Someone paid a LOT of money to go around submitting false DMCA claims (Jessica Khater is not the copyright holder of her porn film, GDP is) because I just looked it up online and it is deleted pretty much everywhere. I could probably find it on the web if I looked hard enough, but I just pulled up a torrent of GDP videos and got the screencap instead.
Her face is super ugly, but she's got decent tits. Apparently that's enough for a cryptosoy to trade her a fake job for pussy access.
I read that due to winning a lawsuit against GDP, whoever is filing these DMCAs is the owner of the video itself. It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
I just looked it up. It isn't really legal for a judge to do that, but the judge decided to be an activist. She justified it as "restitution". There were only 22 plaintiffs out of 402 total women. There was obviously no evidence as to the 380 women who were not parties. From a news article:
Friday’s decision is unusual for a number of reasons...“It awards the video rights to all known victims who filmed with GirlsDoPorn, not just the Does listed in the civil contract fraud case or those who sought restitution from Garcia,”
So that's illegal. The judge lacks jurisdiction under US law to make such an order. This is one of those circumstances where moral outrage results in "fuck the law WHOS GONNA STOP US??" and the answer is "no one". But if, for example, one of these roasties tried to sued me for copyright infringement and she was not a party, I could raise the defense that the judge's order was void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore she was not the true copyright holder. I'd win if my judge followed the law.
It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
It is 100% obvious fair use to show screen shots of the roastie to point out she is a whore who took money to get fucked on camera. If a woman chooses to do porn, she accepts the risk of reputational damage following her around forever.
Fuck this roastie.
Here is a screencap of her porn film.
Someone paid a LOT of money to go around submitting false DMCA claims (Jessica Khater is not the copyright holder of her porn film, GDP is) because I just looked it up online and it is deleted pretty much everywhere. I could probably find it on the web if I looked hard enough, but I just pulled up a torrent of GDP videos and got the screencap instead.
Her face is super ugly, but she's got decent tits. Apparently that's enough for a cryptosoy to trade her a fake job for pussy access.
I read that due to winning a lawsuit against GDP, whoever is filing these DMCAs is the owner of the video itself. It doesn't seem to me that this means that no image from the video may be displayed for the purpose of criticism or anything.
I just looked it up. It isn't really legal for a judge to do that, but the judge decided to be an activist. She justified it as "restitution". There were only 22 plaintiffs out of 402 total women. There was obviously no evidence as to the 380 women who were not parties. From a news article:
So that's illegal. The judge lacks jurisdiction under US law to make such an order. This is one of those circumstances where moral outrage results in "fuck the law WHOS GONNA STOP US??" and the answer is "no one". But if, for example, one of these roasties tried to sued me for copyright infringement and she was not a party, I could raise the defense that the judge's order was void for lack of jurisdiction, and therefore she was not the true copyright holder. I'd win if my judge followed the law.
It is 100% obvious fair use to show screen shots of the roastie to point out she is a whore who took money to get fucked on camera. If a woman chooses to do porn, she accepts the risk of reputational damage following her around forever.
That's totally fair. No obvious bias would ever appear in that set-up.