are thumb TGPS illegal?

So basically if you build and submit galleries don't buy content from Paul Markham because he will set APIC on the people who list your gallery.

That's a clever way of getting more customers.

So if it's all submitted why were you looking to buy single pictures.

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/showth...20#post1888120

This supports my arguement that you just came into my site ands stole them, not this anonamous submitter.

And do you have age documents on all those girls, some look very young.

Don't be an idiot all your life, don't you think I checked out where those links went?

What you should of said was;

Think up something a bit cleverer if you want to knock me.

All I'm doing is protecting my clients interests, this guy steals content and when challenged about it said "That was a misunderstanding"

Remember Jimbo I have our ICQ converstations copied in the office.

Which puts a TOTALLY different slant on the story. I don't like APIC and don't like people who support them by using them, but at least if you're going to use them there's ways to go about it i.e. try contacting the guy first as you did. When they still don't reply they deserve all they get. Much as I have problems with self-proclaimed police (especially when they are so bad at the job the profess to do) I have even less for people who steal stuff I have to pay for.

Will you stop doing that Charly? The minute I write you off as an idiot you do something that makes me think the opposite. Not that my opinion will mean much either way but it'd make life so much easier if you stayed in one slot or the other

Now his reply will be interesting to see the 'justification'.

cause I needed single images for my galleries. period!

I told you you were confusing 2 things over ICQ and just ignored what I was saying and prefered saying you'd look so good on the boards posting our discussion.

I told you in our first conversation or don't you remember? Another misunderstanding?

you never told me wich images were illegally being used weeks ago, I only knew from APIC. Am I suppose to remove all galleries from my TGP?

The fact I said I stolen them is a misunderstanding between 2 subjects and not legally usable against me.

I tried buying images from you but never got answer when I asked price after you sent samples.

Everytime you icqued me I answered, except when you just sent message saying you would contact APIC. What should I have said? "NO PLEASE!"?

If it were my TGP in question, and you sent me an email asking that I remove the link for the reasons you just stated, I would remove the link and be done with it.


But if you came at me with APIC, all attacking with the usual APIC attacking semi-legal mumbo jumbo, I might very likely tell you to "stuff it bozo." Thumb or no thumb. Like I said, the best way is to have the submitter's host shut him down, or get him to remove the pics himself. Bothering dozens or hundreds of TGP owners over one lousy link by having APIC send their usual cheerful crap isn't the way I would go about it.

I was going from post 1-48, didn't see your reply on post 49 as I was typing my own, so yep fair enough.

But you're still an arsehole.

he never told me the content in question. He did not even give me my site url where it was.

He just said remove all illegal content. According to me having thumbs linking to galleries isn't illegal so I just left it as is until further notice containing images specified in it. Looks like only APIC could do it.

I know what you mean with comical when they start citing UN, RICO, etc and all other laws and court cases, but if you remove all that , you are left with this:

(3) Elements of notification. -

(A)

To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i)

A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii)

Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii)

Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv)

Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v)

A statement that the complaining party has 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.

(vi)

A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.


I remove the crap, so whats left is this:

> NOTICE of COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARK, or RIGHT of PUBLICITY INFRINGEMENT APIC
> - WORLDWIDE 3325 Griffin Road
> Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312
> (954) 983-7312

thats were you can reah them, so they satisfy 512 - 3 (iv)


> Infringing URLs:
>
> C Paul Markham
> http://66.230.142.99/atpreview/tgp_t...ZNMuI8wK4L.jpg
>
> http://66.230.142.99/atpreview/tgp_t...j8jQqHnWfB.jpg
>
> ALL IMAGES ARE UNAUTHORIZED

here they do 512 3 (ii) and (iii) by stating it's paul (C) and the URLS in questions.


