURES. That makes it end of discussion.
B)Discuss JC all you want....just NO PICTURES.

Now....what ifs.

WHAT IF we had decided, or were allowed, to post public domain pictures of JC??

What is more logical?? Spud deletes the whole 44 pages, and we start from scratch?

Or some poor schmuck of a moderator(SPUD) has to wade thru all those posts, deleting copyrighted stuff, even sorting within individual posts?

Seems more logical to a half smart farm boy like myself that Spud's valuable time be spent moderating current stuff, and let the members repost appropriate material in a new thread. It's not like you guys don't have it all on your hard drives.

Think a little bit, guys. Don't make us do ALL the drudge work.

[/scold]

[idspud]

I was the one who moved this thread to this forum where it more properly belongs. My opinion is that she gets no thread in the Internet Model forum per the legalities - No pictures. Any discussions of her would properly be in the Chat forum IMO.

and just incidently. . . . . we Mods are not really vindictive. We strive to maintain the rules and keep the forum functioning smoothly. The good of the whole completly outweighs one single thread.

[sackett]

and just incidently. . . . . we Mods are not really vindictive.

Well....Toitle is.

[spike70]

The good of the whole completly outweighs one single thread.

A direct quote from Mr. Spocks dying peroration in Star Trek if I'm not mistaken.

[echoes]

actually, it was: "The needs of the many for needs of the few". although that could be used as a justification for bad stuff too...
any way...
i know you were joking spike but don't quote star trek & expect a trekkie not to respond.

[butler bill]

Trekkie?!??...I thought that you guys were called Starkies

[echoes]

Fuck me....is there a mod convention today.............cant remember this many mods in one thread

apparently we take full advantage when we see an opportunity to make a smartass remark, at least in my case.

[MARKK]

Fuck me....is there a mod convention today.............cant remember this many mods in one thread

apparently we take full advantage when we see an opportunity to make a smartass remark, at least in my case.

Mmmm still I've some doubts, let's say that Jordan or any other "forbidden" lady attends a convention or is present at the Oscar's ( ) ceremony or in Cannes, the journalists or just private admirers take some photos that are freely published around… we will still not be able to post those pics? Why? No Light or Slow speed could claim that there are his, or her property!

In my humble opinion when a fresh new thread is axed; the poster, in this case steelydan53 should be notified with a message about the reasons why. I would find it more correct.

And yes this looks as a mod convention. Quite depressing actually!
Nothing against you mods but what about the rest of the people????
Not anybody else with something to say?

[steelydan53]

Many thanks for the clarifications. I appreciate that you are hardworking volunteers and have a difficult legal tightrope to walk. I wasn't "dissing" anyone, and I apologise if I caused any offence.

I certainly didn't suggest that anyone should go through the original thread, which was 99.9% illegal. I was just a little annoyed, and confused, that my attempt to revive a "legal" JC thread had been stamped on immediately.

If you rule that no images of JC, or even the girl who models as JC, regardless of who owns the copyright, are permitted, then I will respect that rule.

However, if Lightspeed Media publish a gallery of images as part of their marketing of the JC paysite, am I permitted to share its URL? What about the public URLs of the images linked from that gallery? And, what if I put those URLs between "Img" tags? At what point, if any, have I breached the copyright?

Regards,
Paul

[spike70]

In my opinion we do not lose that much by banning her stuff entirely and we do not run the risk of crossing swords with this dude again.

Abse-bloody-lutely right

[Turtle]

In my opinion we do not lose that much by banning her stuff entirely and we do not run the risk of crossing swords with this dude again.

Abse-bloody-lutely right

We don't need the hassle her thread could bring, an outright ban should stand.

And why is there an ant crawling over your signature Spike?