Talk:Brown Leopard

Removal of information

So is this removal really appropriate? The subject has been charged with felony theft, due to activities occuring over a period of time. He was also charged with attempted theft in 2007, and accused of radio sales fraud in 2004. --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (EST)

I assume that those references / records are under Brown Leopard's real name, so it seems a necessary piece of information. -- Sine 16:58, 5 February 2012 (EST)

I believe under your own rules that a real name can be removed. Since it's accused and not found guilty a presumption of innocence stands. If this continues, Laurence Parry, I will seek legal remedies under a DMCA notice for the name used to your German hosting provider. You may want to look up "Right of publicity". --Brown Leopard 17:11, 5 February 2012 (EST)

You're threatening to make a non-copyright-based claim for commercial rights against a non-commercial publication, by use of a U.S. copyright law with a German host? I think you are a little confused.

It is important, however, to accurately represent the situation. So let's examine the record:

• You were arrested last July 14, on an initial charge of Theft.
• You plead guilty to two counts of Breaking and Entering and one count of Possessing Criminal Tools on September 1. The prosecutor voluntarily dismissed the charge of Theft, presumably as a condition of a plea bargain.
• You were sentenced to 23 months of imprisonment, the first 12 for one count of Breaking and Entering and Possessing Criminal Tools, the next 11 for the other count of Breaking and Entering. However, your application for judicial release was rapidly considered (also as a condition of the plea bargain) and accepted. You were released on or after November 7.

WikiFur's policy is to permit the removal of real names where their continued presence is not in the public interest (and, particularly, in the interest of protecting furry fans from harm). In this case, I think it is. You are not innocent. You very recently plead guilty to felonies of the fifth degree and were imprisoned for them. The subsequent judicial release has no bearing on your guilt.

Your friends, who initially defended you, have found they were deceived, and now suspect you took money intended for rent and bills. Fans living with you or associating with you would be at risk, as would a convention which gave you access to money or personal data (if you know someone is at a convention, you know they are out of their house). Because you may change your fan name in the future, we must also include your legal name. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:19, 6 February 2012 (EST)

That being the case I'll file the "Right of publicity claim". The U.S. is a wonderfully litigious society and I'm quite sure I can get damages. I'll be sending the notice to your provider (who has a strict policy against this) as well as here: Laurence Parry 219 Cimarron Trail Apt 2 Irving, Texas 75063 United States —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.179.53.205 (talk • contribs) .

I await your service at my address of record. Per WikiFur's policy on legal threats, you are now blocked from editing. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:27, 6 February 2012 (EST)

No, you can not use the "Right of Publicity" as a DMCA takedown notice, or sue for damages for it. As one having, and still working, in the entertainment business, ROPs is defined as "the right to control the commercial use of one’s identity", such as waiving your commercial identify rights for a TV appearance, where as the production company will receive future rerun interests based on your ongoing appearance. News publications without the intent of profit, like Flayrah, or public encyclopedia sites, like Wikifur, are not covered by ROP, period - Spirou 00:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)