On
> behalf of the owner of exclusive right to the material at issue in
> this notice, I hereby state that I have a good faith belief that use
> of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the
> owner, its agent, or the law. I hereby state, under penalty of perjury
> under the laws of the United States, that the information in this
> notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the
> complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> exclusive right that is being infringed as set out in this
> notification.


This satisfies 512 3 (v) and (vi)


and fianally:

> -----BEGIN PGP
> SIGNATURE-----iQA/AwUBN9/veP4FPqLzqgzREQIFMgCfWTmk2wVVtE+oyFYlaopCjtM5
> /P
> kAniaU3UDH6hkv28v6cK1VgiDSy/TV=maqC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

This satisfies 512 3 (i)

I know exactly what you mean by all the BS added into his notification to spread FUD, but if you remove it, you see APIC "substantiate" what the DMCA requires .

Try bringing ICQ conversation to court and come back here

someone else needs to point out to you the content that YOU stole?

crisse, que t'es epais.

So you did admit to stealing his stuff, but you think it's not usable in a court?

I didn't steal shit for my thumb preview. The submitters might have.

don't go saying I'm stupid in french and tell me how I should know wich content is illegally used if my site type is considered legal.

When cops bust into a home and confiscate someone's computer, say for a cp case or an obscenity case, they certainly DO record all ICQ logs and emails, and anything else they can dig out of the hard drive.

ICQ logs certainly are used in court cases. Absolutely without question.

Because it was not legal and you had been told weeks ago. Remember when you told me you stole single images because no content provider sold them?

No, what I wanted to say is that ICQ communication is not considered a proper notification of copyright infrindgement

simple solution - don't run a thumb preview TGP

Not considered by whom? I should think that any form of notification, phone, fax, email, or instant message would suffice as being notified.


Who cares? Is that really an issue?


I thought the only issue here was that you run a thumb preview tgp and that APIC contacted you on Markham's behalf to remove that one thumb that was linked to an offending gallery? Is there more here that I'm not understanding? Did you steal something?

So you now admit that it happened and you admit that you did nothing about it. So you only have yourself to blame.

I do not issue DMCAs I use APIC to do this, I tried the friendly approach, I even made up sets of single images to accomadate him. It did not work, so I brought in the rotweiller.

Brown Bear. You may laugh at APIC, notice how effective it was in getting my stolen images off this idiots site?

He carried on his own sweet way and now is crying that he got it wrong. You are lucky that every other content provider here is not going through your site with a fine tooth comb.

According to our first conversation he stole the images because there was no content provider selling single images.

Plus I suspect a lot more of the images on the site are stolen. Everyone check out. http://www.easyteenpics.com/ to see if your images are up there as well, then see where they are linked to.

Wasn't that site also mentioned in Snow's thread from yesterday?

http://board.gofuckyourself.com/show...hreadid=148166

It looks very familiar, yes I'm sure of it.

You don't need APIC to send out DMCA notices. The DMCA is effective not APIC. APIC is just the messenger.

yo you can'T even read your mail properly, I tried buying content from you and jact both never answered fast enough, so I just bought from Lace. Thats for my galleries, not my freaking TGP. YOUR FUCKING CONFUSING 2 things, how many times will I have to say that!

here's my last e-mail to you:

From: "Jimbo" <[email protected]>
To: "Paul Markham" <[email protected]>
References: <009d01c333db$bab9f7b0$c600a8c0@p4>
Subject: Re: sets of mixed girls
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:17:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C33465.D5FE9B40"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00E9_01C33465.D5FE9B40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

how many sets like that are there?
you offer a deal if I buy them all?

where can I buy?

