Complaint Review: MrSkin.com, S K Intertainment, Jim McBride - Chicago Illinois
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
- Author Not Confirmed
- MrSkin.com, S K Intertainment, Jim McBride 1625 N Damen Ave Chicago, Illinois United States of America
- Phone: 773-269-3400
- Web: www.mrskin.com
- Category: Celebrities
MrSkin.com, S K Intertainment, Jim McBride Mr. Skin, Ancensored.com, mrskin.com, mrskincams.com Mr. Skin, MrSkin.com, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, FRAUD, using Modes and Actress Images with out their permission, Using Copyright material to Film Companies, LIE AND TELL YOU THEY WILL REMOVE YOUR COPYRIGHT Chicago, Illinois
*Author of original report: Mr. Skin Copyright Infringement Update! Using Fair Use as a excuse Will Not Work!
Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
Ripoff Report
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
This company owns the porn site mrskin.com and several other sites, This company is not a what it is claiming to be on BBB. This site has committed copyright infringement by using our photos and stills from movies that were all in. mrskin.com is misrepresenting our photos on their porn site. WE ARE NOT A PORN ACTRESS! I have sent many emails asking mrskin.com and their other sites to please remove my photos from their sites, they have said over and over that they will remove my photos but they never do so.
This has been going on for a few years. At one time they said that my photos are not on their site only to find out that my photos were on their site and false information about me and many other actress. NOTHING IS BEING DONE BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTACT THEM! We have never signed a release form and the property they are using is copy written. One of the film companies sent a letter from their attorney to remove their movie stills and photos and all of their property and mrskin.com do not have the rights to use their images. THIS WAS THEIR RESPONSE TO US...
Our firm represents SK Intertainment, Inc. in matters pertaining to the website mrskin.com. This email is in response to your email dated November 12, 2011.
Please note that the Mr. Skin website is a compilation of reviews, references and other critical commentary on actresses and the films and television shows in which they have appeared, just like any televised review program. The website is also a resource for viewers who want to purchase movies in which the more than 18,000 actresses it features have appeared. Accordingly, it falls squarely under fair use provisions of the law and has successfully operated under this premise since its launch in 1999.
In order to maintain comprehensive coverage of all media in which actresses willingly appear, it is our client's policy not to honor requests for removal of titles or supporting materials relating thereto from the website. As your letter lacks any substantive claims, we regret to inform you that our client does not plan to remove your titles data or supporting materials from the Mr. Skin website.
Nothing contained herein or omitted herefrom should be construed as an admission or a waiver of any of our clients defenses, claims, rights or remedies in this matter. Accordingly, all such defenses, claims, rights and remedies are hereby expressly reserved.
Please direct any further correspondence regarding this matter to my attention.
_________________________________ Virginie L. Parant ATL Los Angeles
| 818.293.1800 | 3500 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 300 | Burbank, CA 91505 ATL San Francisco | 415.735.0037 | 650 Fifth Street, Suite 402 | San Francisco, CA 94107
eFax 818.450.0414 | vp@artechlaw.com | www.artechlaw.com _________________________________
THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG NO MATTER WHAT THEIR LAWYER TELL YOU!
There have been many ladies that have complained, none can find the contact information to their company because it is not on their site. I had to do research to find the companies name. Their use of my photos in the manor in which they are using the photos have cost me to lose a lot of work that is estimated in thousands of dollars. All I ask is that they remove my photos. I never knew they were there until people who want to hire me tell me what they have found. They are using my images without my knowledge or permission. They are making millions of dollars off of women and not any release forms or contacts signed. HOW CAN THEY CONTINUE TO DO THIS! We want our photos removed. Wewillnot stand for this. ALL LADIES CONTACT US ASAP, ALSO FILE YOUR REPORT AS I DID WITH THE FBI, You can also file online at https://complaint.ic3.gov
LADIES IF YOUR PHOTS ARE ON THIS PORN SITE WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE, CONTACT YOUR FILM COMPANY AND HAVE THEIR ATTORNEYS GET IN CONTACT WITH MRSKIN.COM. None of us ever signed a release form or contract for mrskin.cm to use our images or film stills. They are profiting off of us and using our images. THIS IS NOT LEGAL! What is the point of copyrights and contracts if anyone can do this criminal act!
The legal penalties for copyright infringement are: Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs. The Court can issue an injunction to stop the infringing acts. The Court can impound the illegal works. The infringer can go to jail.
From a article on the Internet
Mr. Skin had revenue of $5.3 million last year, primarily though $29.95-a-month subscriptions. With more than 175,000 revealing pictures and video clips of about 15,000 actresses (yes, only actresses), the site drew 2.9 million unique visitors in June, according to comScore, the Web traffic tracker. "We don't care about cinematography or great acting or anything like that," Jim McBride, who favors the title chief sexecutive officer, said on the phone from his company's Chicago offices. "We're concerned about the nudity - who's naked, and what they show."
FROM MR. SKIN
Nov 14, 2011 11:14 AM Customer Service Wrote
The status of this ticket has been changed to Closed Ticket.
