GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Gaybucks · 03-23-2008, 01:58 AM

This isn't as complex as it sounds.

The following applies to US copyright law, but is substantially the same in many other countries.

If a copyright owner (person A) is alleging that someone (person B) is using his content without appropriate licensure, it is the responsibility of B to prove (via something in writing) to A that B does, in fact, have the rights to do what they are doing.

B cannot get off the hook simply by saying an agreement exists but they won't provide it. A can take action, perhaps a DMCA request with the ISP, to get the content removed from the web. B must then prove that the use is not infringing.

Now... if A made a license agreement with a distributor (C), but the agreement did not allow for sublicensing or web rights, then *even if* C gave a written agreement to B to license the content for the web, the agreement is not binding or enforceable, because C did not have the rights to license in the first place. So B's license agreement is meaningless and B must still remove the infringing content.

B can then go back to C and sue them for providing a fraudulent license. A can go after B for using the content without a license, and B can, in turn, go after C for providing an essentially fraudulent license. A may also be able to go after C for, presumably, selling rights they didn't own and collecting funds to which they were not entitled.

You don't need to see any of the subagreements. You are not bound to them if they licensed content they were not allowed to license, and no subagreement can change the terms of the main agreement with you if you did not agree to the changes.

If your original agreement did not provide for web rights, and you're certain of that (reading all the fine print), if B is using your content on the web, then B is infringing your rights. The fastest solution is usually a DMCA request to B's ISP and to B's credit card processor to remove the infringing content. ISPs in most countries worldwide (with a few exceptions) will honor takedown requests for infringing content that is copyrighted in the US. You can then go after B to collect for unauthorized use. B will then go to C.

The fact that you first made a good faith attempt to let B know they were infringing, and that there was a problem, is a very good thing. When B refused to remove the content, or even to check if the licensing was valid, then B became a willful, intentional infringer, and loses the ability to claim that they were an innocent victim. B can, however, recover from C, if C sold them an unenforceable license.

I don't know what the facts of the situation are, but from reading the posts, it sounds like the scenario above is a reasonable description of what you are indicating has happened. I hope this helps.

03-23-2008, 01:58 AM
Gaybucks Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 451	This isn't as complex as it sounds. The following applies to US copyright law, but is substantially the same in many other countries. If a copyright owner (person A) is alleging that someone (person B) is using his content without appropriate licensure, it is the responsibility of B to prove (via something in writing) to A that B does, in fact, have the rights to do what they are doing. B cannot get off the hook simply by saying an agreement exists but they won't provide it. A can take action, perhaps a DMCA request with the ISP, to get the content removed from the web. B must then prove that the use is not infringing. Now... if A made a license agreement with a distributor (C), but the agreement did not allow for sublicensing or web rights, then even if C gave a written agreement to B to license the content for the web, the agreement is not binding or enforceable, because C did not have the rights to license in the first place. So B's license agreement is meaningless and B must still remove the infringing content. B can then go back to C and sue them for providing a fraudulent license. A can go after B for using the content without a license, and B can, in turn, go after C for providing an essentially fraudulent license. A may also be able to go after C for, presumably, selling rights they didn't own and collecting funds to which they were not entitled. You don't need to see any of the subagreements. You are not bound to them if they licensed content they were not allowed to license, and no subagreement can change the terms of the main agreement with you if you did not agree to the changes. If your original agreement did not provide for web rights, and you're certain of that (reading all the fine print), if B is using your content on the web, then B is infringing your rights. The fastest solution is usually a DMCA request to B's ISP and to B's credit card processor to remove the infringing content. ISPs in most countries worldwide (with a few exceptions) will honor takedown requests for infringing content that is copyrighted in the US. You can then go after B to collect for unauthorized use. B will then go to C. The fact that you first made a good faith attempt to let B know they were infringing, and that there was a problem, is a very good thing. When B refused to remove the content, or even to check if the licensing was valid, then B became a willful, intentional infringer, and loses the ability to claim that they were an innocent victim. B can, however, recover from C, if C sold them an unenforceable license. I don't know what the facts of the situation are, but from reading the posts, it sounds like the scenario above is a reasonable description of what you are indicating has happened. I hope this helps. __________________ Gaybucks.com 100% exclusive American guys - hosted movie galleries - NATS - Boyfunk.com - Boysfeetclub.com - AJsCloset.com- SkylerDeVoss.com ICQ 272-995-402 Last edited by Gaybucks; 03-23-2008 at 02:00 AM..