Regards,
Jimbo

----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul Markham=20
To: [email protected]=20
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 3:48 AM
Subject: Fw: sets of mixed girls





Here are the samples



*************************************************

Paul & Eva Markham

For quality legal teens and amateurs, solo and couples. =
www.paulmarkham.com
Need content for TGPs, AVSs or your affiliate program? =
www.bargainbasementcontent.com=20

Phone +420 603 298 001
Fax +420 548 212 100

ICQ 122836850

************************************************
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Paul & Eva Markham=20
To: Paul & Eva=20
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:25 AM
Subject: Fw: sets of mixed girls





*************************************************
=20
Paul & Eva Markham
=20
For quality legal teens and amateurs, solo and couples. =
www.paulmarkham.com
Need content for TGPs, AVSs or your affiliate program? =
www.bargainbasementcontent.com=20
=20
Phone +420 603 298 001
Fax +420 548 212 100
=20
Paul ICQ 122836850
Eva ICQ 209830970
=20
************************************************
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Jimbo=20
To: [email protected]=20
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2003 11:24 AM
Subject: sets of mixed girls


you talked to me on ICQ about sets of 50 different girls, let me =
know where
I can see samples and if you take paypal ;)

Regards,
Jimbo

Don't you wish you had written that later?

This guy was asked nicely and he ignored it. He was then asked again and he ignored it.

Then APIC were asked and in the words of his host. "We take any accusation by APIC very seriously."

Guess that makes your post look a bit silly.

Tell APIC to go fuck themselves.

http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/02/09/news3.html

And the actual decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0055521p.pdf

I didn't ignore you, I just never knew what content you were talking about. So I tough you just wanted to sell your content. So I offered to buy it all and got no answer. Paul Markham isn't my hero, I don't have all his sets in mind and I didn'T steal any from his site either.

I got lost somewhere... the thread started out as "are thumb TGPs illegal" and now seems to be Charly (again) against someone about image theft. I can't even make out whether his problem is about thumbs or full-size images, linked or not linked.

On the off-chance we are still on-topic, can anyone figure out whether Charly/Apic tried to/did bring down a TGP for displaying a thumbnail linked from another site?

If that - rather than displaying a thumbnail on the TGPs own domain - was their problem, I should like to know what case law justified such an action.

the case is simple I listed a gallery on my thumb preview site that had Paul Markham content. Paul contacted APIC and I removed them, I'm now asking what the fuck I did wrong!

By law you did nothing wrong. Just another case of APIC threatening the wrong person.

The only one guilty of doing anything wrong was the owner of the gallery.

yea it shouldn't be illeagal! This would be good to know, cuz I operate a thumb site!

jDoG

yeah, thanks for the links you posted earlier.

alot of people do, thats why I felt the need to post here

1. If the gallery to which you linked had licensed content, then unless someone knows of case law in contradiction of what has already appeared here, you did nothing illegal.

2. If you displayed a thumb from a gallery which displayed unlicensed content, existing case law suggests that you are jointly liable with the gallery submitter for breaches of copyright UNLESS you operate a totally automated, "interactive" TGP (ie one where galleries are listed automatically without review).

A thumb TGP is different from a text TGP in that it displays actual material and not solely links to material.

I am so fucking lost.
Someone please pass the popcorn and a clue.

jayeff you forgot scenario 3:
using an unlicensed picture of girl A from charly that links to a gallery of girl B from Joe Schmoe submitter.

And if that's what he's doing, then there's no use for him to be running a thumb TGP, cuz the surfer isn't seeing the girl he's clicking on.

But like I said, I'm so fucking lost.

bullshit

do a submission on my site, the script creates a thumb for each image and ask submitter to choose.

118tbj8jQqHnWfB.jpg|http://www.sexiestbabesonly.com/htm/june26/t/11.htm|110|110|0|0|16|Taking off lingerie|195.46.97.11|John|owner@sexiestbabesonly. com|Teen_babes|27-06-2003

straight from AtPreview datafile. 118tbj8jQqHnWfB.jpg is one of the 2 images I got notified about from APIC. The other was linking to a gallery going to 404. Guessing the guy got shutdown already for content stealing, who knows.

This guy uses tons of stolen content to build his cam girl galleries dont let him bullshit you. He was removing as fast as we were posting it the day he was caught red handed.

