To whom do I direct this to?

[Rick Hunter]

I haven't been on this website in ages, as I see really no need to normally visit the site anymore. However while browsing through Google. I came upon an Otakupedia article about AE Boards. To whom do I have the pleasure of discussing this matter with? I'm generally a peaceful person these days who does not look for trouble, I work on my site and Adam/James (Not sure whose in charge now so my apologies if they are not in charge anymore) work on their own.

I believe respect is something that has to be earned, when a person loses respect for another simply it's best to just leave things alone. The article that I am currently referring to with this grievance is this one [url]http://www.otakuboards.com/otakupedia/?p=35[/url]

I have no idea who is the author of this article, but I recall never at any time authorizing the use of the AE Boards logo or brand name of Anime Explosion for this article. Furthermore, I'm definitely certain that at no point did I authorize the use of my picture. Using the likeness or image of a person without their consent is certainly punishable in a court of law last time I checked.

I'm not hear to start a flame war or revive an OB vs AE war. That would be childish and I'm above that. My site currently is successful and moderately well known in the anime community. Besides when that so called "war" as it was dubbed happened I was like 18...I'm 24 now, I'm a rather mature adult whose content to being a professional card player/film student/webmaster, I have no time for chilidish games or defamting a person or site for that matters character.

So I kindly ask that whoever wrote the article and publish it simply delete the article to avoid any messy, uneeded altercations. At one point I was a proud member of this forum and TheOtaku.com staff. I would like to be remember for my contributions as oppose to any negativity that has been published.

On several ocassions I've spoken to Adam in regards to possibily reviving a section between the two sites. However as he pointed out both sites have gone in two completely seperate directions. To show, no ill-will towards anyone, I kindly invite theOtaku.com and Otakuboard members to take part in the celebration of Anime Explosion's 11th Anniversary January 1st. Everyone is welcomed to sign up for an account even the person or persons responsible for that article.

At the moment, I must say I'm rather disappointed with the direction of Otakupedia and several other features that have appeared on OB lately. I feel that those features are focusing more so on the negativity of banned members and bad history as oppose to the many contributions that many former staff members have done for this site.

I remember a time in which O3online as it was referred to back then needed my help. And I gladly stood up to the plate and put in 100% of my effort. There are various other "Legends" and "Members" that have done the same. Dragging their name in mud shows no respect or appreciation for these people. Remember without these contributions TheOtaku.com or Otakuboards may not have been around today.

In closing, I sincerely hope this issue is resolved with maturity and respect. As I've stated already twice in this thread my intention is not to start a "war" here or get flamed. But to simply rectifiy a situation that I thought had been long forgotten and not accounted for. The article in itself is in poor taste and violates copyrighted material as well, as my likeness. I ask kindly it be removed effective immediately.

Once again, I extend my offer to everyone on this site including staff to join in the 11th Anniversary of AE. TheOtaku.com and Anime Explosion at one time were great affiliates and even somewhat rivals. Because of the altercations, both sites vastly improved to what they are today. I would like nothing more then for one day for both sites to get along again, so that possibily a colobration and affilation between the two can be possible.

Both sites cater to the anime communities different needs. But we have one thing in common. A dedication for striving to be the best websites in our retrospective fields, and giving the anime community a unique place to hold discussions and obtain information. It's not about feeding ones egos, remember that.

For those of you interested Anime Explosion is now currently located at: [url]www.animeexplosion.tyl.cc[/url] our domain name of [url]www.animeexplosion.net[/url] goes into effect sometime within the next 3 weeks when funds are allocated.

My apologies for possibily breaking any rules by posting what I have posted. It was not my intention and I hope that this can be discussed further tommorrow as it is currently 4:00am in New York and I am very tired from a long day of work. If perhaps I get banned or this thread conviently is deleted well then it is clear that chilidish antics are indeed tolerated as oppose to level heads.

Sincerely,
Kevin Perez (Webmaster of Anime Explosion)
Formerly Rick Hunter of theOtaku.com Anime Movie Review Section

[Darren]

Yeah...
I see where you're coming from. (I would be a little mad too) Seeing as how I wasn't a member back when this happened, the article kinda came off as rude. However, I know that everything in Otakupedia (at least the "Negative" posts) are meant as a joke. Nothing offensive.

Still, your best bet would be to PM James or Adam. Hopefully the could sort the whole thing out for you.

