Falcon Foto sues PornKings
 

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=276855

Of main interest here is Falcon's statements that they intend to hold PornKings affiliates who even linked to the affected PornKings FHGs liable for copyright infringement.

Somehow, I doubt they'd be able to make that stick, but... |huh

Typical tactics when someone sues. Name anyone that can possibly be held accountable, and let the judge decide who gets tossed out.

Would be interesting to see how this one turns out.

How, in anyones right mind, is it ok to sue someone for linking to a different website? They are saying that if I put a text link up, 2 years ago to one of these FHG's that I AM NOW LIABLE? Sorry, I dont buy it. There has been alot of people say that you can get in trouble for linking to a page for this or that reason, and i for one have never seen it happen! Of course for illegal materials like warez, cp, etc. I think you may get into trouble ;)

But for linking to a sponsors gallery, no fucking way man. Alot of links to those galleries dont even come from the webmasters promoting it, friends that like it will share it on their sites, message boards, icq etc, will they get sued?

I am obviously not a lawyer, but I have never, ever heard of anyone getting sued for linking to a page on someone elses server (besides the obvious illegal stuff). I mean, thats why alot of bit torrent sites are still up, because they only link to the content, not host it.

Bah, just go after who you need to go after, and dont bully around the little guys ffs... IMO pork king should be sued for using the content, but not those linking to the galleries.

I think the issue is linking with the express intent of making money off the content one is linking too.

But still, the idea of "good faith" enters into it and that is a valid legal principle. If the galleries were presented by the sponsor as within the sponsor's right to offer, then 3rd party liabilty seems like a stretch to me. But then I'm not a lawyer, obviously.

Linking to stolen images with the intention of making money from them indeed makes a contributory infringement case. Fortunately the DMCA does include a safe harbour clause, permitting one to get out of the line of fire if they remove themselves from the situation within 24 hours notice of a claim being made. Failure to do so makes one equally guilty.
(think accomplice)

We had kind of the same problem back with ultracash. When our affiliate software died for the last time, we told everyone to sign up with a scumbag click broker who sent us the traffic. When we purchased and installed new software, we couldn't get the scumbag (Pushrod) to stop using our banners to send traffic elsewhere. Fortunately, he sent all traffic through a domain I owned :) I told him he had 3 days to get it fixed and then changed it myself.

Some advertising materials work better than others. And if they work for one program, people think it's ok to use them with a different program.

Simply remove your links, PK will obviously be taking down the content. The easiest thing for PK to do would be to swap out the content on any hosted galleries and as every other sponsor does, ask affiliates to remove the content if they allowed affiliates to use it.

sueing the affiliates? that would be a petty angle of attack I hope they are not wanting to ever promote anything that involves affilaites it would be hard to earn their respect after that

how they all turn out
settled out of court with all partys signing an NDA