IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Curtis J Neeley
Jr., MFA Plaintiff
v
CASE NO. 12-cv-05074
Federal Communications Commission,
Microsoft Corporation, Defendants
Google Inc,
United States.
COMPLAINT FOR AUTHORS’ RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS, FAILURE TO REGULATE WIRE COMMUNICATIONS, AND FAILURE TO PROTECT THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OF AUTHORS
The Plaintiff, Curtis J.
Neeley Jr., MFA, respectfully states a complaint for repeated exclusive author rights
violations resulting in defamation of an author, the Plaintiff, using internet
wire and radio communications which present Mr. Neeley in a false negative light.
The current position of the defendants creates the appearance Mr. Neeley desired
minors to see Neeley’s original creations of nude art or other nude art while using
“curtis neeley” in a search string on internet wire and radio communication.
This was not and is not Mr. Neeley’s intent or desire. Mr. Neeley has repeatedly requested that the
defendants remove nude images from search results of Defendants.
Mr. Neeley’s
pre-teen daughter was exposed to Neeley’s original photographs of the naked female
figure against the known desires of Mr. Neeley. Nude visual art shown on [sic]
“the Internet” against Mr. Neeley’s expressed desires is a violation of Plaintiff’s
privacy and a libelous violation of exclusive author rights. Some court decisions
have labeled “the Internet” a “wholly new
medium” although this matter is not settled by Congress nor has Congress determined
that internet wire communications are thereby exempted moderate regulation
violating the intentions of the Communications Act of 1934 and the plain rule
of common law.
I. Abusive Use of Wire
Communications
1. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation attributed
and continue to attribute Neeley to creation of original nude art photographs.
There are insufficient safeguards on these nude image presentations to prevent anonymous
viewers including minors and Muslims from viewing these nude images attributed
to Mr. Neeley or returned using “curtis neeley” in searches of computers
networked by wire.
2. Google
Inc counselor alleged in open court before Magistrate Judge Erin L. Setser the
following FRAUD.
“...We, of course, then make our own broad cuts on things that we don't permit,
like child pornography and things like that. But Mr. Neeley's decision to place
his photographs in the public domain was Mr. Neeley's decision alone. He has
complete control over the ability to remove them from the public domain, should
he used to want to remove them...”
3. The Plaintiff believes this is an inaccurate
contention given in open court. If the
Defendant’s contention was true and Neeley placed photographs into the “public
domain”, he alone could remove these nude photographs at will. This is, however,
not the case. Google Inc was advised by the Supreme Court in Golan v
Holder of erroneous legal use of the term “public domain”. Google Inc
continues to treat all computers accessible by wire as the “public domain”
instead of private computers accessible by wire.
4. The Wikipedia Foundation maintains
an online user editable encyclopedia where two ‘figurenude’ images were
donated by Mr.Neeley. These then returned in searches for “curtis neeley” in Google Inc image
searches before reattributed to “CN Foundation” by Mr. Neeley in order to
prevent Google Inc from returning these nudes before some minors searching for
their father’s name in Google Inc image searches while at school and causing
Mr. Neeley harm.
5. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation
continue to return one donated nude photograph in searches for “curtis neeley
nude” from <cs.wikipedia.org> despite this violating the Creative Commons
licensure and harming Mr. Neeley. The search of wire networked computers using
the text “curtis neeley nude site:wikipedia.org” returns this nude image as the
first result as was documented done by each Defendant.
6. <Wikipedia.org> was called “like a BLOG” by Google Inc counselors to
further illustrate how unfamiliar Michael Henry Page Esq was with internet wire
communications in general as was unrealized during prior jurisprudence.
7. Mr. Neeley once chose to seek adult
feedback on creations of nude art and sold nude art from two websites that
provided filtration so that visitors to these websites were not exposed to nude
art unless opting to view nudity and disclosing identity via email.
8. Google Inc formerly and currently
bypasses this filtration to display these images at <google.com> in
searches for “curtis neeley” limited to <deviantArt.com> and to anonymous
viewers in searches of the Earth’s wire network of public and private computers
treated as the “public domain” improperly by Google Inc and Microsoft
Corporation.
9. This wrong is documented July 23, 2012
while preparing this complaint despite the nude images being removed by Mr. Neeley
entirely from <deviantArt.com> many months ago.