[2010DigitalBoy]

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]XD that sounds like half whining half sales-pitch to me. [/COLOR]

[Shy]

[size=1]I agree that using your image in the article may have gone too far, but everything written was completely true. If anything, several members have complained that the AE Boards article is much too [i]positive[/i].

OB and AE have had an extremely long and complicated history, one which ended in disaster. It's an important part of OB lore, so I'd hate to see it edited out of Otakupedia entirely. Perhaps some sort of compromise can be reached, but these articles were created for entertainment purposes only. As a member of OB you are welcome to your opinion, and to produce Otakupedia articles of your own.

Best of luck with your site's 11th anniversary.

-Shy[/size]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Rick Hunter'] At the moment, I must say I'm rather disappointed with the direction of Otakupedia and several other features that have appeared on OB lately. I feel that those features are focusing more so on the negativity of banned members and bad history as oppose to the many contributions that many former staff members have done for this site. [/quote]

[color=deeppink]Out of more than one hundred Otakupedia articles, there are maybe 15 that focus on banned members and "bad history." I can see around 50 articles alone that focus on staff members or prominant members (most of which are very positive), and nearly ever other article is [i]about[/i] a contribution. I'm also not aware of [I]any[/I] other OB feature that has anything to do with banned members or history.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with that.[/color]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]I myself don't really care whether the images stay or get taken down (I guess that's up to James), but are you sure it's actually illegal to use someone's picture without their consent? (For a non-profit, non-endorsement purpose mind you, since we're not making any money off OB or Otakupedia.) Like, can you point to an actual law or court precedent? Because I'd think a lot more tabloids and such would get sued over that if it were.

I'm pretty sure the same applies to using the Anime Explosion name and AE Boards logo. We're not using them for profit or as any type of endorsement and the image is low resolution so I'm pretty sure it would fall under fair use.

However, I think that deleting the article entirely and acting like nothing ever happened is a bit much. I really doubt the article itself is the source of any ill will directed towards you, Kevin. And like Shy said, you can even contribute yourself and submit an addition to the article that tells how Anime Explosion and AE Boards have progressed since then.[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]I must agree agree with Nerdsy, your might just be pulling these other feature's from you behind.

[quote name='Rick Hunter']If perhaps I get banned or this thread conviently is deleted well then it is clear that chilidish antics are indeed tolerated as oppose to level heads. [/quote]

Sorry but, advertising your site is against the rules, not saying this should be deleted, it shouldn't, but isn't it sort of irresponisble and childish to be breaking the rules of advertising outside of your signature? Correct me if I'm wrong.

And on another note, despite the article on Otakupedia, it doesn't make me think you are a bad person, not at all. nether do I think lowely of your site, cause imo it looks interesting. And like Des & Shy said, you cooud contribute your own entry, or better yet add to the old one how much you site as progressed.[/COLOR]

[Rick Hunter]

In using my images such as the AE Boards logo, without my consent you violate the copyright of Anime Explosion. You did not seek permission from the owner to use that image, the owner is naturally myself. Furthermore, your article borderlines on the grounds of defamation of character, and in a court of law you would be held liable for whoever the publisher of the article is. Last, but not least it is illegal to use an image or likeness of another person without first accertaining the permission to use it, whether your a non-profit orgranization or not.

With all do respect I'm not interested in publishing anything on Otakupedia, as my only purpose is to have the article taken down. The professional thing to do in this case, is simply pull or edit the article. Or taking down the images you did not seek permission to use in the first place. In posting my image and mock image you have violated my "right to privacy".

So I think it would be in the best interest of both parties involved in this to resolve this issue. Failure to comply to a quick resolution with this, will force me to take the next step. Which would result in me seeking legal aid, and possibily taking legal action.

[Raiha]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']In using my images such as the AE Boards logo, without my consent you violate the copyright of Anime Explosion. You did not seek permission from the owner to use that image, the owner is naturally myself. Furthermore, your article borderlines on the grounds of defamation of character, and in a court of law you would be held liable for whoever the publisher of the article is.

So I think it would be in the best interest of both parties involved in this to resolve this issue. Failure to comply to a quick resolution with this, will force me to take the next step. Which would result in me seeking legal aid, and possibily taking legal action.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While your posturing and manly chest beating is cute...and definitive proof of that old adage..."The more things change the more they stay the same.." I'm afraid your threats of legal action are going to be quite a pain in the bum to bring to fruition. I suppose if we asked you politely you'd just get snippy and say no to us using your image as well. Of course on the other hand, Charles didn't ask me for permission before slapping one of my images on my article, which wasn't exactly nice to me either. But who cares right? It's was funny, and true, but you know what they say.

