Can anyone give me a bit of advice??

[Phil mCc]

Or beat them with yer bag Tel, merry Xmas, look at use the drop down menu to select IPTV who are these guys at the CES.. As for Lolly it will depend on the release most like mine say all use, also its not her name so thats a bit of an issue.
But being diplomatic is always the best idea,,,

Phil McC

[Joe A]

Joneone...

Posting in an aggressive manner, can be an attack if it appears to be libel. This could be seen to cause the site loss of business. Lolly could be sued for that. If you email me I will send you an example of what is a libelous attack, as I have a copy of one made by a model. Lawyers have seen it and said that this model could be sued for both libel and loss of business

Lolly, contact the guy and speak to him about your new site in a friendly and certainly not aggressive manner. I'm sure you'll get the result you desire.... Remember that a model release isn't required under UK law, as the producer of either the stills or video owns the copyright.

[marcusallen]

You catch more bears with honey than you do with steel traps.

[Cenobitez]

Technically aggressive assaults are easier for some, If said sites bandwidth was to hit 100s of gigabytes per day, with 10,000s of visitors then the bear just got raped without the honey or the steel, and it has a very high sucess rate

However legally is another matter

[Cenobitez]

Legally i would attack them with loss of earnings, get your site up and running, and then say the other site is detracting from your earnings, as your site is the OFFICIAL site and anything else is diluting your brand name.

You could also inform them they are "passing off" which is illegal their site for being authorised and associated with you and causing damage to your rep, which you can prevent by obtaining an injunction and damages and you can request that the domain name is transferred from them to your name.

Comes down to how hard you want to hit and what chances you want to take, personally i would be looking at trademarking and then attacking from that angle which would turn passing off into an uzi 9mm.

[Joe A]

Cenobitez

The time the first site has been on line comes in to the equation before Lolly could sue him for loss of earnings. As I've said if she makes any detrimental remarks publicly about the site apart from her not being associated to it, this could cause her legal problems. Talk to a lawyer and you'll find I'm right Was she a partner in the site originally then quit or was she just hired as a model and paid to do some shoots, then the guy started the "OFFICIAL" site .... Using the word "OFFICIAL" will only be a prob when Lolly's new site is launched.

Lolly should speak to the guy first about the use of the word "OFFICIAL", which is the problem. If it's not in the domain name it won't be a problem to change the sales blurb. From what I've heard about Lolly, I'm sure she could sweet talk the guy without any problems.

[sean from ireland]

im not sure but i would asume if you did not sign anthing stating that it was your offical site then i guess whoever done this could be made to change it allowing you to carry on with your offical site. let me no how you get on from a fan xxxx

[Cenobitez]

>The time the first site has been on line comes in to the equation before
>Lolly could sue him for loss of earnings.

Hense why i said get her site online first

>As I've said if she makes any detrimental remarks publicly about the site
>apart from her not being associated to it, this could cause her legal
>problems.

I didnt mention doing or saying anything anything detrimental or libelious at all I have as of writting this NOT failed any libel action i have instigated, simply by being publicly nice and stating simple facts.

1, This site is NOT associated with me nor do i have anything to do with it.
2, I will NOT be providing any new content for this site, now or in the future, meaning little or no future updates to my knowledge.
3, I will never be associated with this site!
4, I have my own OFFICIAL AUTHORISED site www.lb.com, please go look.
5, Please visit my site at www.lb.com its the ONLY official site that i run, never settle for second best.
6, Said site contains images that are over a year old, please visit www.lb.com for my official website with the latest up to date images.

Non are libel non are detrimental, and all are fact based on what i know at this point.

>Talk to a lawyer and you'll find I'm right

Dont need to got an qual in law so i can do most before i go to them saves me a mint

>Was she a partner in the site originally then quit or was she just hired as
>a model and paid to do some shoots, then the guy started the "OFFICIAL" >site .... Using the word "OFFICIAL" will only be a prob when Lolly's new
>site is launched.

Well from her post, she did a shoot for a photographer a year ago, he did this since, which kinda rules out her being a partner.

Official is a problem from day one, due to its legal meanings, "An official website is written with access to private papers and information and the support of the subject", without the support its dangerous ground, thats why magazine and papers and such say "Unofficial" and "Unauthorised" and the likes of, as its deeeeeep doo doo to say its official when its not

I could look into deeper but its 2:30am and this is just off the top of my head

[Joe A]

Cenobitez..

If "Well from her post, she did a shoot for a photographer a year ago, he did this since, which kinda rules out her being a partner." Is the fact then she can get him to drop the use of "OFFICIAL" easily I think, without the need to involve a lawyer

Where are you Lolly.,while we're arguing amongst ourselves... LOL

[Cenobitez]

But but but but joe but but lawyers are fun when your in the right