egafd.com

Good question...that's the reason why we dislike the remorseful ones !sad!

this is an interesting thread that i hadn't seen before and something that effects anyone like myself who tries to id models - in my case cc models.

as far as the legal side goes in most cases the model doesn't have a leg to stand on in threatening legal action. the film company and/or magazine hold the copyright rights to their image (if they bothered to register the copyright) so only they can enforce a removal of the image - something cc do quite aggressively. The model has no rights to their image if they signed a contract. the exceptions are if for some reason the contract is invalid or they didn't sign one - either way it would be up to them to show this and they would have to do it in advance of any legal action, which would give the site the opportunity to simply say 'ok, we'll remove the offending material' and everyone would be happy.

i know this because i used to enforce the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

and here is an example

the model who i think is Michelle[2]@BGAFD has had her image removed.

she worked for cc and slytv - there is no way she can have her image removed from those sites because they hold the copyright and only those sites can have her image removed legally from bgafd. therefore if bgafd was get permission from those sites to use one of their photos as the id picture there's bog all she can do about it.

it is of course uk law - there may be differences in Europe - but i doubt their substantial.

i do understand however the site not wanting the hassle of fighting this.

Rob I believe JJ or some other poster (here and elsewhere) has mentioned that databases such as EGAFD and IAFD do not have the financial resources, the time and energy to drag this through the courts for whatever legal principle they may want to uphold. Even if EGAFD/IAFD win such a fight, at what cost?
IMDB is another kettle of fish, and they are big and have deeper pockets and can tell these little primadonnas to go stick it without even batting an eye.
But I would not completely remove their names from the movie cast and just put up XXXX98 or some other cute name in their filmo (with a notation name removed due to pressures exerted from this performer) just to shame them.

yes i've already seen the arguments and understand them and agree with your solution. my post was simply for legal information.

it does take a long time for any legal proceedings to go forward and at the end of the day these people are simply bluffing so in the first instance the site should state the legal situation and ask the complainant to state in detail why they think the site should be exempted from a long standing legal principle - and here is that principle in detail:



clearly the use of a low-res picture for research purposes (i.e. 'Fair Use') is exactly what is happening on this site and therefore seeking its removal has no chance, unless the complainant can cite some sort of commercial infringement, of getting to court.

An excellent summary.
As Len noted, however, justice does not necessarily trump
pragmatism, especially in civil cases.

I can attest to that from personal experience- a few years ago,
in a dispute on which I was advised I had 'justice' entirely on
my side, it transpired that it would take two years of my life,
untold stress, and the upfront expenditure of two grand, to
recover...... two grand and some spare change.
Naturally enough, I wrote a stiff letter to the legal ombudsman
and my MP pointing out that they were both horse's asses,
from a long and noble lineage of horse's asses, wrote the sum
off, and got on with my life.
Where the law and money is concerned, God is very much on
the side with the big battalions. Mr. Bumble was completely
correct.

"the model who i think is Michelle[2] @BGAFD has had her
image removed."

Not just her image? On a quick search I could find no reference
whatsoever to this name.

it might have been a different one - that was name that came into my head as i wrote the post.

anyway at slytv she goes by the name of Nikola Abramides and thats the id we use in the cc identification list over at VEF.

yes agreed... but we are talking about individual models not corporations in most cases. they have no more legal clout than the forum. they have to pay for their lawyers too. i can't imagine it going very far when they are advised how much it would cost to mount a case, the chances of winning and the cost of losing.

however saying that the admin makes the decisions and we should respect them

Author: Rob4
Date: 01-24-09 15:19

yes i've already seen the arguments and understand them and agree with your solution. my post was simply for legal information.

it does take a long time for any legal proceedings to go forward and at the end of the day these people are simply bluffing so in the first instance the site should state the legal situation and ask the complainant to state in detail why they think the site should be exempted from a long standing legal principle - and here is that principle in detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

clearly the use of a low-res picture for research purposes (i.e. 'Fair Use') is exactly what is happening on this site and therefore seeking its removal has no chance, unless the complainant can cite some sort of commercial infringement, of getting to court.
==================================================
I think EGAFD/IAFD should generally take the attitude of ********* when they receive e-mails of threatening letters from outfits or their legal counsels (internal and externa), when they claim ********** has infringed on copyrighted material. Go to the site and see the funny comebacks. They basically tell them they have no jurisdiction in Sweden, they host no copyrighted material, and basically they go f--- off. Yes, they have been sued and they are litigating, but they are an unruly rebellious bunch and nothing will deter them
So EGAFD/IAFD could ignore the e-mails and letters and just wait for the legal proceedings to be served, which probably will never come because the majority of these people also do not have the time or money to spend on frivilous proceedings either (depending on where they live are they going to plead and be present in Britain/USA to litigate in court??). OR EGAFD and IAFD can cave in as they have done when someone just picks up the phone or send them e-mais when these people demand their names be removed. At some point I would suspect someone at EGAFD and IAFD will have the balls to stand up and tell them to go f-- themselves. But we are not there yet and may never be.
But I would still list these people under a "Jane Doe" alias and describe their looks (brunette, 5'5', etc), and let them argue all they want, since their porn or real name is not openly mentioned.

Yes, when the law is a lottery the wise man does not gamble.

God, that sounds almost Confucian [img]http://www.egafd.com/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img]