But seriously, I think your accusations of defamation of character will prove to be a real lame time. See, you have to [b]prove[/b] malice in a court of law. And proving that the authors of the articles in question were in fact loathing you with every word they wrote is going to be a bit of an issue. Good luck though. I'm sure courts have nothing better to do.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Rick Hunter]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]While your posturing and manly chest beating is cute...and definitive proof of that old adage..."The more things change the more they stay the same.." I'm afraid your threats of legal action are going to be quite a pain in the *** to bring to fruition.

See, you have to [b]prove[/b] malice in a court of law. And proving that the authors of the articles in question were in fact loathing you with every word they wrote is going to be a bit of an issue. Good luck though. I'm sure courts have nothing better to do.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I'm not even going to address this, as clearly your intention is to start a flame war. I have no time for that. I simply request to speak to whoever is in direct charge of Otakuboards right now. Clearly this can not be solved by discussing this with moderators or regular members for that matter. As this is an issue that must be resolved between both sites Administrators.

[Sojiro47]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']I'm not even going to address this, as clearly your intention is to start a flame war. I have no time for that. I simply request to speak to whoever is in direct charge of Otakuboards right now. Clearly this can not be solved by discussing this with moderators or regular members for that matter. As this is an issue that must be resolved between both sites Administrators.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]To me, it seems that the fact that you are going about this publicly, in a thread, shows that you do intend to start a "Flame War". Rick Hunter, if you wish to deal with this properly and avoid being told off by many a member of the OB, then I recommend that you send a PM to Charles, who is in charge of Otakupedia. If you refuse to do so, then PM James.

And if you've already done this, then grow up and be patient. Someone is bound to say something to you, as you are making quite a mess of this whole ordeal.[/FONT]

[Rick Hunter]

[quote name='Sojiro47'][FONT="Book Antiqua"]To me, it seems that the fact that you are going about this publicly, in a thread, shows that you do intend to start a "Flame War". Rick Hunter, if you wish to deal with this properly and avoid being told off by many a member of the OB, then I recommend that you send a PM to Charles, who is in charge of Otakupedia. If you refuse to do so, then PM James.

And if you've already done this, then grow up and be patient. Someone is bound to say something to you, as you are making quite a mess of this whole ordeal.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I have emailed Adam regarding this, James and Charles have been unavailable for contact. Therefore the next logical choice is to discuss this with the people who are suppose to be in charge of the site in their abscene. Last time I checked, I have not once here told anyone off for that matter. I've been very paitent and have shown everyone the respect they deserve.

If you do not like the fact that, I'm discussing this directly on a "message forum" in which the whole purpose of a forum is to discuss things, then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just as this is my opinion that the article and uses of my images and myself without consent is indeed uncalled for, rude, and just down right unprofessional for an established site to be doing.

As for the mess your referring to, I fail to see it. I'm simply requesting that this issue be resolved. If that bothers you then I apologize, as I have been very paitent and cordial with everyone, even those who have indeed acted rather harshly and rude to my coming here to discuss this.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']Therefore the next logical choice is to discuss this with the people who are suppose to be in charge of the site in their abscene.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Spelling. Not professional.

Anyway, James is not to my knowledge absent. He has been quite active around here lately; a quick check of his posts would confirm that much. But that's of relatively little importance. I don't see the current action you've taken as garnering anything for you but distaste. The situation is between you, James, Charles, Adam, and possibly the article's author?though even that last one might be going a bit far, since the articles submitted to Otakupedia were subject to review by all those involved with its creation and maintenance. You yourself said that [I]"this is an issue that must be resolved between both sites Administrators"[/I], so I fail to see what you hoped to accomplish by starting the thread in the first place...unless it was to either cause humiliation to the director/administrator or to attempt to "scare him out of hiding", as it were. Bringing up your private grievance publicly only shows open contempt for the members of the boards in general, and cannot work to your advantage by any stretch of the imagination.

Were I in the position to do so, I would close the thread now. I would not do so because I felt you had violated any rules on the forum (which you to my knowledge have not) or from any personal malice towards your person (since I was not around when these incidents occurred and have not developed feelings either way on the matter), but instead in order to prevent you from doing further injustice yourself, because I only see your attitude deteriorating into impatience.