II. The “Google Inc Books” 2010 Defamation
1. After March 7, 2010, Google Inc books attributed
Mr. Neeley correctly but inappropriately to three original ‘figurenude’ art
photographs after Google Inc scanned three nude images from a New York library
book as was offensive and caused Mr. Neeley harm by a “libelous” invasion of privacy
and violation of exclusive authors’ rights. These violations were documented
for separate Defendant Google Inc.
2. Google Inc presented Neeley in a
negative false light by scanning visual art from this book and digital
republication of this visual art before anonymous minors. Congress agreed this was
forbidden by Treaty in 1988 and again in 1994. Unwavering Berne compliance was ruled
constitutional January 18, 2012 in Golan
v Holder, (10-545) despite self-serving amicus opposing this finding by Google Inc.
3. Republication of books online requires
new written authorizations from the authors and the Google Inc “fair-use” claim
that will follow is frivolous in this case. The Defendants can not produce
written authorizations for use of nudes from the Plaintiff.
4. The “Fair-use” exceptions in 17 USC §107
to exclusive rights of authors for contributions in books are unconstitutionally vague and
impossible for common people to understand as required of all laws and violate the accepted treaty of “Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works” despite the recent Golan v Holder ruling.
III. Federal Communications Commission Malfeasance
1. The display of nudity to minors and the
anonymous by Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation is allowed by the FCC refusing
to perform the statutory mission of protecting the safety of the public on interstate
and world-wide wire communications and is listed clearly in 47 USC §151 in
plain text. There is no valid administrative
procedure to address this malfeasance beyond those already done by Mr. Neeley.
2. The Pacifica ruling from 1978 was substituted wholly for the 47 USC §151 statutory rational
in plain error of law by the FCC. The
FCC regulated wire communications when wires were the only way for “instant” communication
across the ocean.
3. Internet wire communications, described precisely in the
Communications Act of 1934 in 47
USC §153 ¶(59) became the worldwide network of apparatus connected to either end of wires.
The clear §153
¶(59) definition was not realized in the ACLU v
Reno “landmark” mistake of law in 1996 causing internet wire communications to become Earth’s wire and radio venue for
utterly unregulated communications despite the rest of the ignored text in 47
USC §151 and all common law.
4. The FCC abandoned regulation of content
by internet wires despite the plain statutory mission of 47 USC §151 to do this due insufficient rational
for decency regulation listed in Pacifica in the first impact of court misinterpretations
of law on decency regulation before the second “landmark” court error of ACLU v Reno “encouraged” or
excused internet indecency contrary to 47 USC §151 and causes all uses of internet
wires to be utterly unregulated by law and be given overbroad First Amendment
Free Speech protections without the associated responsibilities.
5. The FCC reported not regulating
wire when contacted by Neeley, as is obvious. Regulation allowed for fleeting
indecency in broadcast television by CBS
v FCC, (06-3575) is incompatible with nude images by Neeley allowed transmitted
by wire or searches for “teri weigel” allowed transmitting explicit pornography
by wire against the mission of the FCC to protect citizen safety using
interstate and world-wide wire OR
radio communications as the FCC was created to do by the “Communications
Act of 1934” before any simultaneous wire and radio distance communication venue existed.
6. The progress of science and arts has allowed
the universal and overwhelming desire for unlimited knowledge to distort law and
lure humanity into preserving anonymous distance communications where
responsibility for those communications is avoided counter to the Constitution
and natural law.
VI. United States’ Personal Rights Protection Malfeasance
1. The “Progress Clause” of the Constitution was written in 1787 and did not include the term copy[rite]
because the rights of individuals to control creations had not been protected
adequately by the Statute of Anne in 1710. The rights of authors were
recognized by aged Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Mr. Franklin died prior to the
United States passing the first “Copy[rite] Act” in 1790 and copying the Statute of Anne nearly verbatim and creating [sic]
“copyright” laws protecting no personal rights whatsoever but the copying
ritual.
2. Use of the term [sic] “copyright” initially
described the ritual of an author exclusively controlling publication of
original books by selecting publishers for limited renewable time periods. The
State would then prohibit competition by other book publishers resulting in de facto textbook standardization in
early America as Noel Webster had sought.
3. Noel Webster noticed the English
language spoken in early Colonial America had become quite different from
England. Webster felt new elementary school textbooks being printed in Colonial
America instead of imported or copied from England would help American English become
an entirely new language where Americanized spellings like “color” would replace
“colour” and “copyright” would replace “authors’ rights”. Noel Webster’s use of
“tung”, however, never replaced the continued use of “tongue”.
