GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Sue or not to Sue

Morphious · 03-18-2010, 02:47 PM

Ok here is the issue / story so far.

We are a single model Asian site.

A Large top 500 site in the world is whom we have the issue with.

A "member" took one of our images and used it as their profile image.

The site then proceeded to take our image and use it in their ad rotation for 5 months.

This was seen on over 300 sites and by millions of viewers.

Their site does not tell it's users that it will or may use the images in advertisements ( TOS ).

The issue obviously is that this large site used a well know models image and used it for monetary gain.

The site does not publish it's company information anywhere. We sent DMCA notices to their DMCA notice links to have the emails bounce back. So we started to mail every email we could find, including support, and partner program emails.

Finally we got some response back from their attorney stating that they took the image out of their ad rotation. Another email got the image taken down from their caching servers.

At this point their attorney just admitted that they used our image in there add rotation!

We contacted them back letting them know this and that we expect our model licensing fee is paid the use of our image.

"If Pepsi uses Madona's song in their advertisements and she finds out about it, You can guarantee that she will get paid for it!" was my comments back to the attorney.

They came back to me stating that the copyright was not filed with the US copyright office. We know this and this is not the issue.

They also stated that they are exempt under the DCMA safe harbor provisions, and under the Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act.

I wrote back with

"
DMCA safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers.

The action to advertise using our image was *********** .com decision, Not a customer, hence they are responsible for their actions.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not cover this as well.

***********.com knowingly used the image in Advertising, Not a customer.

Therefor Francine Dee is due the licensing fee for ***********.com use of her image in their advertisements which generated ***********.com income.

You just cannot steal peoples content and use it to make money off of. "

Please let me know your comments and opinions on this issue.

03-18-2010, 02:47 PM
Morphious Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 197	Sue or not to Sue - Will leave it up to GFY. Ok here is the issue / story so far. We are a single model Asian site. A Large top 500 site in the world is whom we have the issue with. A "member" took one of our images and used it as their profile image. The site then proceeded to take our image and use it in their ad rotation for 5 months. This was seen on over 300 sites and by millions of viewers. Their site does not tell it's users that it will or may use the images in advertisements ( TOS ). The issue obviously is that this large site used a well know models image and used it for monetary gain. The site does not publish it's company information anywhere. We sent DMCA notices to their DMCA notice links to have the emails bounce back. So we started to mail every email we could find, including support, and partner program emails. Finally we got some response back from their attorney stating that they took the image out of their ad rotation. Another email got the image taken down from their caching servers. At this point their attorney just admitted that they used our image in there add rotation! We contacted them back letting them know this and that we expect our model licensing fee is paid the use of our image. "If Pepsi uses Madona's song in their advertisements and she finds out about it, You can guarantee that she will get paid for it!" was my comments back to the attorney. They came back to me stating that the copyright was not filed with the US copyright office. We know this and this is not the issue. They also stated that they are exempt under the DCMA safe harbor provisions, and under the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I wrote back with " DMCA safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. The action to advertise using our image was ********* .com decision, Not a customer, hence they are responsible for their actions. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not cover this as well. *******.com knowingly used the image in Advertising, Not a customer. Therefor Francine Dee is due the licensing fee for *******.com use of her image in their advertisements which generated *********.com income. You just cannot steal peoples content and use it to make money off of. " Please let me know your comments and opinions on this issue.