[QUOTE][I]I'm simply requesting that this issue be resolved. If that bothers you then I apologize, as I have been very paitent and cordial with everyone, even those who have indeed acted rather harshly and rude to my coming here to discuss this.[/I][/QUOTE]
Thus far I have only seen Raiha show any form of aggression, and from what I have observed her post is not out of character and should be taken somewhat more lightly than it feels.

All of the posters have offered you their opinion on the matter, and some have brought up ways to go about achieving your resolution. If you dislike their answers, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. You said yourself, once again, that you posted this issue in a discussion forum, and discussion is what you have received. However, if it seems to you?as it seems to me, and as I agree?that the proffered solutions are all identical, then perhaps it is not because anyone is trying to be harsh or rude, but that there is basically only one channel for you to go through.

As I see it, you have neither been patient nor cordial. You have exposed your impatience by making public an issue that the public cannot resolve, and each of your posts to the thread have been more and more negative, with only the barest film of diplomacy covering your feelings.

I will also remind you that opinions on either side of this argument cannot be portrayed as truth. Simply having an opinion that the article in question is unprofessional and/or defamatory does not guarantee that the same is true. By the same token, it does not mean that it is false. Your opinion is only an opinion, and you must be able to substantiate it.


Pertaining to your claim that your image was used without your permission, I ask you a question: did you post either or both of those images on a public site at any time; and if so, did you mark them as copyrighted material? Pertaining to your claim of defamation of character: can you prove that the article was written with malicious intent?

I ask these questions to spur your mental processes, so that you do not make a fool of yourself. I ask them objectively; as of now, I have taken no side.


On a personal note, I'd like to comment that you sound very much like a Borg.
[QUOTE][I]Failure to comply to a quick resolution with this, will force me to take the next step.[/I][/QUOTE]
Granted, you are a rather vague Borg, but a Borg nonetheless. :p

-A[/FONT]

[Petie]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]Actually, if James is unavailable, the next people in line to contact are Desbreko or Dagger as Adam has very little to do with OtakuBoards.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]Now, as for your claim to a breach of your right to privacy, I'd like to point you to New York State Law Article 250:[/COLOR][/FONT]
[quote=New York State Law][URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]Article 250[/COLOR][/URL] - OFFENSES AGAINST THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.00[/COLOR][/URL] - Eavesdropping; definitions of terms.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.05[/COLOR][/URL] - Eavesdropping.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.10[/COLOR][/URL] - Possession of eavesdropping devices.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.15[/COLOR][/URL] - Failure to report wiretapping.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.20[/COLOR][/URL] - Divulging an eavesdropping warrant.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.25[/COLOR][/URL] - Tampering with private communications.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.30[/COLOR][/URL] - Unlawfully obtaining communications information.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.35[/COLOR][/URL] - Failing to report criminal communications.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.40[/COLOR][/URL] - Unlawful surveillance; definitions.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.45[/COLOR][/URL] - Unlawful surveillance in the second degree.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.50[/COLOR][/URL] - Unlawful surveillance in the first degree.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.55[/COLOR][/URL] - Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the second degree.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.60[/COLOR][/URL] - Dissemination of an unlawful surveillance image in the first degree.
[URL="http://javascript:getlaw("][COLOR=#0000ff]250.65[/COLOR][/URL] - Additional provisions.[/quote]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]Nowhere in that list is there any mention of privacy regarding the usage of images. That's not to say that it is or isn't illegal to post someone's image without consent - I don't know that for sure, though I'm not aware of any law that prevents you from doing so, Regardless though, you claimed that your "right to privacy" was being infringed upon and that is the definition of right to privacy by the law of your state.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#0000ff]As a point of reference, most of the lawsuits filed against tabloids by celebrities are filed under defamation of character, not an infringement of their right to privacy though in that case, both would apply since the photographer likely took the picture without being seen which fits under "unlawful surveillance." The picture of you that you're referring to would appear to have been taken with your full knowledge. The only part I don't know is where that picture was found in order to be uploaded and posted.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]Next, your logo. You claim that copyright laws are being broken by re-posting that image without your consent. However, did you actually follow the proper copyright procedure? Do you have a copyright officially registered on that specific image or even on the works related to your website as a whole? Or, did you do what most do and just put up a copyright notice, which has no legal bearing whatsoever.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]And if you want to get [I]really[/I] technical about copyright laws, let's talk about your site's front page. Did you contact Akira Toriyama for permission to use the images of Goku and Vegeta? How about obtaining written consent from Masashi Kishimoto for Sasuke's image or Toshihiro Kawamoto for Spike's? I'm going to take a stab in the dark and assume you didn't, yet all of those characters have [I]real[/I] copyrights registered to them.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]I originally wasn't going to respond to this thread and leave it to the people you actually asked to speak with but I start to get annoyed with I see legal threats with no legal backing. I don't mean to start anything with you here, only to clarify on what is and isn't considered illegal.[/COLOR][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana][/FONT]
[B][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=#0000ff]Edit:[/COLOR][/FONT][/B]
[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Pertaining to your claim that your image was used without your permission, I ask you a question: did you post either or both of those images on a public site at any time; and if so, did you mark them as copyrighted material? Pertaining to your claim of defamation of character: can you prove that the article was written with malicious intent?[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]I had originally intended to say something along those lines but I feel this was phrased better.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"][quote name='Rick Hunter;801320]I have emailed Adam regarding this, James and Charles have been unavailable for contact. [/QUOTE]Unavailable for contact? Since when? All you have to do is use the site resources such as pm's or e-mail to contact both [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?u=101"][U]Charles[/U][/URL] and [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/member.php?u=6"][U]James[/U][/URL]. This thread hasn't even been up for a day and it is the holiday with Christmas having just happened and New Years right around the corner. People are spending time with friends and family. [quote name='Rick Hunter'']I have been very paitent and cordial with everyone, even those who have indeed acted rather harshly and rude to my coming here to discuss this.[/quote]Send a pm or an e-mail to both of them and then be patient. Both Charles and James have been logged into the network within the past week so really, to say they are unavailable only shows impatience on your part. Especially since your comment that they are absent indicates that you have not sent a pm to either one of them. Or you haven't given them time to respond what with the holiday and all. So it's illogical to say you are taking the next step by talking to the members when you've failed to talk to the ones who actually can help you with this. [/COLOR]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]James is around, he just has a busy schedule. I'm sure he'll respond as soon as he has time.