4. Noel Webster assisted Benjamin
Huntington in copying the Statute of Anne and therein “coined” the word [sic]
“copyright” while protecting the ritual of copying books and not the personal constitutional
rights of authors in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790 despite authorized for
protection in the 1787 Constitution.
5. Most of the rest of the Earth has since realized
the personal individual rights of authors. The United States failed and fails to protect these constitutionally recognized
personal rights. The United States instead confuses and muddles the rights of
creators with the ritual for corporate usage of creations like still seen in the
generally unconstitutional US Title 17.
6. Benjamin Franklin needed no new term to
describe the rights of authors or inventors and felt the Constitution was too
important a document for using “Americanized” new terms like [sic] “copyright or
tung” and needed unanimous approval and immediate foreign respect. The
Americanized Noel Webster term “copyright” was still not included in George
Washington’s first State of the Union Address though “promotion of science and literature” was discussed.
7. The United States remains malfeasant
over two centuries later failing to protect the rights of Neeley or other
artist to exclusively control creations though this was authorized in 1787 by
the Constitution. The exclusive individual right of an author remains protected
only by the Ninth Amendment and most notably is NOT PROTECTED BY US TITLE 17.
V. United States Decency Regulation
Malfeasance
1. Protection
of minors from exposure to indecent wire or radio communications is a
legitimate State interest ignored now for decades. It is absolutely absurd and malfeasant that
United States’ Congress allows 47 §230(c)(1) to be repeatedly misinterpreted by Federal
Courts diametrically opposed to the intentions of the Communications Decency
Act. The law intended to promote communications decency became the law used by
content providers and search engines to conspire and traffic indecent and
defamatory communications including the nude art once created by Mr. Neeley
before internet wire communications were disguised as the [sic] “Internet” in
the obvious ACLU v Reno error.
2. The responsibility
for control of producing or trafficking indecent content or defamatory
speech is waived by 47 USC §230(c)(1) for ALL laws now allowing utterly
unregulated speech, as violates the clear natural right to be free from
defamation and fraud as supported
by numerous State laws as well as 47
USC §151 now being ignored by the FCC.
3. Search
engines indexing copies of indecent content and revealing indecent content
locations should always have been treated by the FCC as the conspiring transmitters
of indecency because of search engines communicating indecency in different
contexts as new content due to gathering the indecent content and choosing to
republish this indecency for profit. The United States Congress should now
require common-sense regulation of interstate and international internet wire
communications by the FCC as required by 47 USC §151 and the United States
Courts should order the FCC and the Attorney General be advised.
PRAYER
1. The
United States Courts for the Western District of Arkansas must now invalidate
the 47 USC §230 preemptions used by search engines to permit liability free republications of
indecent art and literary communications and violating exclusive rights of
authors like Mr. Neeley and the right to be secure in the person and scores of
other natural rights.
2. Defendants Google Inc and Microsoft
Corporation should be ordered to cease returning nude art authored by Mr. Neeley or others but not allowed broadcast on daytime television for anonymous
users for all uses of Mr. Neeley’s name as an injunction and as is
trivial and has been trivial since the first advisement by Mr. Neeley in 2009.
3. Google Inc and Microsoft Corporation
should pay damages of $125,000 per nude image authored by Neeley or associated
with the text “curtis neeley” that was found displayed or indexed for redisplay
after advised display of these nudes were not authorized or as the jury feels
is just including ZERO if the jury feels search engines ignoring metadata and
advisements regarding indecent image-text associations should continue so that indecent
art trafficking to anonymous viewers can continue.
4. Additional punitive amounts should be awarded
as the jury determines to fund modernization of the FCC Wire Division and offset taxes since all artists who produce nude or indecent art were harmed.
5. Curtis J
Neeley Jr., MFA asserts this prayer contains no “windfall” damages but seeks
the “right thing” being done
establishing wire-radio communications as the borderless medium independent venue
safe for children and free speech including speech not the least bit acceptable
for children but protected for identified responsible adults willing to
comply with the need to identify as adults and protect minors from harmful
internet wire communications that is an ignored need related to Free Speech,
authors rights, and regulation of pervasive distant wire and radio
communications.
5. Adult communications will continue via [sic]
the “Internet” but Neeley prays these no longer be permitted for anonymous
persons for indecent communications, as has been technically trivial now for decades.
The identity requirement for viewing indecent art is supported even for controversial
subjects by Doe v. Reed, (09-559) when legitimate State
interests are served. The protection of minors from exposure to indecent wire
or radio communications is a legitimate State interest ignored now for decades.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______________________
Curtis J Neeley Jr., MFA
