Ashley_Haven wrote:
I just called and told him to remove me. I checked, and my images have the same file name of the ones on my MM port, like other people have said. So... I never sent this guy pictures that he could use. He just took them.

His cell phone number is 971-506-0491. He called me back from that number.

I got a call from the number: 503-922-0539

Daniela V wrote:
So....I work in law...I sent a threatening letter to him.

Look who got a phone call in under 2 hours.

All my pictures are being taken down and I'm being taken off the site.

He also spoke to me and told me he knew about the model mayhem boards and that some photographer was pissed off at him and thus, started writing about this on this site....

I told him that I was sent a private email- which was true....and that didn't change the fact that he stole 5 pictures from me without my consent. Duh.

He complained that people are "hating on him".

Whatever- my pictures are now gone- thanks OP for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Paris Photography wrote:
I called him yesterday to have my images removed and have found him to be non-receptive to my complaint. I found they had stolen images from this website, cropped off my companies watermark in some instances, and posted profiles without the model's knowledge. Maybe I am one of the photographers pissed and hating on him. I am in my rights to be pissed, as should any model or photographer who has images on his site without permission.

Still, I see a couple of people here trying to defend them. That is not material to this situation. Defend them all you like in your own personal position, but for everyone else who has had pictures just taken and used the whole thing resolves to the fact that they are infringing © in images wholesale... so f**k 'em.

Studio36

Pat Yuen wrote:
Why is everyone wasting time talking to this guy? He obviously is non responsive. Just email the notice to the hosting company and they will shut down the site if they don't respond. I've done it more than once.

ALL the required info for that is on the first page of this thread. And you're right, the ISPs won't be very happy if they get 5, or 10, or more notices from different people at almost the same time.

Ain't that just too bad!!!

Studio36

Pat Yuen wrote:
Why is everyone wasting time talking to this guy?

Did you read some of the posts?

Ashley_Haven wrote:
He probably doesn't understand the legal issues with copyrights.

So.... sue him!  Hehehehehe.

It's about time he did. Don't ya think?

Studio36

Asia Dala wrote:
I have worked for the company for years and had no drama, I also talked to them today and people are really hating but thats how it is. This company is a none perentage non exclusive company so a lot of girls forget they are on it because of how it is ran. Its only paying work thats non adult and you dont have to sign a contract, ACTUALLY ITS FREE ADVERTISMENT. But people are upset. I m just here to back up the company that i have made thousands of dollars from

I'm going to call bullshit on you.. Since this domain first started in 2005.. Thats hardly YEARS.. And this being your first post on MM.. I'm smelling fish..

Lund Photography wrote:
I'm going to call bullshit on you.. Since this domain first started in 2005.. Thats hardly YEARS.. And this being your first post on MM.. I'm smelling fish..

You might want to research more or make a private inquiry of the poster before using such an emphatic tone.  The 'agency' behind the web site in question has been operating before 2005 in the adult arena with a different web site domain.  Lucky Charms is the newer glamour photo division. It is possible that the writer was referring to that.  I'm not advocating for or against the site, but your response is innaccurate.  She said she has been working for the company for years, not the web site.

An author notes that a company or individual infringed his or her copyright in publishing material without receiving their permission first, paying a fee or crediting the source of the information (plagiarism). If the author cannot find an arrangement with the offender he can address a DMCA to the provider hosting the user website. This text contains several items to respond to. It can be sent by fax, ordinary postal mail or even put on a website at the disposal of the provider. Not all providers accept receipt of the DMCA as scanned and signed images by email. Here is the template of the DMCA request that the author has to fill in and send to the alleged infringer:

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

1. Detailed identity of the copyrighted work that I believe has been infringed upon. This includes identification of the web page or specific posts, as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates in which they appear or the permalink of the post

>Include here the URL to the concerned material infringing your copyright (URL of a website or URL to a post, with title, date, name of the emitter), or link to initial post with sufficient data to find it back easily

2. Identity of the material that I claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above.

>Include here the name of the concerned litigeous material (all images or posts if relevant) with their complete reference

3. Location of the author copyright notice (for information).

>Include here the possible URL of the page in which you have list or give detail about your copyright. This information is optional as all work of the mind are by default protected by the Copyright Berne Convention

4. Information to permit our company, the provider, to contact you.

>Include here your email, fax or postal address to quickly get a feedback from the provider.

5. Statements

Reproduce the next statements:

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by my registered copyright and by the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner of an exclusive right that is infringed.

Your signature

>Signature of the author

>Add your name here

In this context the DMCA does not require the complete postal address and private phone number of the author. Therefore, most companies do not list these two items in their policies (Google, Blogger) and only need an email of contact in respect with the spirit of the law.
Only a few companies require the author to mention his complete address and phone number (Go Daddy Software).

The postal address and phone number will only be required in cases of counter notification emitted by the offender or if the author initiates a legal proceeding.