As for where the picture was taken from, I believe Kevin himself posted it in OB's picture forum back when that still existed. It's also up on my old [url=http://www.obpicturearchive.netfirms.com/rickhunter.html][u]OB Picture Archive[/u][/url] site and I got all of the pictures for that either from the picture forum or from people sending them to me over AIM.[/color]

[Petie]

[quote name='Desbreko'][COLOR=#4b0082]As for where the picture was taken from, I believe Kevin himself posted it in OB's picture forum back when that still existed. It's also up on my old [URL="http://www.obpicturearchive.netfirms.com/rickhunter.html"][U]OB Picture Archive[/U][/URL] site and I got all of the pictures for that either from the picture forum or from people sending them to me over AIM.[/COLOR][/quote]
[FONT=Verdana][COLOR=blue]That's what I was hoping to hear. Since the picture was willingly given to you once, it's yours to do with as you please as any claims to invasion of privacy are rendered useless once that picture is handed over willingly (unless of course there was a notice attached to the original picture that said something along the lines of "re-posting without permission prohibited."[/COLOR][/FONT]

[AzureWolf]

There is no such thing as bad publicity, haha. As far as getting the images removed, it would have been wiser to handle things privately. While I applaud your desire to show the public you have turned a new leaf, I think making legal threats - no matter how politely - only keeps your name in the mud.

[Darren]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']In using my images such as the AE Boards logo, without my consent you violate the copyright of Anime Explosion. You did not seek permission from the owner to use that image, the owner is naturally myself. Furthermore, your article borderlines on the grounds of defamation of character, and in a court of law you would be held liable for whoever the publisher of the article is. Last, but not least it is illegal to use an image or likeness of another person without first accertaining the permission to use it, whether your a non-profit orgranization or not. [/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"]Like Desbreko said earlier, tabloids do it all the time. I seriously doubt they go up to Celebrity A and ask: "Can we use this picture of you in bikini?" And then on the headline they write: "Celebrity A: Getting Too Fat?" I'm pretty sure that's the same gounds of defamation of character that you're talking about.
Also, people like Perez Hilton have made a pretty good living off flaming celebrities. I'm sure there has been a court case every now and then, but seriously, an OB/AE battle (although, I seriously doubt it would [B]ever[/B] in a million years come to that) would not even be seen in court.