We are not able to locate any information at all about you anywhere on our site, which is MrSkin.com.
If you are able to locate any information pertaining to you on our site, MrSkin.com, you will need to forward the specific link to us as we are unable to locate it. You may forward the link to customer-service@mrskin.com.
Regards, The Skin Team
Which photos specifically? Can you please send links?
MrSkinCams Support
Sep 9, 2010 10:46 PM Customer Service Wrote
Thank you for contacting us. We will forward your inquiry to the appropriate department for response.
Regards, The Skin Team
We are more than happy to remove the copyrighted images. > > Please specify which images you are referring to and attach screen shots > or links to them. > > Thank you, > > MrSkinCams Support
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 1:20 AM Subject: [Support #1686255] copyrighted images
We only have live models on our site. We have not posted any images or footage from any of your movies. We believe you have contacted our site in error.
MrSkinCams Support
Host: mrskin.com Host IP: 204.93.155.69 IP country: United States IP Address state: Illinois IP Address city: Chicago IP postcode: 60647 IP latitude: 41.9206 IP longitude: -87.7017 ISP: Server Central Network Organization: SK Intertainment
Websites Related To Mrskin.com
nitrovideo.com Nitro Video
ultimate-celebs.com Ultimate Celebs
mrskincash.com Model Celebs
celebvideopost.com ::: Celeb Video Post ::: The Best Things In Life Are Free!
celebritymoviearchive.com Celebrity Movie Archive
REPORT Copyright Infringement
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html http://www.copynot.com/ http://asne.org/report_copyright_infringement.aspx http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/4-contacting-the-host/ http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehealthinsurance/COPYRIGHT_INFRINGEMENT.html
http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/fraud-resources/index-fraud-resources.html
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/15/2011 08:15 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/mrskincom-s-k-intertainment-jim-mcbride/chicago-illinois-60647/mrskincom-s-k-intertainment-jim-mcbride-mr-skin-ancensoredcom-mrskincom-mrskincam-798451. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
#1 Author of original report
Mr. Skin Copyright Infringement Update! Using Fair Use as a excuse Will Not Work!
AUTHOR: Actress - (United States of America)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, November 16, 2011
http://equineink.com/2011/08/14/what-is-fair-use-of-photography-and-what-does-that-mean-for-my-blog/
What about Fair Use
A few people on the thread brought up the concept of fair use which allows copyrighted materials to be used for specific purposes. Fair Use is, however, does not provide a blanket excuse for using copyrighted work without permission.
Fair Use is covered in Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
What does that mean? Doesnt it say materials can be used for news reporting?
Yes and no. The first factor looks the new work, created by using the copyrighted materials, and evaluates it based on whether it is used for non-profit/educational purposes or is commercial in nature (preference is given for non-commercial use); whether it is used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research (also linked back to the commercial/non profit element) and whether the new work is transformative (giving new meaning to the work) or merely illustrative. For example, if you use a photograph as part of a product review or commentary, you have created something new. In the case of photos used on www.lolcats.com, I suspect that the addition of the captions is considered transformative. However, if you use a photo to support an article, the copy may not have added new expression or meaning to the image.
The second factor looks at whether the materials are worthy of copyright protection. In the case of photography, that actually happens the moment the photographer presses the shutter. Even if a photograph is not marked with a copyright statement it belongs to the photographer until he sells its use.
The third factor looks at how much of the work is used. Ideally you should use as little as possible of the original work excerpting just enough to make your point. The subfactors include evaluating the quantity, quality and importance of the work used. For example, you can quote from a speech, especially when using the quotes in a new context, but you cannot reproduce an entire book. With a photograph, that concept is trickier.
The fourth factor considers whether the use of the material will harm the commercial value of the original material to the copyright owner. In the example above, the website included a photograph on its site that the photographer was selling to similar sites. This has the potential to harm the copyright owner because other people might not feel the need to buy the image either. Depriving the copyright owner of income is usually an indication that the materials do not fall under the Fair Use doctrine.
GO TO THIS LINK;
http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html
Mr. Skin can not use fair use for an excuse for several reasons. You have the copyrights, it cause you to lose money if you want to sale merchandise, you did not make the film accessible to everyone,they are taking stills from the film, they are profiting from us, your film. You are not getting anything, they are making millions.
From a article on the Internet
Mr. Skin had revenue of $5.3 million last year, primarily though $29.95-a-month subscriptions. With more than 175,000 revealing pictures and video clips of about 15,000 actresses (yes, only actresses), the site drew 2.9 million unique visitors in June, according to comScore, the Web traffic tracker. "We don't care about cinematography or great acting or anything like that," Jim McBride, who favors the title chief sexecutive officer, said on the phone from his company's Chicago offices. "We're concerned about the nudity - who's naked, and what they show." FROM MR. SKIN
The penalties for infringement are very harsh: the court can award up to $150,000 for each separate act of willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you knew you were infringing and you did it anyway. Ignorance of the law, though, is no excuse. If you don't know that you are infringing, you still will be liable for damages - only the amount of the award will be affected. Then there are attorneys' fees...
Thank You
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.
