Google Inc photography "copyrite" lawsuit

This is a discussion on Google Inc photography "copyrite" lawsuit within the Photography News and Views forums, part of the PHOTO FORUM category; ================================================== ============================== ====== Try searching for "Curtis Neeley", my personal name, on Bing , Yahoo , or Ask by clicking the links. Now compare this ...


View Poll Results: Opinions?

Voters
4. You may not vote on this poll
  • The right to control how art is presented.

    1 25.00%
  • The right not to be cited in a way that harms your honor.

    1 25.00%
  • The right to prevent your art from being defaced.

    2 50.00%
Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR; USA
    Posts
    57
    PHOTO EDITING NOT OK
    ================================================== ==============================
    ======
    Try searching for "Curtis Neeley", my personal name, on Bing, Yahoo, or Ask by clicking the links. Now compare this to Google. They are down to three nudes in the "safe" setting.
    _______________________________________
    Over a year and 226 filings have occurred as well as much having already happened.
    Compare above to Bing, Ask, and Yahoo before my demand! Ask was gone but is not gone today. Oops. IACI/InterActiveCorp are perhaps attempting to help keep Google Inc from being the ONLY search engine violating integrity of visual art on the Internet?

    Never forget that any photograph you take could cause you extreme embarrassment as your life changes.

    Nudes can be art but should not be allowed on the Internet the way they are today. Completely undisclosed.

    The robots exclusion protocol was used by Google Inc overseas to allege implied permission allowing "fair-use" but the REP is an extremely practical way to RATE websites. figurenude.com/robots.txt discloses by directory for an all nude art site by directory as can be seen at the link with no links to even the site's nudes as pure OBJECTS of art.

    The FireFox 3 browser with the Duck Duck Go Plug-In does not display fraudulent ad sites like for example. This plug in is optional and blocks all exclusively ad sites and will be required for ALL browsers after this lawsuit resolves as well as a Plug-In that blocks websites rated too explicit for the computer owner, regardless of who is the using the computer at the time.

    This is a bit more linear post on a difficult lawsuit. Please PM me if you wish more info. I will only post court updates or respond via PM and stay very on topic.

    This Post is just to let other photographers know that if we are doing photography it can be ART and we must defend MORAL rights that we have had in the United States only since 1990 and not yet tested adequately in United States Court. I am testing it now and Google Inc has stated that I can't sue for "copeerights" since I never registered . Google Inc will soon learn about integrity in this VERY costly lawsuit.
    This is a step by step presentation not including the domain name aspect of the case and only relates to my photography.
    ====================================

    1. I was severely brain injured and made an incompetent in Sept 3, 2002 and was not my own guardian until Jan 26, 2006. From 2004-now I photographed the nude figure as art and once uploaded them to photo.net. a website, once required all users to be registered to use the website. May 09, 2004.

    2. In 2007 NAMEMEDIA INC purchased and allowed anyone to use the site and view contributed photos and altered the site license so that users of the site gave photographs posted there perpetually to NAMEMEDIA INC to show on the site forever.

    3. In July 2008 I had developed mitigation strategies that allowed me to live semi-independently. I still used but did not read the new terms of use and had allegedly accepted a new TOS by using the site.

    4. Dec 2008 I received communication from my daughter that expressed her distress due to nudity done by her father being displayed in child safe searches at school. March 27, 2005, Aug 2, 2007, Feb 18, 2009, and many more that were deleted.

    5. Early in 2009, I asked to delete the nude photos I had uploaded. I was ignored. I notified the NAMEMEDIA INC DMCA agent and posted in a forum post Nov 23, 2009 POST that I intended to sue NAMEMEDIA INC. When I notified the NAMEMEDIA INC DMCA agent, I used an IP tracking beacon to verify notification.

    6. On July 22, 2009, I sued NAMEMEDIA INC after discovering the IFP process.

    7. On Oct 15, 2009, I registered NAMEMEDIAS.COM to try and get the attention of NAMEMEDIA INC

    8. On Nov 16, 2009, I moved to add Google Inc. Google Inc ran the image search at and at .

    9. NAMEMEDIA INC countersued for cybersquatting and Google argued that because I had not registered a I could not sue.

    10. Both defendants tried to be dismissed repeatedly see the dockets from roughly 19 to 226.

    11. I appealed pending denial of motions to the Eighth Circuit prematurely while the orders were pending and not decided. Oops

    12. I sought a Writ of Mandamus and a Writ of Certiorari from the Supreme Court and they were denied.

    13. Appeals to the Supreme Court have never been decided before the trial. Oops.

    14. I asked that the FCC be added and this was not allowed and is why I appealed.

    15. I sought a preliminary injunction to require Google Inc to top displaying nudes done by me in child safe searches.

    16. This was referred to a magistrate judge for a hearing.

    17. The District Court judge called a hearing because I called his rulings reflecting senility and being illogical

    18. I went before the judge and explained my reasoning acceptably.

    19. I went before a full day of depositions.

    20. The Magistrate judge wrote a ruling recommending that a preliminary injunction not be granted.

    21. I objected to this recommendation and asked the District Court judge to re-examine the case in a new hearing.

    22. This objection is now pending. Whether it is granted or not; The trial is in July 11, 2011.

    23. Google Inc and NAMEMEDIA INC have objected to my written depositions and are not showing good faith in my opinion.

    24. I will continue with discovery by myself but see law as frustrating and I have ZERO income.

    25. They have both objected to my discovery attempts and get to object louder next week.



    Moderator, Please remove the other thread.
    I will not post anything but updates and handle everything else via PM.




 

Remove Ads

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •