Perfect 10 (magazine)

Perfect 10
EditorNorm Zada
CategoriesMen's magazine
FrequencyQuarterly
Founded1997
Final issue2007 (print)
CountryUSA
LanguageEnglish
Websitewww.perfect10.com[dead link‍]
ISSN1094-3927

Perfect 10 was a monthly men's magazine (later a quarterly), and adult website that featured high resolution topless or nude photographs of women who had not had cosmetic surgery. Perfect 10 also promoted and filmed boxing matches between a number of their models, which were called Perfect 10: Model Boxing on the Showtime and HDNet cable channels. The last print edition of the magazine was published in the summer of 2007 (issue 43), after which it switched to a subscription-based website-only presentation.[1]

History

Perfect 10 was founded by former computer science professor, championship poker player, and hedge fund manager Norm Zadeh[2] (now Zada) in the late 1990s when a friend was rejected from Playboy because she was not well-endowed.[3]

Lawsuits

It has been claimed that owner Zada spent minimal time (40 to 50 hours a year) creating content for the site, but "8 hours a day, 365 days a year" on litigation, leading some to call Perfect10 little more than a copyright troll – by 2015, the company had filed 20 to 30 lawsuits.[4][5]

Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc.

Main article: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc.

In August 2005, Perfect 10 filed suit with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to stop Google from caching and displaying thumbnails to third party sites which offer unlicensed images from Perfect 10, arguing that this interfered with their cell-phone thumbnail offer. In February 2006 the court granted the request in part and denied it in part, ruling that the thumbnails were infringing but links sites with images were not. In appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled almost entirely in favor of Google in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.. The court ruled that Google's use of images was transformative and thus did not infringe Perfect 10's copyright.[6]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC

Main article: Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC

In 2006, Perfect 10 filed suit with United States District Court in California against CCBill for "violat[ing] copyright, trademark, and state unfair competition, false advertising and right of publicity laws by providing services to websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10's magazine and website".[7]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Megaupload Limited

In January 2011, Perfect 10 again filed suit with the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, demanding $5m in damages from Megaupload Limited (and its CEO, Kim Schmitz) for copyright infringement.[8]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc.

In April 2011, Perfect 10 sued Giganews, a prominent usenet provider, for both direct and indirect infringement.[9] Giganews prevailed on all grounds, and in March 2015 Perfect 10 was ordered to pay Giganews $5,213,117.06 in attorney's fees and $424,235.47 in costs.[9][10] In January 2017 the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the original judgement.[11]

References

  1. ^ "Issue 43, Summer 2007 - Vol. 8, No. 1 (LAST ISSUE)". perfect10.com. Retrieved August 22, 2014.
  2. ^ "The secrets of Eddie Stern". Fortune. April 19, 2004. Archived from the original on August 22, 2004.
  3. ^ Dana Calvo. "Naturally, he will try his breast. A nudie mag sans implants". Associated Press.
  4. ^ Mullin, Joe (27 March 2015). ""Copyright troll" Perfect 10 hit with $5.6M in fees after failed Usenet assault". Ars Technica.
  5. ^ Perfect 10, INC. v. Giganews, INC.
  6. ^ "Perfect 10 Wants Alleged Infringers Removed From Google (#2)". chillingeffects.org.
  7. ^ "Perfect 10 Magazine wins landmark court ruling".
  8. ^ "BLM Perfect 10, Inc. v. Megaupload Limited et al - 3:11-cv-00191".
  9. ^ a b Mullin, Joe (March 27, 2015). "'Copyright troll' Perfect 10 hit with $5.6M in fees after failed Usenet assault". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 27, 2015.
  10. ^ Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., Order Granting Defendants’ Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs In Part And Awarding Defendants $5,213,117.06 In Attorneys’ Fees And $424,235.47 In Non-Taxable Costs no. 11-07098 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2015). Retrieved March 27, 2015.
  11. ^ Tue, Jan 24th 2017 8:35am-Mike Masnick. "Perfect 10 Loses Once Again, Sets More Good Copyright Precedent". Techdirt.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)