Falcon Photo Sues Pimpdog

[gonzo]

Seattle, Washington - Falcon Foto, owner of the world’s largest copyrighted library of erotic images has filed a multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit against Trey Hickey, Lucas Bradfield, E-Media, LLC and Noble Developments Inc, owner and operators of Pornkings and its affiliated websites. In its filing (attach filed copy) Falcon alleges that Pornkings has infringed its rights by using Falcon images on its web sites and free hosted galleries without a license.

This suit, if successful, will have a sweeping affect on the industry in that any Pornkings Affiliate who has ever sent traffic through a Pornkings free hosted gallery that had a Falcon image could be held liable as an infringer. That could amount to thousands of dollars personally per Affiliate.

Attorney Robert Apgood of Adultlaw.com said, “Some say that pornographers should not sue each other. Wrong….they should not steal from each other.”

Falcon President Jason Tucker says, “Falcon will vigorously protect its intellectual property and protect its legitimate licensees. Trey, Lucas, E-Media, LLC and Noble Developments, Inc. have infringed our copyrights with complete disregard for the law and disregard for the potential exposure they have forced on their Affiliates. We gave them almost a month to settle. With no other course of action, we have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court and anticipate a successful outcome.”

Attorneys Robert Apgood and Spencer Freeman are representing Falcon.

[Hammer]

MULTI million eh? Wow, I guess Pornkings musta stole a buttload of content? Just how many videos can someone get for a multi million dollars? Or is Jason suing for pain and suffering?

I can't remember but I think I used to promote Pornkings so I sure hope Jason isn't going to sue me too.

[TheEnforcer]

It will be interesting to see if Falcon goes after the affiliates as well as Pornkings. They might get more money from teh suit but they would create a lot of bad will in the community if they do.

[Jace]

The article from Xbiz, it says that Roger V and a couple other people are going to be paying also

Gretchen Gallen
Thursday, September 28, 2006

SEATTLE – Falcon Foto has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the current and prior owners of Porn Kings and its affiliated websites.
The multimillion-dollar lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, Wash., alleges that the owners of Porn Kings infringed on its rights by using Falcon images on websites and free hosted galleries without a license.

Falcon seeks damages and injunctive relief from Porn Kings’ original owners John Does 1 and 2, subsequent owners Marvad Corp. and Roger Vadocz, Trey Hickey and E-Media Group, and current owners Lucas Bradfield and Noble Developments.

Licensing negotiations between Falcon Foto and the first owners of Porn Kings began in 2003, but according to the lawsuit, they failed to reach a purchasing agreement for Falcon-produced content. The suit further claims that the defendants used Falcon content regardless of their legal right to do so, and that Falcon content was allegedly passed along from each subsequent owner of Porn Kings, without licensing permission.

Falcon attorney Robert Apgood told XBIZ that at no point did any of the owners of Porn Kings have licensing agreements with Falcon.

Porn Kings affiliates that have sent traffic through a Porn Kings-owned free hosted gallery that featured unlicensed Falcon images could also be held accountable.

Porn Kings operates many adult sites, among them Gutter.com, Chubby.com, AdultPussy.com and StonerBabes.com.

Falcon is represented by Apgood and Spencer Freeman.

A Porn Kings representative would not comment on the suit.

[gonzo]

Marvad . . . now there are some scamming motherfuckers.

[Hammer]

Well of course Roger will be paying, it was his company. It's a shame to see Treys name in there though.


Not.


p.s. If Falcon actually does go after certain affiliates, they could single handedly dismantle the entire affiliate program concept over night. Would any of you ever promote a sponsor using their content again if you knew you were liable for the content they provided you?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Hammer

p.s. If Falcon actually does go after certain affiliates, they could single handedly dismantle the entire affiliate program concept over night. Would any of you ever promote a sponsor using their content again if you knew you were liable for the content they provided you?

Fuck NO!

This industry has a history of people not paying for content.
BIG companies that could afford to pay.
Content providers fattening their catalog by scanning pages of Penthouse in the backroom while publically berating webmasters to pay for content.

Bygones be bygones its not 98 anymore.
Content can be had very inexpensive.

The biggest concern everyone would have is the 2257 compliancy issue.
Hard to trust someone unknown to be on the up and up. A nice reputable clearinghouse for all things content would be helpful.

Hmmm I think I know the guy that owns opranocontent.com ....

[Hammer]

The issue for many affiliate programs would be no big deal because you can buy your own content to promote their websites, but all the sponsors that have reality sites, or single model sites where you have no choice but to use their content could have some problems if Falcon actually makes good on this claim to go after affliates that promoted PornKings.

I seriously doubt that their is an affiliate out there that knowingly used stolen content to promote PornKings sites. They used their FHGs and trusted the fact that PornKings was using legal content on those galleries.

Can you imagine having to get copies of the 2257 docs as well as the actual content licenses for every FHG you use on a TGP?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The issue for many affiliate programs would be no big deal because you can buy your own content to promote their websites, but all the sponsors that have reality sites, or single model sites where you have no choice but to use their content could have some problems if Falcon actually makes good on this claim to go after affliates that promoted PornKings.

I seriously doubt that their is an affiliate out there that knowingly used stolen content to promote PornKings sites. They used their FHGs and trusted the fact that PornKings was using legal content on those galleries.

Can you imagine having to get copies of the 2257 docs as well as the actual content licenses for every FHG you use on a TGP?

As I recall that was what they were looking for with the first revision of 2257.

[Tucker]

This has been misinterpreted and miscontrued and maybe we should have been more specific in the first place. I am sorry so here is my attempt to clear it up...

If you own a program and you generate a code through your affiliate program as what is typically refered to as an "inhouse code" to track certain campaigns then that code actually belongs to an 'affiliate'. So if you own the company and are committing infringement and try and hide behind the "it was an affiliate" argument, you are allowed to get spanked. That is what we were really refering to.

Companies who spammed tried to play that "it was an affiliate" game with the FTC. We were covering our bases.

This is an issue between a group of people and companies and us. Not the real affiliate community.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Tucker

If you own a program and you generate a code through your affiliate program as what is typically refered to as an "inhouse code" to track certain campaigns then that code actually belongs to an 'affiliate'. So if you own the company and are committing infringement and try and hide behind the "it was an affiliate" argument, you are allowed to get spanked. That is what we were really refering to.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Tucker

This has been misinterpreted and miscontrued and maybe we should have been more specific in the first place. I am sorry so here is my attempt to clear it up...

If you own a program and you generate a code through your affiliate program as what is typically refered to as an "inhouse code" to track certain campaigns then that code actually belongs to an 'affiliate'. So if you own the company and are committing infringement and try and hide behind the "it was an affiliate" argument, you are allowed to get spanked. That is what we were really refering to.

Companies who spammed tried to play that "it was an affiliate" game with the FTC. We were covering our bases.

This is an issue between a group of people and companies and us. Not the real affiliate community.

I think you should vigorously persue anyone stealing your content.
Good luck

[JoesHO]

Yes this issue is one that needs to be resolved.

We get our content stolen more often than we like .

we will be going after Quantum/proadult soon if they continue to fail to respond to our offer for them to settle what they used without a license from us.

We are also involved in litigation actions in two other countries and preparing for a big one here in the USA

why big companies do this is beyond me.

I hope you get what is yours Falcon as we share the same issues ( not with this particular company though)

[helix]

Counter suit
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=17444

I shoulda been a lawyer.