One of the actual image on his page which i still had. He did not have a license and the day this was posted he ripped the images along with many others very fast.




I dont care how many hate on Charly hes a fair man and never went after anyone i know for legally using his content without giving benifit of the doubt. But its people who pay for the stuff that dont want it used by a million thieves making it worthless and us supporting the freeloaders. If the content just becomes worthless we move on to a new provider which is why Charly defends his stuff.

If anyone deserves to get ripped here its that thieving fucker Jimbo from Brazil home of the no copyright laws.

Well google and Altavista do it. I find my thumbs to my galleries and videos on these search engines all the time. They link back to my gallery but are hosted on their server.

Jimbo, you're fucking full of it. You got caught with heaps of stolen pictures on your OWN galleries. That's what this was all about, stealing pics for your webcam galleries - same thing that bunnyteens got busted for yesterday. The difference is that he removed them, you just stole more images to replace that ones that people complained about.

This is more than just a thumbnail, people.

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=139058

WARNING - DO NOT CLICK on easy-teen-pics.com links in that thread, he's set up htaccess to send GFY and AWI referers to a popup hell. A childish admission of your guilt.

Well I read all this, and I cant believe there hasn't been any LINK HOTTEN yet, since that's about the only bit of nonsense in the drama that hasn't been played.

It's legal to use thumbs. The courts have ruled, it doesn't matter what anyone's license says.

This thread, though, seems to be about stealing content now.

You still have stolen hegre-archives content on the front page of easyteenpics.com. It just doesn't seem to sink in, does it?

<img src="http://media.sensationcontent.com/rowan/easyteenpics.jpg">

Now, before you say it was a submitted gallery and you just made a thumb - bzzt, that image doesn't appear in the gallery.

Tthey are allowed to do that... see the story. The entire article is not online anymore so let me quote a part of it I saved last year.

Court Rules 'Thumbnail' Images OK, Full-Sized Copies Not

By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
07 Feb 2002, 4:07 PM CST

In an important decision for the application of copyright law on the Internet, a federal appeals court has ruled that while Web sites may legally reproduce and post "thumbnail" versions of copyrighted photographs, displaying full sized copies of the images violates artists' exclusive right to display their own works.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and reversed in part a district court decision in a case brought by Leslie Kelly, a professional photographer who sued Web search engine Arriba for carrying his pictures on its site.

Arriba, which changed its name at the start of the trial to "Ditto.com" provides a service that scours the Internet for picture files. Instead of
returning text links, Arriba's search engine displays the results of the request using miniaturized "thumbnail" images of the actual work.

When clicked on, the thumbnail shots lead visitors to a page that uses a technology called "framing," or "inlinking," in which an image from
another Web site is imported and displayed at full size. From the user's perspective, the picture appears as if it were part of the search engine's own Web page, when in fact clicking on the picture transports the user to the artist's Web site.

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas G. Nelson said that the indexing and use of thumbnail images was a fair use, in part because it was "transformative" or added value to the work, and also because it did nothing to diminish the market for Kelly's works.

But the judge also ruled that "Arriba's display of Kelly's full-sized images is not a fair use and thus violates Kelly's exclusive right to publicly display his copyrighted works."

Mark Lemley, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the decision was a landmark case in that this was the first time a court had addressed the issue of inlinking and framing.

Lee Bromberg, a partner with the Boston law firm of Bromberg & Sunstein, found the court's decision "relatively balanced."

"The court upheld the right of search engines to perform a very usefulfunction of indexing, where the item being brought over is different from having access to the actual work itself," Bromberg said. "But the defense that 'Hey, we're not using a copy, we're showing you the real thing' doesn't matter because it's a public display, and the court said the copyright holder has the exclusive right to determine how that's done."

Emphasis on fair use...

silence... surprising!

Isn't that picture to the left of the one you circled one of Unseen's girls? Maybe not, but she looks familiar.

100.