XXXCash is going to get all their celeb affiliates SUED. HEAD'S UP!

You better get a legal opinion right away and your attitude is atrocious.

if respecting the intellectual property rights of others is weird then so be it

I have legal council at my disposal, but thanks for your concern

you should indemnify your affiliates and post a bond just in case

respecting intellectual property rights is good ..

but it starts getting weird because you are running hotelheiress .. you wouldn't have started this drama if you wouldn't run this site ..

Personally I don't care , I would never touch a celebrity site ..

You are truly an IDIOT

hah, lucky for me im not posting in this thread!

edit: darn

ok- let's get xxxlaw, or any other lawyers opinions in here. also, any victims of allison williams suits - please chime in. we know how krosh and i feel.

ok- so let's dissect this statement for a second. punker comes in and spams people to promote paris traffic with their site that uses stolen images in a thread. that is not weird?

Who's Allison Williams?
WG

the former miss west virginia and news reporter who had the video get out of her getting naughty in the news van.

the question is not if those images are stolen but if it is legal or not to promote them ..

even if t-mobile's lawyer send out a c&d still a court has to decide if it's legal or not .. the c&d just represents their personal impression that it is illegal .. I couldn't find a verdict that they are refering to in the c&d ..

you are of the opinion that it's illegal , their lawyers are but xxxcash's lawyer are not ..

gfy lawyers stand up and comment por favor.

again- if xxxcash can prove not that they can fight a war to win - or that their affiliates can fight and win if they get named, but that they have documentation authorizing them - then i will retract immediately.

btw,

I am not very updated on this but did paris hilton sue t-mobile because it was so damn easy to get into the system ?

not to my knowledge.

any ladies want to have discreet sex in San Diego?

did you know that there is enough sperm in pre jac to get a women pregnant?

"men are like basketball players, we dribble before we shoot"

*quietly watches drama unfold*



... *posts about said quietness*


:D

methinks there could have been better ways to discuss this issue without tarnishing TWO reputations.

this is not the first time xxxcash has overstepped. again, if we saved anyone from getting named down the road then it was worth it.

i have posted facts and evidence

xxxcash has posted threats and insults. Their fans have backed them- it does not change reality.

if any XXXCash affiliates have questions or concerns please feel free to it me up! im here to assist! lets continue making $$$

XOXO
-PB

icq 205866516
602 953-6000 ext 209
punkerbarbie at XXXCash dot com

why not publicly state that you have a licensing deal in place for the tmobile pics?

popcorn???

we are all so scured of big bad american lawsuits

you do not need to be if you can trust your sponsors will not put you at risk.

OK, I was reading both threads and I see lot's of bashing going on. I like both XXXCash and XPays, I'm not taking side on who's right and who's wrong, but from where I'm reading it appears that if Evan has the only legal pics and video of Paris on the Internet (sex related) and a competitor takes pics that aren't theirs, from a hacked cell phone, then Evan puts XXXCash and their affiliates on warning that TMobile is ready to come after people for those images, then why is Evan the bad guy in all of this? Because he wants to be the only place that has legal pics, isn't that his right?

Has XXXCash ever said they have the rights to those images they were using? Are they still using those pics? I'm reading this letter from TMobile and it basically says what Evan is saying, so unless there is some sort of proof that XXXcash has rights for those images then it appears that Evan is just looking out for other webmasters and XXXcash.

Is the the approach that Evan took that makes him the bad guy here?

If a mistake happened and XXXCash put pics up that were from a hacked cell phone and in this case it appears no one owns the rights, then shouldn't XXXCash make a statement like, we've removed those images and we encourage our resellers to take them down as well? I'm just trying to sort through the name calling to see what the real deal is.

So does XXXCash put their affiliates at risk with this, has the images been removed? I just don't like reading the name calling and the fluff inbetween who's right and who's wrong. So what's the answer here?

I remember when TrafficCashGold made a statement and put all of their affiliates on notice, shows that they made a mistake and took care of the situation, didn't put their affiliates at risk.

So I know this has happened in the past and Evan was right on that. Even though people chose to bash him, he was right.

this has happened along with many other things with other sponsors including, mrskin, flashcash, and previously xxxcash too. all of those were handled privately and amicably.

Technically who ever took those photos owns them LOL.
I am willing to bet XXXCaSH did not take the photos.

Oh damn I remember that...

That was when I began to like Evan.

Everyone shredded on em but he was right.

ok, so now after the reflex responses - do you all see my point?

Here's the site and the pics.

http://femalecelebrities.com/

I see the pics are still up so I'm assuming they own the rights otherwise I couldn't image why they'd use those pics.

But I haven't heard them say they own the rights.

I have seen name calling but no answer.

note to self....NEVER let this man know ANYTHING that I don't want people to know. The memory is like an elephant.

I wanna sue 2

What memory, Evan has never touched coke or snorted anything up his nose in his life. Smoking a doobie in Jamaica is far from snorting coke.

hehe i have that video LMAO

Brad I can perfectly see why Evan wants them photos.
He aint saying just take em down, he wants consolidate the content.

He aint here just to round up the sales he wants the photos for his network.
Evans already in with the Hilton Clan anyways...

So...
Where is the wind blowing on that?

End Game Evan will get em.
Legally in time and most likely by that time millions of people will not have seen them so there is market share at stake.