Also, as Nerdsy pointed out, only a few articles of Otakupedia have been about banned members.

And like we've all been saying, it's for entertainment purposes only. Don't get so bent out of shape. Chillax. Don't feed the fire if you don't want to get flamed; just PM James and this thread would never have to progress any further. :animesigh[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I sincerely hope you take the time to actually pm James and Charles. Once you've done that, do yourself a favor and go and do some reading on actual law before you toss out silly claims about taking things to court. If you had taken the time to educate yourself on the process you would have known better. I'll spell it out for you.

[CENTER]*************************[/CENTER]
[B]Question: [/B]Can an ISP or the host of the message board or chat room be held liable for defamatory of libelous statements made by others on the message board?

[B]Answer:[/B] No. Under 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This provision has been uniformly interpreted by the Courts to provide complete protection against defamation or libel claims made against an ISP, message board or chat room where the statements are made by third parties. Note that this immunity does not extend to claims made under intellectual property laws.

[CENTER]*************************[/CENTER]
[B]Question:[/B] Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?

[B]Answer: [/B]47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.

[CENTER]*************************[/CENTER]
[B]Question: [/B]May someone other than the person who originally made the defamatory statement be legally liable in defamation?

[B]Answer: [/B]One who "publishes" a defamatory statement may be liable. However, 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 says that online service providers are not publishers of content posted by their users. Section 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.

[CENTER]*************************
[B]And most importantly...[/B]
*************************[/CENTER]
[B]Question: [/B]What's the statute of limitation on libel?

[B]Answer:[/B] Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

[CENTER]*************************[/CENTER]
Your antics are not amusing. They are uneducated as well as misinformed. And [I]no one[/I] with even an ounce of sense would believe the empty threat you are presenting here.

[Korey]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Once again....someone has beaten me to the punch. In this case it's Aaryanna_Mom (guess we're even now).

Rick Hunter....lemme spell out what kind of things will win you a libel/slander/defamation of character case. I don't work in a legal place, but I do know a bit about libel law. So here's how it goes, in simple terms.

You claim the authors of this site have made false claims against you and your character, which can be [I]broadly at best[/I] be defined as defamation of character, but here's the thing. You are the only one claiming these statements are false, you (presumably) have no other witnesses to prove your character better (at that specific time) otherwise. You're a single person, and it comes down to a "he said, she said' basis. This won't win you a case. You're not gonna be heard in court either, because legal precedent states otherwise...there was no intent to cause you physical harm or anything of the sort. Mental or emotional harm is in the eye of the beholder.

Your "right to privacy" is in NO way guaranteed on the internet, because it's a global media form and only regulated by those who are put in place to regulate it. This is not a newspaper nor is it a radio show. It isn't regulated by the government, it's regulated by the moderators and site administration. (which Aaryanna_Mom made clear) Kind of hard to regulate something by United States law, that may not even be based in the United States. In this case, it is-however US law states that the Administration in charge of the site has the discretion to do what they will to regulate their members.

Now onto your cordialness....I find that skewed at best. You make many eupehmisms to how the childish ness of the administration would be if your thread would be deleted or you would be banned, but sir, you posted in a forum and if the admins feel that you are a genuine problem, they reserve the right to ban you or delete your thread. You agreed to it in the terms of privacy and rules when you signed up. No more, no less. That's why it pays to read those things ^_~. I can't be in favor of your claims if you rush to arms the minute things go sour. If you wanted to keep members out of the discussion, don't post. If no one can be reached, try again at a later time. If they ignore you, then their point has been made and that is that they aren't going to change their opinions on the matter.

I say this with the upmost respect and professionalism I can offer.[/FONT]

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Kevin, you are not so dense, are you? You must realize this thread existing actually gives credit to the tip-of-the-iceberg description of your surreal behavior online within the article. The tongue-in-cheek nature also, though sarcastic, is not distant in the least from the reality of your personality during the times described.

You veil yourself with clothing of false humility and maturity when this is merely a diplomatically worded tantrum combined with a not-so-slick advertisement for your website that will, within a year, go through another major change and turn into the 12th iteration of the same tired "we're getting really popular, seriously" website.

This is a fine example of your personality and attitude, how defensive you are, and how egotistical you are.[/color]

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]If I may, I'd like to point out to our little Rick, how childish he acted in the days, by using parts of the otakupedia article he's complaining so much about.