Domain Name: LUCKICHARMS.COM
   Registrar: NAMESECURE.COM
   Whois Server: whois.namesecure.com
   Referral URL: http://www.namesecure.com
   Name Server: B.NS.INTERLAND.NET
   Name Server: C.NS.INTERLAND.NET
   Name Server: A.NS.INTERLAND.NET
   Status: clientTransferProhibited
   Updated Date: 25-oct-2006
   Creation Date: 06-jul-2005
   Expiration Date: 06-jul-2007


www.luckicharms.com    canonical name = luckicharms.com.
Name:    luckicharms.com
Address: 216.122.70.178


Whois: 216.122.70.178

Interland, Inc. LR-BLK4 (NET-216-122-0-0-1)
                                  216.122.0.0 - 216.122.255.255
Venroth Corporation LR-VENROTH-CORP (NET-216-122-70-0-1)
                                  216.122.70.0 - 216.122.70.255

Whois: NET-216-122-70-0-1

CustName:   Venroth Corporation
Address:    1800 West Lake, Suite 204
City:       Seattle
StateProv:  WA
PostalCode: 98109
Country:    US
RegDate:    1999-08-12
Updated:    1999-08-12

NetRange:   216.122.70.0 - 216.122.70.255
CIDR:       216.122.70.0/24
NetName:    LR-VENROTH-CORP
NetHandle:  NET-216-122-70-0-1
Parent:     NET-216-122-0-0-1
NetType:    Reassigned
Comment:
RegDate:    1999-08-12
Updated:    1999-08-12

OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE579-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   ABUSE
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-404-260-8434
OrgAbuseEmail:  [email protected]

OrgTechHandle: ASNAD3-ARIN
OrgTechName:   ASNADMIN
OrgTechPhone:  +1-404-260-8434
OrgTechEmail:  [email protected]


A trace shows the host of http://www.luckicharms.com as
http://www.interland.net [formerly known and dba as internatland but became Web.com, Inc]
but the underlying hosting company website is now:
http://www.web.com/

Corporate Headquarters [web.com]
Phone: 404.260.2477
Fax: 404.260.2542
Address: Web.com, Inc.
303 Peachtree Center Avenue
5th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303

DMCA Notices - read in full before filing
http://www.web.com/legal/dmca-policy.aspx

it includes the following notice: "To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication by fax or regular mail—not by email, except by prior agreement"

James Jackson wrote:
So, you can send your DCMA via email to [email protected]

They may or may not choose to accept it.

1) You can NOT send to interland in any case... they no longer exist and are now web.com

2) You can NOT send to abuse@... there are very specific agents appointed to receive the notice at designated points of contact. Once sent, but ONLY if properly sent AND to the designated agent, they MUST accept the DMCA notice [or their employer takes the hit for the infringement - 17 USC 512(c)(2)]

17 USC 512(c)(2) Designated Agent.-The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

3) They apparently do NOT have to accept notice by e-mail in any case but MUST accept notice in writing by mail or fax so that a real, but not electronic, signature is recorded. web.com REQUIRES notice in writing by mail or fax and will not accept a notice by e-mail.

web.com = policy = DMCA Notices - read in full before filing
http://www.web.com/legal/dmca-policy.aspx

[in part]
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication(by fax or regular mail—not by email, except by prior agreement) that sets forth the items specified below....

The name and address of the web.com DMCA agent is on the first page of this thread.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

James Jackson wrote:
So, you can send your DCMA via email to [email protected]

They may or may not choose to accept it.

1) You can NOT send to interland in any case... they no longer exist and are now web.com

2) You can NOT send to abuse@... there are very specific agents appointed to receive the notice at designated points of contact. Once sent, but ONLY if properly sent AND to the designated agent, they MUST accept the DMCA notice [or their employer takes the hit for the infringement - 17 USC 512(c)(2)]

Then web.com is breaking the ICANN rules of whois listing and also breaking the law.

All "abuse" listings in the whois database *MUST* go through to a person qualified to handle abuse complaints.

studio36uk wrote:

The name and address of the web.com DMCA agent is on the first page of this thread.

Studio36

I'm sorry I did not see that previously... because I did not read the thread here, I simply posted the info copied and pasted from the other thread about luckicharms.com

James Jackson wrote:
Then web.com is breaking the ICANN rules of whois listing and also breaking the law.

All "abuse" listings in the whois database *MUST* go through to a person qualified to handle abuse complaints.

An abuse mail will still be accepted at [email protected] but it will go to web.com as they, Web.com, Inc., acquired interland [aka internetland] - it is just that you are no longer dealing with the old company but they [web.com] still have some use of the old name. So the registrar data is not wrong, merely misleading if you are not aware of the change in company name.

