OPEN LINKS IN NEW WINDOWS AND RETURN IF DESIRED
A Western District of Arkansas ruling invalidated USC 17 § 106A, which is the Visual Artists Rights Act recognizing “moral copy+rights”. (VARA) was done to keep the United States compliant with the standards of the rest of the world. The developed countries anyway; – and specifically with the Berne Protocol Article 6bis.
The District Court misinterpretation of the right follows quoting from page two.
From Dkt. 267 on my free mirror or Dkt. 267 .08/page from Court via PACER or $0.24.
“The Court is not persuaded by Neeley’s argument. Section 106A(3) provides that § 106A(2) “shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work” in connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” found at 17 U.S.C. § 101. Items described in subparagraph (A) of that definition include
“electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication.” The Court’s interpretation of this rather convoluted provision is that §106A(2) would not apply to copies of Neeley’s photographs on the internet"
POOF
COPY+ RIGHTS were misinterpreted as NOT EXISTING online in the BACKWARDS United States. Apparently I once forgot to check “Not Safe For Work” on two figurenude images here on RedBubble.
images.Google.com Curtis Neeley Exclusively on RedBubble.com
images.Google.com Curtis Neeley Exclusively on deviantArt.com
images.Google.com Curtis Neeley Exclusively from EVERYWHERE.
images.Google.com for “*” EXCLUSIVELY from curtisneeley.com despite robots.txt asking these not be used by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation
I have sued Google Inc for showing my nude art to my children
Thus far Google Inc has won and I have not been allowed to control display of my nude art to my children and other children despite the fact that I have demanded it be done for over three years!
I have demanded that the FCC be ordered to regulate the Internet
If the FCC regulated wire communications as is their mission, nudes could not be shown online without resulting in fines.
I have demanded that Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc be ordered to cease display of my nudes out of the contexts I choose.
Appellant BRIEF via free mirror. Appellant BRIEF via PACER (56 pages)
REPLY BRIEF via free mirror
“February 2012 UPDATE”
===========
Of course the three-judge Eighth Circuit panel wanted to keep the Internet unregulated and avoid copy[rites] being used as individual human rights in the United States in order to perpetuate use of the Statute of Anne as modified by the USA.
Lets see if the entire Eighth Circuit does this too before the Supreme Court does.
Petition for en banc Rehearing
Add Your Comment
You need to login or signup to add your comment to this work.