[QUOTE]By this time Rick Hunter had severed ties with Adam after Adam refused to give him greater control over theOtaku.com. Adam was not pleased with Rick Hunter?s work (he had to heavily edit his reviews and could not even use other) and he did not feel that his contributions would be a big loss for theOtaku.com. Rick Hunter, at this point, became vengeful. Instead of aiming to create a successful anime website, he became obsessed with ?beating? theOtaku.com and its network of successful sites. As a result he demanded that all of his content be removed from theOtaku.com.[/QUOTE]

So Adam didn't give you a greater part in the site? So you severed ties with him? That's pathetic, I'm sorry but it is. Maybe you should have worked for it and showed respect for OB, however you did not. You can't just ask for greater control, you have to earn it.

[QUOTE]Regardless of this falling out with Adam, Rick Hunter held on to his OtakuBoards staff position hoping to destroy the community from the inside. Eventually, Rick Hunter became weird. His obsession with Babygirl had by this time completely ruined their friendship and it was starting to affect others? perceptions of Rick Hunter.[/QUOTE]

Trying to destroy the site form the inside huh? That's low man, even though you said you've matured, which I don't' See anywhere, you definitely shouldn't be forgave for this imo. Furthermore obsessing over Babygirl isn't weird, it's creepy and not to mention wrong. And this changed the way people thought of you, and now you say that this article is "defamation of character." That still doesn't make up for trying to destroy this site. You defiled your own character by acting in such ways.

[QUOTE]He made an announcement on AE Boards thoroughly insulting OtakuBoards and its administration. James saw the announcement and de-modded Rick Hunter because it didn?t make much sense to keep him on staff when he was publicly insulting the ?hand the fed him.? Nevertheless Rick Hunter was allowed to remain an active member. At this point, Rick Hunter had an insatiable thirst to ?beat? Otakuboards. [/QUOTE]

I have to take back what I said about your site, I said it to sound nice... however, I would never join your site. The forums don't look that good right now. Your just using this thread as a ploy to get people over to your site. And, I would never even trust joining that place, with the thought that someone who acted in such ways, was there.

[QUOTE]Despite ?hating? the site, he would still visit OtakuBoards daily, often leaving nasty messages directed at the site and its members. Although James believed in taking the moral high ground, Charles was not so classy; he created a thread in the art forum, in which he encouraged members to use an avatar that featured the ?AE? logo being shot by bullets, which resulted in a stream of blood spelling ?OB.? Many OB members immediately began to use the avatar. Of course, Rick Hunter saw the thread and completely ?lost it,? which lead to him being banned after making several insulting threads/posts. He would come back several times to the forums under new user names and accounts, but he never again received much distinction.[/QUOTE]

Oh, and you didn't threaten to sue for suing the AE boards logo then? But now we use it once, and it's time to act all tough and mighty? Honestly, you leak childish, no, you [I]embody [/I]it.

In the end, it would just be best for you to leave with your pride in tact. If you hate this place, leave. If this article bothers you, leave it as well.

And if you feel like picking on a young teenager, be my guest. I can stand whatever you can say.[/COLOR]

[Charles]

[quote name='Rick Hunter']In using my images such as the AE Boards logo, without my consent you violate the copyright of Anime Explosion. You did not seek permission from the owner to use that image, the owner is naturally myself. .[/QUOTE]

Problem. As you should know, I made that image when I worked for AE Boards. As such, I have the image saved in several formats on my PC (which I still own from that time). That is, I have the individual layers that I used to make the image. Where do you think I got it for the article in the first place? heh

Technically, I am the owner and if you are using that image without providing me royalties, then it is I who have a problem with you.

I will remove your picture from the article though. That is a fair request that I always honor for anyone who asks (not because of legal ramifications but out of common courtesy).

[Gavin]

[SIZE="1"]This argument has been fairly well wrapped up at this point by Allamorph, Petie and Aaryanna_Mom (and you know if A_M disagrees with you, you're wrong, plain and simple).

I would like to point out though, to Rick if he's still reading this thread, you have likely increased the attention to the very article you wanted deleted, I know that I went over to read the article after I had read this thread just to see what the fuss was about and I would guess many other members have done the same.

Had you handled this through PMs as opposed to creating a thread, it is likely it could have been wrapped up considerably more quietly, which is apparently what you desired in the first place.[/SIZE]