DMCA notices are NOT abuse notices. They are a special case where the prevailing law requires designation of a particular agent to receive them. Usually it's the legal department... Infringement is not network abuse in the same sense as spamming, ect,

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
but the underlying hosting company website is now:
http://www.web.com/

Corporate Headquarters [web.com]
Phone: 404.260.2477
Fax: 404.260.2542
Address: Web.com, Inc.
303 Peachtree Center Avenue
5th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303

Studio36

Ironic isn't it, Look what's right in neighborhood:

Professional Photographers of America, Inc.
229 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303

Pat Yuen wrote:
These notices do not go to any legal department if one exist at all for these hosting companies. They usually go to a person who deals with this stuff regularly; usually a webmaster or technical support person.

You will notice in this case that the designated DMCA agent is Robin Shetler, Esq. The Esq on the end = an attorney = the legal department.

Studio36

Pat Yuen wrote:
These notices do not go to any legal department if one exist at all for these hosting companies. They usually go to a person who deals with this stuff regularly; usually a webmaster or technical support person. They will usually email the account holder and give them a chance to respond. If there is no response, they will close the account.

This is not quite true Pat.  Many hosting companies have revamped their procedure within the last 12 - 18 months because of DCMA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act).  Most of the larger companies now directly forward their DCMA requests to a lawyer.

B|iss wrote:
I'd like to be able to pre-approve anyone that accesses my MM port, but  I don't see that feature ever being offered here.  This is no longer a site for professionals.

Part A != Part B

Pre-approval of anyone accessing your portfolio is you having it up or not.  If you would prefer no one to see your portfolio do not put it up.  If on the other hand you would like to network with other professionals, you put up a portfolio here.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

James Jackson wrote:

Part A != Part B

Pre-approval of anyone accessing your portfolio is you having it up or not.  If you would prefer no one to see your portfolio do not put it up.  If on the other hand you would like to network with other professionals, you put up a portfolio here.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My 18+ images were accessed by criminals who used pirated images to put up fraudulent ports in order to get MM memberships.  So yes, I want to network with professionals, and professionals only, not every swinging dick in cyber space. 

I've since marked ALL of my images 18+ (there are no nudes) to prevent Joe Public from viewing them, but that doesn't prevent the imposter members from viewing them.  That's the issue.

B|iss wrote:
My 18+ images were accessed by criminals who used pirated images to put up fraudulent ports in order to get MM memberships.  So yes, I want to network with professionals, and professionals only, not every swinging dick in cyber space. 

I've since marked ALL of my images 18+ (there are no nudes) to prevent Joe Public from viewing them, but that doesn't prevent the imposter members from viewing them.  That's the issue.

No the issue is you are unwilling or unable to take the risks associated with advertising and networking via the internet.

We all run the risk of criminals pirating our images to put up fraudulent portfolios.  We all run the risk of someone taking our images to create cell phone wall papers.  We all run the risk of "swinging dicks" in "cyber space" seeing our imagery and artistry.

If you are unwilling or unable to take that risk, or if you can not accept the consequences of that risk becoming a reality, then you should not participate in the activities that bring that risk to you.

I have had my images stolen... I've had my name besmirched.  I've even been called names by people who are not really "industry professionals"... those are the risks of being on ModelMayhem.  If I was no longer able to accept them then I should close my account.

James Jackson wrote:

No the issue is you are unwilling or unable to take the risks associated with advertising and networking via the internet.

We all run the risk of criminals pirating our images to put up fraudulent portfolios.  We all run the risk of someone taking our images to create cell phone wall papers.  We all run the risk of "swinging dicks" in "cyber space" seeing our imagery and artistry.

If you are unwilling or unable to take that risk, or if you can not accept the consequences of that risk becoming a reality, then you should not participate in the activities that bring that risk to you.

I have had my images stolen... I've had my name besmirched.  I've even been called names by people who are not really "industry professionals"... those are the risks of being on ModelMayhem.  If I was no longer able to accept them then I should close my account.

That risk has already become a reality for me, and I am currently living in hell as a result.  I've been personally targeted, attacked and sexually harassed by these criminals, even in my place of work.  I'm still here because I don't want the bastards to win, I don't want to abandon my art, and there's no better alternative site at the moment.  Several new modeling sites are under development that will have much more stringent membership screening.  There are very simply things that can be done to improve protection of the members. 

Nothing is 100% secure on the Internet, or in life.  But if you add in a few more security checks and features, the criminals are likely to pick an easier taget.  This site is all about the numbers, not the quality, of the members.

B|iss wrote:
There are very simply things that can be done to improve protection of the members. 

Nothing is 100% secure on the Internet, or in life.  But if you add in a few more security checks and features, the criminals are likely to pick an easier taget.

You are entirely correct here.

There *are* things that could be done to protect members more... unfortunately many of them would make the site not function for it's designed purpose.

Nothing is secure in life, but adding security *does* tend to lower risk.  MM is at a certain level of risk/reward... you choose to be here, you chose to be here before you were attacked... it happened... you have the consequences to deal with.