Just my 2cent prediction.

krosh wants to beat me up

ok- so here is how you can look cool and leave me still looking like a jerk-

remove all of your infringing images and notify your peeps.

or

post proof you have your ducks in a row.

Xpays, you are just soo jealous you will have competition for all the paris hilton traffic, I have friends that were pushing you and they switched links to these guys and it is already selling better.

total proof of unfair competition. if they had rights to anything they are using then it would be acceptable. they could setup a real dvd store for example and be cool, otherwise they are profiting commercially from stolen and infringing content. this is open and shut!

can i please have a pass to see the angelina jolie movie? she is my favorite. i will love you for along time. i um forgot my credit card when i went to get potato chips at the store.

thumbs up

thats it, im gonna screw all your asses!!

uhm i mean sue

Not that I feel the need to answer to anyone, but since you question the validity of XXXcash sites, here's a statement from our attorney.

I'm off to have a beer!!!

-------------------------


1. Does XXXCASH?s use of celebrity images violate California Civil Code Section 3344?

Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(a) sets forth the statutory right of publicity to a person?s ?name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness? and imposes liability where the use is knowing, for the purpose of ?advertising or selling? and is ?without the person?s prior consent?. Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(d) exempts any use ?in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign?. We have previously written to you and explained that the First Amendment provides for a similar exemption for uses in connection with matters of public interest.

We believe that your activities, as you describe them, involve both ?news? and ?public affairs? so that the statute is not violated.

The meaning of the term ?public affairs? was considered in Dora v. Frontline Video, Inc., 15 Cal. App. 4 536, 545-46, with the Court holding that ?public affairs? means ?something less important than news?. The Court stated that ?[p]ublic affairs? relates to ?real life occurrences? about which the public is interested. The public is ?constitutionally entitled to know about things, people, and events that affect it?. The Court concluded that the term ?public affairs? could not be limited to ?topics that might be covered on public television or public radio,? as to do so, ?would be to jeopardize society?s right to know.

We also believe that your use of celebrity photos constitutes a depiction of ?news? as that term is used in this statute. We have previously written you in detail about how showing celebrity photos as part of a news presentation can be newsworthy, and you have informed us that your site is newsworthy.

Indeed, the amount of effort you extend in making your site newsworthy is impressive. You have informed us that you employ a Celebrity Content Manager and staff who has been directed to provide your members with a ?One Stop Shop? treasure trove of newsworthy information about their favorite celebrities.

The enhancement of content on your celebrity web sites includes, but is not limited to, the following information and features:

? Celebrity Biography
? Celebrity Filmography
? Celebrity Trivia
? Celebrity Birthday and Horoscope
? Celebrity Gossip
? Celebrity Mug shots
? Celebrity Autographs
? Celebrity Addresses
? Celebrity Classifications
? Celebrity Interviews
? Movie Reviews
? Links to personal, official celebrity web sites.


Your sites provide a pictorial history as well as biographical information of the celebrity as related to the impact of nudity on their career. You have told us that your celebrity photo database provides enhancements that are related information as to the origin and informational description of the photos.
You also indicate that you have partnered with various entertainment and news agencies that provide an enviable database of news stories, covering every aspect of the music, movie and showbiz industries.

We note that you have developed and implemented special feature sections highlighting historic entertainment events; i.e. 40 years and 22 movies of the James Bond series and 37 years and 18 Star Trek TV and movie series, including a special section of "Daytime Soaps" featuring 24 of the top daytime soap opera series of all time, including the entire cast listing for each from the beginning to now.

You indicate that you are currently developing the following:
? Special feature section of 36 popular adult TV programs; highlighting plots, casts and related features including biographies, filmographies, etc.
? A "Survivor" feature with all 5 Survivor series contestants including photos and personal background information.


You apparently have implemented various methods of extensive research to obtain as much background information from public media sources to enhance your celebrity content area and your special feature sections highlighting momentous entertainment events.

We understand that it is your goal to enhance and promote all of the entertainment features available and link related web sites to create a wide range of newsworthy information and services


Thus, when considering the nature and content of the XXXCASH website, it appears that the use falls within both the news account and public affairs exemptions of Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(d).


2. Does XXXCASH?s use of celebrity images violate the common law of California as it relates to Right of Publicity?


Under California?s common law, a claim for infringement upon the right of publicity requires a showing of the following elements:

i) Use of the plaintiff?s identity;
ii) Appropriation of plaintiff?s name or like to defendant?s advantage; iii. Lack of consent; and
iii) Resulting injury.

Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 417 (1983); BAJI No. 7.23 (8? ed. 1994).

The news account exemption codified in Cal. Civ. Code § 3344(d) is a defense not only to the statutory cause of action of 3344, but also to the common law cause of action. Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d at p. 421; New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302, 309-310 (9th Cir. 1992); Comment, BAJI No. 7.23 (8th ed. 1994) p. 318.
Thus, the defenses described in relation to the statutory right of publicity are equally applicable to the common law claim. As noted above, we believe these defenses are fully available to XXXCASH.

your attorney better hope you do not get new counsel when this blows up in your face. he's so broadly interpreting the law and so vaguely that he is setting up xxxcash for huge legal bills- a self-fulfilling prophecy. you all should appreciate my assistance.

congrats for the third time on your 15000